**Case No. 908/2915/23 dated 04/01/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126534589](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126534589)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a contribution to the authorized capital in kind, recognition of ownership of real estate objects, and recovery of a share of the company’s profit.
2. The court partially satisfied the claims, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff had the right to withdraw from the members of the company with the return of the contribution in kind, and all members of the company agreed to this, which is confirmed by the decision of the general meeting and the act of acceptance and transfer of real estate. The court noted that the legislation in force at the time of the disputed relations and the defendant’s charter established the obligation of the company to pay the member, upon withdrawal, the value of the part of the property proportional to his share in the authorized capital, or to make a settlement in kind with the agreement of the parties. The court indicated that the plaintiff has no other way to protect his rights except through a claim for recovery of the contribution and recognition of ownership. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about the nullity of the act of acceptance and transfer and about the violation of the rights of other creditors, since it was not proven that there were uncancelled encumbrances at the time of the transfer of property, and proper evidence was not provided regarding the need to involve other creditors in the case.
3. The court decided to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the contribution of the authorized capital in kind (real estate objects) and recognized the plaintiff’s ownership of these real estate objects, refusing to satisfy the claim for the recovery of a share of the profit.
**Case No. 910/6626/21 dated 04/02/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126534674](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126534674)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recognition of BIC “Kyiv Zhytlo-Invest” LLC as bankrupt and the opening of liquidation proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing that BIC “Kyiv Zhytlo-Invest” LLC is insolvent, since the value of its assets is insufficient to cover accounts payable. The court took into account that the asset manager conducted a full inventory and analysis of the debtor’s financial condition, and the creditors at the meeting decided to proceed to the liquidation procedure. Also, no interested investors were identified for rehabilitation. The court noted that the creditors had sufficient time and opportunities to challenge any questionable transactions of the debtor, but did not do so. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that even after the transition to the liquidation procedure, creditors do not lose the right to take measures to bring the guilty persons to justice for bringing the company to bankruptcy.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 916/393/22 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use and disposal of the property of the shooting range, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, illegally left the ownership of the state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, leaving the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, based on the following:
* It took into account that in the previous case No. 916/820/20 it had already been established that “Sporting” LLC is a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property.
* Since “Sporting” LLC was recognized as a bona fide purchaser, it had the right to dispose of the property at its own discretion, including its alienation.
* The court noted that the prosecutor is trying to review the circumstances of case No. 916/820/20, which is not provided for by the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* The court emphasized that the right of ownership is inviolable, and no one can be illegally deprived of this right.
* The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the powers of higher judicial bodies should be implemented to correct judicial errors, and not to conduct a new judicial review.
3. The court ruled to leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 755/21415/21 dated 02/26/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the dismissal of an employee as illegal on the grounds of unsuitability for the position due to health reasons.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff worked part-time, and a medical examination established the impossibility of continuing to work as an electrician due to health reasons. It was also taken into account that the plaintiff himself asked to be dismissed if it was impossible to transfer him to another job. The court found that there were no vacant positions at the enterprise to which the plaintiff could be transferred, taking into account his health condition. The court also noted that the dismissal took place in compliance with the requirements of labor legislation, the plaintiff was familiarized with the order of dismissal, received all due payments and had no complaints. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the employee’s unsuitability for the position must be documented, and in this case, such a fact was established by a medical examination.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 494/1174/20 dated 04/07/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the courtHere is the translation:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation, the invalidation of the certificate of inheritance right, and the recognition of ownership of the inherited property.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, citing the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of permanent residence with the deceased mother at the time of the opening of the inheritance, and therefore is not considered to have accepted the inheritance. The court noted that the act of inspection of living conditions and the testimony of witnesses were insufficient and contradictory. Also, the appellate court took into account that the plaintiff did not apply to the notary within the period established by law with a statement of acceptance of the inheritance. The court of appeal emphasized that the mere fact of organizing the funeral is not proof of cohabitation. In addition, the court rejected the arguments regarding the violation of the plaintiff’s right to legal aid, since the plaintiff had two lawyers and sufficient time to ensure their participation in the court session.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 644/1350/19 dated April 7, 2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of legal aid expenses incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
The court of cassation instance, when considering the application for the recovery of legal aid expenses, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, the defendant’s representative missed the deadline for submitting evidence of expenses incurred, but the court recognized the reasons for the omission as valid and restored the deadline. Secondly, the court took into account that the plaintiff was denied satisfaction of the claim, and therefore, court costs should be imposed on the plaintiff. Thirdly, the court took into account the evidence provided by the defendant regarding the scope of services provided and their cost, however, taking into account the plaintiff’s financial situation, the complexity of the case and the amount of work performed, it reduced the amount of legal aid expenses to be recovered. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for the reality of attorney’s fees and the reasonableness of their amount.
The court partially granted the defendant’s motion and ordered the recovery of UAH 5,000.00 from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant for legal aid expenses in the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 523/19764/21 dated April 2, 2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of the contract of purchase and sale of non-residential buildings and structures due to non-payment by the buyer within the period established by the contract.
The court of first instance granted the claim, considering that non-payment is a material breach of the terms of the contract, which is the basis for its termination. The appellate court overturned this decision.
referring to the fact that the contract has already been partially performed (the property has been transferred), therefore, the plaintiff is entitled only to recover the debt, and not to terminate the contract. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, stating that since the purchase and sale agreement provided for deferred payment, special rules apply to it, which allow the seller to demand the return of the unpaid property or termination of the contract, and the choice of the method of protection belongs to the plaintiff. The Court noted that the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the lack of alternatives to the demand for payment for goods does not apply to credit sale agreements with deferred payment.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new trial.
Case No. 643/1342/17 dated 04/02/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation.
The court of cassation reinstated the term for the plaintiff to submit evidence confirming the costs of professional legal assistance, as the plaintiff filed a motion to recover court costs in the response to the cassation appeal, indicating the approximate amount of costs. The court took into account that the plaintiff provided evidence confirming the costs incurred before the publication of the Supreme Court’s decision. The court also noted that the interested party must take certain actions to reimburse the costs of professional legal assistance, and the other party has the right to object, which excludes the court’s initiative on this issue. The court took into account the criteria of reality, reasonableness and proportionality of the amount of expenses for the payment of attorney’s services with the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided, as well as the absence of objections from the defendant. Considering that the defendant’s cassation appeal was dismissed, the court concluded that there were grounds for recovering court costs for professional legal assistance from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
The court granted the plaintiff’s application for the distribution of court costs and recovered UAH 10,000 from the State Property Fund of Ukraine in favor of the plaintiff for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 927/966/23 dated 04/14/2025
Good day! Let’s consider the case regarding appealing the actions of the state executor.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings and sending the writ of execution to the State Treasury Service of Ukraine (DKSU) for the execution of a court decision on the recovery of funds from a state-owned enterprise.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the state executor acted lawfully, since the debtor is a
The state enterprise, and the peculiarities of execution of decisions established by the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Execution of Court Decisions” apply to it. The court noted that after the expiration of six months from the date of opening the enforcement proceedings, the state enforcement officer is obliged to send the writ of execution to the SCSA for execution at the expense of funds provided for by the budget program. Also, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the executor is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings in the event that the writ of execution is sent to the central executive body that implements state policy in the field of treasury services of budget funds. The court emphasized that it cannot overturn a decision that is correct in essence only due to formal violations of procedural law that did not affect the legality of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/4323/24 dated 04/11/2025
Good day! Here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the contract as invalid and the recovery of funds in the amount of UAH 118,744.04.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the appeal of Garantstroyinvest LLC. The court of cassation instance indicated that the appellate court, when returning the complaint, did not take into account that the deadline for eliminating the shortcomings of the appeal had not yet expired at the time of the ruling on its return. The Supreme Court emphasized that persons who appeal a court decision have the right to an appellate review of the case, and the state must guarantee them this right. Also, the court of cassation instance took into account that the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine provides for two ways of sending a court decision: in electronic form – through the “Electronic Cabinet” and by sending a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt. The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court sent a ruling on leaving the appeal without movement to the electronic cabinet of the appellant, and such a ruling was delivered to the latter on January 28, 2025 at 17:26, and therefore, the last day for eliminating the shortcomings, taking into account the provisions of Articles 115, 116 and 242 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, taking into account weekends, falls on February 10, 2025 (Monday).
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for further consideration in the appellate instance.
Case No. 760/34352/21 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the removal of obstacles in the use of the apartment and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of it.
The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeals of both parties, came to the following conclusions: first, the contract
the sale and purchase agreement of the apartment is valid, as previous attempts to invalidate it were unsuccessful; secondly, the owner of the apartment has the right to freely use and dispose of their property, and the residence of a former family member of the previous owner restricts this right; thirdly, the behavior of the former owner and their heir after the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement was dishonest, as they initiated criminal proceedings and lawsuits to challenge the validity of the agreement; fourthly, the eviction of the former family member of the previous owner from the apartment is a proportionate measure, as it aims to protect the property rights of the new owner. At the same time, the court agreed with the previous decisions to refuse the eviction of other family members who do not live in the disputed apartment and to refuse deregistration of the place of residence, as this issue should be resolved after the actual eviction. The court also upheld the legality of the state registration of ownership of the apartment, as it was carried out on the basis of a valid sale and purchase agreement.
The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to eliminate obstacles in using the apartment by eviction and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 990/47/24 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council regarding the application of personal sanctions against them.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim without consideration, as the plaintiff (his representatives) repeatedly failed to appear at the court hearing, did not report valid reasons for non-appearance, and did not file a motion to consider the case in their absence. The court noted that the plaintiff, by initiating legal proceedings, must actively exercise their procedural rights and contribute to the establishment of the circumstances of the case. The provision of legal assistance by a lawyer to another person is not a valid reason for non-appearance at a court hearing, especially when the date of the hearing was known in advance. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff’s representative did not take the opportunity to participate in the court hearing via video conference. The court emphasized that generally binding procedural rules are aimed at preventing arbitrary restriction of a person’s right to a trial, but at the same time establish consequences for those who do not comply with the rules of court proceedings.
3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal and leave the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 317/5192/23 dated 04/08/2025
Good day! I am happy to
I will analyze this court decision for you with pleasure.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of disseminating information about the movement of Ukrainian military equipment under martial law with the aim of transferring this data to representatives of the aggressor state.
2. The court, upholding the verdict, emphasized that the person’s guilt was fully proven based on the collected evidence, which included the testimony of the accused himself, protocols of covert investigative actions, information from the operational group of troops, protocols of searches and temporary access to the mobile phone. The court took into account that the accused himself initiated communication with the person who transmitted information to the enemy, and was aware of exactly to whom he was transmitting the data. The court also noted that the qualification of actions under Part 3 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code is correct, since the actions were committed under martial law with the aim of providing information to representatives of the aggressor state. The Court of Appeal agreed with the assessment of the evidence by the court of first instance and found no grounds for mitigating the punishment, considering the high public danger of the crime.
3. Court decision: the defender’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
**Case No. 908/1766/24 dated 04/01/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of “Zaporizke Start-up Enterprise – 461” LLC against the decision of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhia Oblast.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, motivating it by the fact that the court of appeal reasonably refused to open appellate proceedings, since “Zaporizke Start-up Enterprise – 461” LLC did not prove the existence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for appeal. The court noted that sending court decisions to the address indicated in the Unified State Register is a proper notification, and failure to receive correspondence that was returned to the court cannot be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline. Also, the court of cassation drew attention to the obligation of legal entities to register electronic accounts in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System, and failure to fulfill this obligation entails certain negative consequences. The court of cassation emphasized that the renewal of the procedural term is the right of the court, which is used taking into account the validity of the reasons for missing the term, and the mere fact of filing a motion to renew the term does not oblige the court to automatically renew it.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Zaporizke Start-up Enterprise – 461” LLC, and the decision of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
**Case**
a №761/26569/22 dated 02/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as promised.
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of the apartment, the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction, and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership.
The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the receipt by the plaintiff of the ruling on leaving the appeal without motion was not properly confirmed. The court of cassation emphasized that sending a ruling to an email is not proper notification if the person is not registered in the “Electronic Court” system and the case is being considered in paper form. The court emphasized that courts should avoid excessive formalism and ensure effective access to justice, especially in cases where it concerns the realization of the right to appeal. Also, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring effective access to the court and the need for proper notification of court decisions. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court should have sent the ruling on leaving the appeal without motion in paper form by registered mail.
The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for further consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 760/12549/22 dated 13/02/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the removal of the child from the father without deprivation of parental rights, transferring the child under the guardianship of the guardianship and custody authority, and the recovery of alimony for the child.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that there is a direct threat to the life and health of the child, since the father committed psychological and physical violence against her, did not provide proper care, and created dangerous conditions for her residence. The court took into account numerous pieces of evidence, in particular, acts of assessing the level of safety of the child, conclusions of psychologists, testimonies of witnesses, and a court order on bringing the father to administrative responsibility for committing domestic violence. The court emphasized that the removal of the child is a temporary measure aimed at protecting her rights and interests, and that the father has the right to apply to the court with a claim for the return of the child if he proves that he has changed his attitude to the fulfillment of parental responsibilities. Also, the court emphasized that interference with the right to respect for family life is justified, since it is necessary to protect the rights of the child and is in her best interests. The court rejected the father’s arguments that the dispute arose with the grandmother, and not with the guardianship authority, and about the need to appoint a psychological examination, since they do not relate to the essence of the dispute and the subject of proof.
The court
dismissed the father’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 715/3205/24 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! Here is my analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in criminal proceedings regarding those convicted under Part 2 of Article 201-4 and Part 1 of Article 204 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part, limiting itself to indicating that the drafting of the full text of the resolution requires a significant amount of time, therefore only the operative part is announced. The reasons for the decision will be stated in the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 192/2456/24 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the determination of jurisdiction regarding the consideration of the claims of an individual against the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities (NKREKP) regarding appealing actions concerning the review of complaints and compensation for moral damages.
The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the dispute between the individual and NKREKP is a public law dispute, since NKREKP is a subject of power exercising владні управлінські functions. The court noted that it is impossible to resolve the issue of compensation for moral damages without assessing the lawfulness of the actions of the subject of power. The claim for compensation for moral damages is derived from the requirement to resolve a public law dispute, and therefore must be considered in the procedure of administrative proceedings. The court emphasized that it is impossible to investigate the lawfulness of the actions of an official within the civil procedure, since this is provided only in the administrative procedure. The Supreme Court referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court, according to which, if a claim for compensation for moral damages is filed with a requirement to resolve a public law dispute, such a dispute as a whole must be considered according to the rules of administrative proceedings.
Court decision: The cassation appeal of NKREKP is satisfied, the resolution of the appellate court is overturned, and the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to open proceedings is upheld.
Case No. 465/1067/22 dated 04/14/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Municipal Property Management Office to individuals to vacate illegally occupied non-residential premises in the basement of the building.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since at the time the plaintiff applied to the court, in
The defendants used the disputed premises on legal grounds, namely, based on the decision of the Frankivsk District Administration of 1996, which granted them the right to use these premises for economic needs. The court noted that to satisfy the claim for the release of illegally occupied premises, it is necessary to establish the fact of illegal occupation of the premises at the time of filing the claim. The fact that the decision of the district administration was revoked later, after the filing of the claim, is not a basis for satisfying the initial claims, as these are new circumstances that did not exist at the time of applying to the court. The court also emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is to protect already violated rights, and not those that may be violated in the future. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that they correctly applied the norms of substantive law and did not violate the norms of procedural law.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 756/14643/19 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession, as the plaintiff claimed that her apartment was taken out of her possession as a result of fraudulent actions.
2. The court granted the claim, motivating it by the fact that the property was taken out of the plaintiff’s possession against her will, as the power of attorney for the sale of the apartment was forged, which is confirmed by the expert’s opinion in the criminal proceedings. The court took into account that the plaintiff took actions to protect her rights, in particular, filed claims within the criminal proceedings. The court also took into account that the disputed apartment is the only housing of the plaintiff and her minor children, and the final acquirer received the apartment as a gift, that is, free of charge, and his rights will not be violated, since he is provided with housing. The court also noted that the guardianship authority did not exercise its right to participate in court hearings during the consideration of this case.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, confirming the legality of recovering property from someone else’s illegal possession.
Case No. 910/15473/23 dated 04/10/2025
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 clause in the contract for the purchase of goods at public expense regarding the inclusion of VAT and the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds.
2. The court granted the claim, motivating it by the fact that, according to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, transactions for the supply of goods for the needs of defense of Ukraine during the period of martial law are taxed at a zero VAT rate. Since the contract was concluded and executed after the
entry into force of this resolution, the inclusion of VAT in the cost of goods is unlawful. The court also noted that the defendant unjustifiably acquired funds in the amount of VAT, which are subject to return. Additionally, the court accrued 3% per annum on the amount of unjustifiably acquired funds, as this is a measure of liability for delay in a monetary obligation. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the contract was not concluded for the implementation of mobilization tasks, since the goods were supplied to a military unit during martial law, which automatically falls under the government’s resolution. The court also indicated that the absence of a single conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the preferential VAT rate is not an obstacle to satisfying the claim, since in this case the circumstances of the case clearly fall under the preferential rate.
4. The court decided to declare the clause of the contract invalid in the part concerning the inclusion of VAT and to recover from the defendant the unjustifiably acquired funds in the amount of VAT and the accrued 3% per annum.
**Case No. 924/866/21 dated 04/10/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 315,671,562.71 from the joint-stock company “Gas Distribution System Operator “Khmelnytskgaz” in favor of the limited liability company “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine.”
2. The court of cassation considered the Operator’s cassation appeal against the resolution of the appellate court, which partially amended the additional decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance. The appellate court reduced the amount awarded for recovery in favor of the Operator, considering that the claimed expenses are not fully commensurate with the scope of work performed by the lawyer, taking into account the criteria of reality and necessity of the services provided. The court of cassation, having reviewed the arguments of the cassation appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that the court has the right to reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance if they do not meet the criteria of commensurability, reasonableness, and proportionality. The court of cassation also took into account that the Operator did not provide evidence to confirm the authority of other lawyers, except for lawyer Stepanenko, to conduct the case and form procedural documents. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances, and its powers are limited to checking the observance of substantive and procedural law by the courts.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the limited liability company “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” and left the resolution of the Northwestern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 759/2811/20 dated 04/08/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, as it found that the punishment was imposed taking into account the severity of the crime, the specific circumstances of the case, and data on the identity of the perpetrator. The court noted that the previous courts had taken into account the absence of aggravating circumstances and the presence of mitigating circumstances, as well as the fact that the accused had not been previously convicted. The appellate court properly reviewed the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided comprehensive answers to them. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the imposed punishment is fair, necessary, and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. Also, the court of cassation took into account that the punishment was imposed within the limits of the article’s sanction, and the defense counsel’s arguments about the excessive severity of the punishment are unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and to uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 638/5256/23 dated 04/07/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for the convicted PERSON_6 for committing crimes under Part 1 of Article 162 (violation of inviolability of dwelling) and Part 4 of Article 185 (theft committed in large amounts under martial law) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, justifying it by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, imposing a punishment that does not correspond to the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person due to its severity. The court took into account mitigating circumstances, such as sincere repentance, active assistance in solving the crime, transfer of bail to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as the absence of aggravating circumstances. Taking into account these circumstances, as well as data on the identity of the convicted person, the Supreme Court concluded that there are grounds for applying Part 1 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposing a punishment below the lowest limit established by the sanction of Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not find grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation).
3. The Supreme Court amended the appellate court’s verdict, reducing the term of imprisonment of PERSON_6 to 3 years on the basis of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but without applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 694/1736/13-к dated 04/08/2025
Of course, here is a detailed
Analysis of the court decision:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict against a doctor accused of improper performance of professional duties, resulting in the death of a child.
The court, upholding the verdict, noted that the doctor’s guilt was proven by the totality of the evidence examined, including expert opinions, the results of an internal investigation, medical care protocols, and witness testimonies. The court emphasized that an expert’s opinion does not have priority over other evidence and is subject to evaluation in conjunction with other circumstances of the case. The court also took into account that the doctor violated medical care protocols, did not conduct a proper examination of the child, and did not organize consultations with other specialists. The court also noted that although the doctor was not familiar with the job description, this does not relieve him of responsibility for violating medical care protocols. Regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court indicated that the doctor, being represented by lawyers, was aware of his right to be released from criminal liability but insisted on his innocence.
The court ruled to uphold the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court without changes, and to dismiss the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 759/18856/19 dated 04/09/2025
and a garden house and a land plot, as well as in the part of the distribution of court costs, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №760/18065/22 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 recovery of property (a car) by “Porsche Leasing Ukraine” LLC from private notary Peleh Z. B. and a counterclaim by the notary for recognition of ownership of this car by acquisitive prescription.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the claims of “Porsche Leasing Ukraine” for the recovery of the car are not subject to satisfaction due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the statute of limitations began to run from the moment of the conclusion of the leasing agreement, and not from the moment the court decision on the nullity of this agreement came into force. The court also emphasized that the leasing agreement was void, therefore, the provisions on the return of property acquired without sufficient legal grounds apply to the disputed legal relations. Regarding the notary’s counterclaim, the court noted that for the acquisition of ownership by acquisitive prescription, a combination of conditions is necessary, in particular, bona fide possession of the property, which was not the case here, since the notary possessed the car on the basis of an agreement, albeit a void one. The court also indicated that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the property, which excludes the possibility of acquiring ownership by acquisitive prescription.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, and left the decision of the court of first instance in the unchanged part and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case №824/155/24 dated 04/10/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the application of IEC Industrie Export GmbH for recognition and permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery of debt from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” for goods supplied but not paid for, as well as compensation for incurred expenses.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the application of IEC Industrie Export GmbH, based on the following: first, the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, which provided for the resolution of disputes in the International Commercial Arbitration Court, and this agreement is valid, despite the expiration of the main contract. The court emphasized the principle of autonomy of the arbitration agreement, according to which its validity does not depend on the validity of the main contract. Secondly, JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” did not prove the existence of grounds for refusing to recognize and enforce the arbitration decision, provided for in Article V of the New York Convention and the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”. In particular, no evidence was provided that the enforcement of the decision
arbitration contradicts the public order of Ukraine or threatens its economic interests. The court also noted that references to martial law and restrictions in civil circulation are not a sufficient basis for refusing to enforce an arbitration award. Thirdly, the court found the recovery of legal aid costs from SE NNEGC Energoatom to be justified, as their amount was proportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
The court dismissed the appeal of SE NNEGC Energoatom and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 922/854/23 dated April 2, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of SEFE “Ukrinterenergo” against ME “Miskelektrotransservice” in the bankruptcy case of the latter.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that a contract for the supply of electricity was concluded between ME “Miskelektrotransservice” and SEFE “Ukrinterenergo”, according to which “Ukrinterenergo” undertook to supply electricity, and “Miskelektrotransservice” – to pay for it. The courts found that “Ukrinterenergo” properly fulfilled its obligations to supply electricity, and “Miskelektrotransservice” systematically violated the terms of payment. The court rejected the arguments of “Miskelektrotransservice” that the invoices were not received in time, as their sending by e-mail and postal service was proven. The court also took into account that the commercial offer, which provided for the possibility of sending invoices by e-mail, was an integral part of the contract. The court noted that “Miskelektrotransservice” did not provide evidence of payment for electricity or refutation of the fact of debt. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court has no right to interfere in this assessment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of ME “Miskelektrotransservice” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 753/13379/20 dated April 9, 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 the defendants for the removal of obstacles in the use of his property (apartment), which, in his opinion, were caused by the unauthorized reconstruction by the defendants of non-residential premises belonging to them.
2. The court dismissed the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of his rights by the actions of the defendants. The court of appeal agreed with this conclusion, noting that merely referring to the defendants’ non-compliance with legislation in the field of urban development, without proving the fact of violation of the plaintiff’s rights, does
that is not a basis for satisfying the claims. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the actions of the defendants led to the disruption of the air exhaust system, the appearance of moisture, cracks and fungus in his apartment, as well as the creation of noise and vibration. It is important that the court of appeal changed the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance, noting that the plaintiff is still the owner of the apartment and has the right to apply to the court with such a claim, but did not prove the validity of his claims.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances without changes, that is, OSOBA_1’s claim was denied.
Case No. 758/10107/20 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 recovery of insurance compensation under a voluntary health insurance contract due to the occurrence of a disease.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that, according to the terms of the insurance contract, the insured event is the occurrence of a disease provided for in Appendix No. 1 to the Insurance Terms. Since the diagnosis established for the plaintiff was not specified in this appendix, the event is not considered an insured event. The court of appeal emphasized that the court of first instance misinterpreted the terms of the contract, failing to take into account that the list of disease classes in clause 6.1 of the contract has an explanation regarding the determination of the amount of insurance payments, and does not expand the list of insured events defined in Appendix No. 1. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions of the court of appeal, noting that the terms of the contract clearly define that the insured event is only the occurrence of a disease provided for in Appendix No. 1 to the Insurance Terms, with which the insurer agreed when signing the contract.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 607/19247/21 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 the recognition of persons as having lost the right to use official housing.
2. The court granted the claim, motivating it by the fact that the defendants had not lived in the disputed apartment for a long time, used it for purposes other than intended, and also have other housing for living. The court took into account that official housing is provided for the duration of labor relations, and after their termination, it must be vacated. Also, the court noted that the defendant had already been provided with housing at the previous place of service, and therefore, repeated provision of official housing is not mandatory. The court emphasized that the absence of continuing ties of the defendants with the disputed apartment indicates their loss of interest in this housing. The Court of Appeal
instance agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the court of first instance had duly assessed all the evidence in the case.
3. The court decided to recognize the defendants as having lost the right to use the official living space.
Case No. 199/9720/22 dated 02/05/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and a counterclaim for recognition of the obligation as terminated due to its fulfillment.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling on suspending proceedings in the case, as the appellate court did not substantiate the objective impossibility of considering the case until the resolution of another case, in which proceedings had been initiated earlier and which the lender knew about during the consideration of the case in the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have taken into account the principle of efficiency of the judicial process and compliance with reasonable deadlines for the consideration of the case. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the lender knew about the consideration of another case even before the opening of proceedings in this case, but applied for the suspension of proceedings only in the appellate court after the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not have the authority to suspend proceedings in the case on the basis of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine after the completion of preparatory actions and the assignment of the case for consideration.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to satisfy the cassation appeals of the borrower and his wife, to overturn the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and to send the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 755/5720/24 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the procedure for using the apartment between co-owners who cannot reach an agreement.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, establishing the procedure for using the apartment based on an expert opinion, which determined the technical possibility of separating living quarters for the comfortable living of the parties, taking into account their shares in the ownership. The court also took into account the long-standing conflict between the parties and the absence of alternative options proposed by the defendant. The court refused to close the proceedings, as the claims in the previous case were not fully identical to the claims in this case. The appellate court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, noting that the refusal to satisfy the claims would leave the parties in a state of uncertainty and conflict. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the procedure for using jointly owned property should take into account the balance of interests of the co-owners and does not necessarily involve the allocation of isolated
