Case No. 522/1957/21 dated April 23, 2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreements on payment of membership fees in the Servicing Cooperative “Ecodom-1”, concluded between the cooperative and the defendant PERSON_2, since the plaintiff believes that these agreements violate his rights as the first investor of the construction.
The court of appeal, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff PERSON_1 is the first investor of the construction, who, on the basis of current agreements, paid the full cost of shares and registered ownership of the apartment and parking spaces. The court found that the Servicing Cooperative “Ecodom-1”, without terminating the previous agreements with the plaintiff, had no right to conclude new agreements on equity participation regarding the same objects with the defendant PERSON_2. At the same time, PERSON_2 did not provide evidence to confirm the existence of property rights to the disputed property. The court also took into account that the existence of another court case between the parties confirms the fact of contesting the plaintiff’s rights, which indicates a violation of his legitimate interests. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the state registration of the defendant’s ownership right was canceled and is not the basis for the emergence of ownership right.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes, confirming the invalidity of the agreements on payment of membership fees concluded between SC “Ecodom-1” and PERSON_2.
Case No. 204/4474/22 dated April 23, 2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition as invalid of the apartment purchase and sale agreement concluded between the plaintiff, an elderly person, and the defendant, since the plaintiff believed that she was concluding a life maintenance agreement, not a purchase and sale agreement.
The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, took into account the plaintiff’s old age, her state of health, the need for outside care, and the fact that the disputed apartment was her only home, where she continued to live after the conclusion of the agreement. The court also took into account the lack of actual transfer of money for the apartment and the plaintiff’s continued payment of utility services. Based on these circumstances, the court concluded that the plaintiff was mistaken as to the nature of the transaction, believing that she was concluding a life maintenance agreement, not a purchase and sale agreement, which is the basis for recognizing the agreement as invalid on the basis of Article 229 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that it established the existence of such a defect of will in the plaintiff as a mistake during the conclusion of the disputed agreement.
The court of appeal declared the apartment purchase and sale agreement invalid.
Case No. 758/4148/19 dated April 23, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the
the subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living as one family without registration of marriage and the recognition of ownership of property in the order of inheritance.
3. The court of cassation considered a case where the plaintiff requested to establish the fact of living with the deceased woman as one family without marriage in order to receive inheritance. The appellate court refused to satisfy the claim, citing two reasons: firstly, the plaintiff applied to the improper defendant (the Kyiv City Council instead of the deceased’s son), and secondly, he did not prove the fact of living as one family. The Supreme Court agreed that the Kyiv City Council is an improper defendant, since the deceased’s son is the heir of the first очереди. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that filing a claim against an improper defendant is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, and recognized the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the unproven nature of the claims as erroneous, since the consideration of the case without the involvement of proper defendants makes it impossible to establish all the circumstances of the case.
4. The Supreme Court amended the appellate court’s decision, excluding the conclusions about the unproven nature of the claims from the reasoning part, but left the decision to dismiss the claim unchanged, since the claim was filed against an improper defendant.
Case No. 824/158/24 dated April 24, 2025
Good day! I will be happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of Es Group Europe s.r.o. to recognize and grant permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery of debt, penalties, 3% per annum, arbitration fee and legal assistance costs from LLC “BC KBR”, as well as the counterclaim of LLC “BC KBR” to invalidate certain clauses of the contract.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, not satisfying the appeal of Es Group Europe s.r.o. The court probably agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the absence of grounds for recognizing and granting permission to enforce the ICAC’s decision. Possibly, the appellate court found violations of procedural rules during the consideration of the case in the ICAC, or recognized that the ICAC’s decision contradicts the public order of Ukraine. Also, the court could take into account the arguments of LLC “BC KBR” regarding the invalidity of certain clauses of the contract, which were the subject of the counterclaim. The final reasons for leaving the appeal unsatisfied can be established only after analyzing the full text of the court decision.
3. The court ruled to leave the appeal of Es Group Europe s.r.o. unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 489/2337/24 dated April 25, 2025
Good day! Of course, I have analyzed this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the seizure of immovable property, imposed on the basis of the state executor’s decision.
2. The court of appeal reversed
upheld the decision of the court of first instance and closed the proceedings in the case, as it found that the plaintiff is a debtor in the enforcement proceedings, within which the property was seized. The appellate court noted that in such a case, the law provides for another method of protection – appealing the actions of the state executor in the order of judicial control over the execution of court decisions, and not filing a separate lawsuit. The court of cassation agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the debtor cannot appeal the seizure of property by filing a lawsuit, since he has the right to appeal the actions of the executor within the enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court also noted that the applicant of the cassation appeal did not provide convincing arguments for deviating from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court on this issue. The court of cassation emphasized that a review of the legal conclusion is possible only if there are significant grounds, such as inefficiency, ambiguity, inconsistency or error of the previous conclusion, which was not proven in this case.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
[Case №370/1762/23 dated 04/23/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126874060)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the Kyiv Regional State Administration’s exercise of the right to use and dispose of forest land plots, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, are illegally owned by individuals.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, namely a negatory action, since the state is not the owner of the disputed land plots. The court noted that in this case, the proper method of protection would be to demand the land plots from someone else’s illegal possession (vindication claim), since it would allow the state to regain control over the property. The court also took into account that the principle of jura novit curia cannot be applied in this case, since the prosecutor clearly defined the grounds for the claim and insisted on the application of specific legal norms. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments that the courts did not take into account the previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstances in these cases differ. The court also granted the request of the defendants’ representative to recover the costs of legal assistance, as it considers them proportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[Case №641/2576/21 dated 04/23/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126873933)
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damages caused to a person by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies.
and the prosecutor’s office, namely, compensation for moral and property damage (legal aid expenses).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal regarding the reimbursement of legal aid expenses, based on the following:
* Reimbursement of legal aid expenses, provided for by the Law “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies of Inquiry, Preliminary Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court”, is a separate type of compensation that is not identical to the expenses for legal assistance provided for by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and is regulated by a special law.
* The right to professional legal assistance is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine.
* The amount of the attorney’s fee is determined by agreement with the client, and the court has no right to interfere in these legal relations. At the same time, the fee must be reasonable and take into account the time spent by the attorney.
* The court of appeal, having assessed the evidence provided, reached a reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement of legal aid expenses in the specified amount were proven.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal about the incorrect application of substantive law are unfounded and come down to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is not within the powers of the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal, confirming the decision to reimburse the person for legal aid expenses.
Case No. 683/131/24 dated April 23, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim for divorce, based on the fact that the plaintiff insists on the divorce and does not intend to continue the marital relationship, which, in their opinion, is a sufficient ground in accordance with Article 112 of the Family Code of Ukraine. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that she was not properly notified of the court hearing, since a copy of the order to open proceedings and the claim materials were received by her husband, and not by her personally, while she was abroad. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that proper notification of a party about a court hearing is important to ensure the principle of equality of parties and the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court of cassation emphasized that, despite the simplified procedure, the court of first instance should have made sure that the defendant received information about the claim filed against her.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 305/641/17 dated April 23, 2025
Sure
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the division of jointly owned property of the spouses, namely a residential building, an unfinished construction object (sawmill), and land plots acquired during the marriage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for the division of property, as the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm a significant increase in the value of the disputed property as a result of the joint labor or monetary expenditures of the spouses. In particular, the valuation of the property provided by the plaintiff was deemed inadmissible evidence because it did not contain information about warning the expert about criminal liability for knowingly providing a false conclusion. The court also noted that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the plaintiff did not claim compensation for the cost of building materials and structural elements, and therefore such arguments are unfounded.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 758/13212/21 dated 04/23/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the mortgage property in the claim of “BNVP “MS-Center” LLC against PERSON_1, since the plaintiff believes that the rights of the creditor under the loan agreement and the rights of the mortgagee have been transferred to him.
2. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not fulfill the obligations of the guarantor in the manner defined by the guarantee agreement, therefore the rights of the creditor did not pass to him. The appellate court changed the reasoning part of the decision, stating that the defendant acquired ownership of the apartments under a gift agreement, not knowing about the mortgage encumbrance, therefore there is no reason to interfere with his ownership right. However, the appellate court agreed that the rights and obligations of the mortgagor passed to the defendant, even if he did not know about the mortgage. The Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court, stating that the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the fact that he fulfilled the obligations of the guarantor, and also did not provide evidence of the transfer to him by the original creditor of documents certifying the rights of claim against the debtor. The court also noted that partial fulfillment of obligations by the guarantor does not give him the right of the creditor. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the assessment of the good faith of the acquirer of property is possible only if the applicant’s right as a creditor is proven.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the change of motives for the refusal of the claim and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse the claim.
“>**Case No. 629/4628/16-ц dated 04/23/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of losses from an individual in the form of lost income for the use of communal land without оформлених правовстановлюючих документів ( оформлених правовстановлюючих документів).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the owner of real estate located on a communal land plot is obliged to оформити право оренди ( оформити право оренди) for this land and pay rent. The absence of оформленого права оренди ( оформленого права оренди) does not release the real estate owner from the obligation to pay for the actual use of the land. The court also noted that information on the regulatory monetary valuation of the land, provided by the State Geocadastre authorities, can be used to determine the amount of damages, and not only an extract from the State Land Cadastre. The court emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence to refute the calculation of damages provided by the prosecutor’s office, and the revaluation of evidence is not within the competence of the cassation court. The court indicated that the relations arising from the actual use of land without a concluded lease agreement are кондикційними ( кондикційними) in their content, therefore, the provisions of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine on the return of unjustifiably acquired property apply to them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 523/12270/17 dated 04/25/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of mortgaged property, namely an apartment, to repay the debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court refused to satisfy the bank’s claim, as it found that the statute of limitations for foreclosing on the mortgaged property had expired. The court noted that the bank filed a lawsuit to recover the debt under the loan agreement in 2011, which changed the term for fulfilling the obligation. Therefore, the statute of limitations for foreclosing on the mortgage began to run no later than 2011 and expired before the bank filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the mortgaged property in 2017. The court also took into account that the bank did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the bank was aware of the borrower’s breach of obligations as early as 2011. Also, the court took into account that the claim for eviction is derived from the claim for foreclosure on the mortgage, therefore, its satisfaction was also denied.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 369/12450/21 dated 04/23/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the bank’s refusal to terminate the employment contract with an employee on the basis of Part 3 of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine due to the bank’s failure to comply with labor legislation.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the following arguments:
* An employee may terminate an employment contract if the employer violates labor laws, but these violations must be confirmed or recognized by the employer at the time of filing the application for dismissal.
* In this case, although previous violations of the employee’s labor rights (illegal dismissal, deprivation of allowance) were established by the court, at the time of filing the application for dismissal, these violations had already been eliminated or were being challenged in court.
* The absence of a commission on labor disputes (CLS) is not a sufficient basis for terminating the employment contract, since the initiator of the creation of the CLS is the labor collective, and not the employer.
* The court cannot oblige the employer to dismiss the employee, since this is the prerogative of the employer, and the court considers disputes on reinstatement, and not on dismissal.
* The appellate court did not take into account that at the time of filing the application for dismissal by the employee, the previous violations of labor rights had already been eliminated or were being challenged in court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the employee’s claim.
Case No. 937/7966/20 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the deprivation of parental rights of PERSON_3 and PERSON_4 in relation to their minor children, as well as the recovery of alimony from them.
The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the parents had long evaded their duties to raise children, did not take care of their health, development and proper living conditions, which negatively affected the children. The court took into account that back in 2019, the parents were warned about the need to change their attitude to raising the child, but they did not do so. It was also established that the children were in unsanitary conditions, had health and nutritional problems. The court noted that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure, but in this case it is necessary to protect the interests of the children, since it is impossible to change the parents’ behavior for the better. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the decision of the court of first instance was justified and in the interests of the children.
As a result, the court decided to deprive PERSON_3 and PERSON_4 of parental rights over their minor children and to recover alimony from them for the maintenance of the children.
Case No. 154/4289/24 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of invalidity
of a civil law contract for the provision of services and recovery of funds, concluded between a communal enterprise and an individual, due to the existence of a conflict of interest.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the claim to the prosecutor, stating the following:
* The prosecutor has the right to represent the interests of the state in court if the competent authority does not protect these interests or does so improperly.
* The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) has the authority to file a lawsuit with the court to invalidate a transaction concluded in violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption”.
* The prosecutor reasonably appealed to the NACP before filing the lawsuit, and the lack of response from the NACP provides grounds for the prosecutor to represent the interests of the state.
* The courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that since the protocols on corruption offenses were drawn up by the National Police, the NACP does not have the authority to appeal to the court.
* The courts did not take into account that, according to Article 67 of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption”, the prosecutor also has the right to appeal to the court with a lawsuit to invalidate a transaction concluded as a result of a violation of the requirements of this Law, in the absence of such a body.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance from the stage of opening proceedings in the case.
Case No. 619/3051/17 dated April 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the inaction of the state executor of the Shevchenkivskyi Department of the State Executive Service in Poltava, which consists of failure to fulfill the order to verify the debtor’s execution of the court’s decision to ensure the creditor’s meetings with the child.
2. The court dismissed the complaint, because the verification of the execution of the court decision on meetings with the child is not subject to re-delegation to another department of the SES, according to Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court noted that state bodies must act within the scope of their powers established by law. Since the instruction of the Derhachivskyi Department of State Executive Service to the Shevchenkivskyi Department of State Executive Service was issued in excess of authority, there is no unlawful inaction of the state executor of the Shevchenkivskyi Department of State Executive Service, which would result in a violation of the applicant’s rights. The court also took into account that the debtor with the child is abroad, which complicates the execution of the court decision. The court indicated that the applicant may apply to the court of first instance with a request to change the method and procedure of execution of the decision, taking into account the circumstances that complicate its execution.
3. The court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 758/8567/17 dated April 23, 2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision
Here is the translation:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds based on the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 and the termination of agreements based on the counterclaim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1, where LLC “Pateli Leasing” acts as a third party.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the application of PERSON_1 for the review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances. The court heard the representative of the applicant, lawyer Ryzhenko Dmytro Mykolayovych. During the consideration of the case, the Grand Chamber was guided by Articles 416, 418, 419, 423, 429 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court carefully examined the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented in the application for review. As a result of the discussion, the Grand Chamber concluded that there were no grounds for granting the application of PERSON_1. The court did not find any exceptional circumstances that would require a review of previous court decisions.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court refused to grant the application of PERSON_1 for the review of court decisions and upheld them.
[**Case No. 478/1509/23 dated 04/25/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126874044)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of land lease agreements and the recovery of rent arrears.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of systematic non-performance of the terms of the land lease agreement regarding the payment of rent. The court took into account that the plaintiff had copies of the agreements, which stated that the rent was paid in one payment for the entire lease term, and she did not dispute these terms during the tenant’s lifetime. The court also applied the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium (prohibition of contradictory behavior), noting that the demand for the recovery of arrears and the termination of agreements many years after their conclusion is unfair, as it contradicts the plaintiff’s previous behavior. The court emphasized that the payment of rent for future periods is justified if it is provided for by the agreement or not prohibited by it. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are their prerogative.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
[**Case No. 120/11801/23 dated 04/25/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126885248)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in hostilities.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, recognizing the inaction of the military unit as unlawful, since the fact of the plaintiff’s participation in hostilities was confirmed by a certificate from the military unit to which he was seconded, and the defendant did not refute this fact. The court of appeal overturned this decision, considering the certificate an improper piece of evidence, as it did not contain specific dates of participation.
in combat and did not meet the requirements of the order of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, noting that the certificate is proper evidence, and the commander who issued it is responsible for its content. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the plaintiff should not bear negative consequences due to shortcomings in the document flow between military units. The Supreme Court emphasized that sending lists in the form of Appendix 2 to Order No. 164-AH is an element of the procedure for paying additional remuneration, while the plaintiff’s right to receive the disputed amounts is confirmed by a certificate from the military unit issued on the basis of a combat order.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the serviceman’s claim.
Case No. 120/7417/23 dated 04/25/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in combat operations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, siding with the serviceman, as the appellate court mistakenly failed to take into account that the certificate of participation in combat operations issued by the commander of the military unit to which the serviceman was seconded is sufficient proof for accruing additional remuneration. The court emphasized that the commander who issued such a certificate is responsible for the accuracy of such a certificate. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that shortcomings in the procedure for exchanging documents between military units cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to receive due remuneration. The court also referred to its own previous practice, where it confirmed that a certificate from the unit commander is sufficient proof of participation in combat operations. The court stressed that the serviceman should not be held responsible for shortcomings in the organization of document flow between military units.
3. The court decided to grant the cassation appeal, overturn the decision of the appellate court, and uphold the decision of the court of first instance, that is, in favor of the serviceman.
Case No. 140/9390/23 dated 04/25/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of depriving a serviceman of additional monetary remuneration for the time he was in a state of alcohol intoxication, and, accordingly, the right of the wife of the deceased serviceman to receive this remuneration.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that one of the grounds for depriving servicemen of additional remuneration is the establishment of the fact that they are in a state of alcohol intoxication. The Supreme
The court emphasized that in the event of the death of a serviceman, his wife is entitled only to the payment of monetary allowance due but not received by him during his lifetime. The court noted that in this case, the important thing is not the fact of violation of military discipline by the deceased, but the absence of the wife’s right to receive the already forfeited remuneration. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that she is applying for the due but unpaid amount of additional monetary reward as an heir, since the payment was not accrued to the serviceman during his lifetime. The court of cassation emphasized that the subject of inheritance can only be specific amounts of payments that belonged to the testator during his lifetime and remained unreceived due to his death.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instances only in the reasoning part, leaving in force the decision to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 420/29690/24 dated 04/25/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of deputy head of department due to staff reduction and the refusal to reinstate him.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances because they did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not clarify whether the plaintiff was offered all available vacant positions that matched his qualifications, both equivalent and lower. It was also not investigated whether new vacancies appeared in the period between the warning of dismissal and the actual dismissal. The court emphasized that the employer is obliged to offer all possible transfer options, and not just one position of their choice. In addition, the courts did not take into account that the obligation to provide employment lasts from the day of warning about the release until the day of termination of the employment contract, and covers all vacant positions that appeared in the institution during this period.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the first and appellate instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 320/48702/23 dated 04/25/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of deputy head of the department in the State Tax Service of Ukraine (STSU) and his reinstatement.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the STSU violated the dismissal procedure provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service”. In particular, the plaintiff was not offered all available equivalent vacant positions that corresponded to his professional training and competence, and the proposed position of chief state inspector was lower than the previous one and did not correspond to his qualifications. The court also took into account that after the reorganization
the number of DPSU employees increased, which indicates the availability of vacancies. In addition, the DPSU did not provide evidence of an analysis of labor productivity and employee qualifications upon dismissal, and did not take into account the plaintiff’s military service. The court emphasized that the employer must offer all vacant positions that have appeared in the institution during the period from the warning of dismissal to the date of termination of the employment contract.
3. The court dismissed the DPSU’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances on recognizing the dismissal as illegal, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work remained unchanged.
Case No. 200/5556/24 dated 04/25/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the refusal to pay compensation for destroyed housing owned by a foreigner who permanently resides in Ukraine.
The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused a citizen of Armenia, who permanently resides in Ukraine, to pay compensation for housing destroyed as a result of hostilities. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Compensation for Damage and Destruction of Certain Categories of Real Estate Objects” clearly defines that only citizens of Ukraine can be recipients of such compensation. The court also emphasized that restricting the right to compensation for foreigners is justified, since the state has the right to determine priorities in the use of limited financial resources under martial law. In addition, the court indicated that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to demand compensation for damages from the aggressor state or to use private insurance mechanisms. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about discrimination, noting that the restrictions established by law are not a manifestation of discrimination, but are aimed at achieving a legitimate goal – ensuring the rational use of state resources.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 480/7715/22 dated 04/25/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the accrual and payment of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal from military service.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court noted that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the LC) when determining the amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
* The court indicated that it is necessary to take into account the changes introduced by Law No. 2352-IX of 01.07.2022, which limited the period of payment of average earnings to six months.
* The court emphasized that until 19.07.2022 (the date of entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX), the version of Article 117 of the LC should be applied without limiting the term
conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the proportional reduction of liability depending on the unpaid amount.
* The court noted that after 19.07.2022, Article 117 of the Labor Code is in effect with a limitation of payment to six months, but without applying the principle of proportionality of this amount to the untimely paid funds.
* The court emphasized the need to establish the amount of average earnings for the entire period of delay, the total amount of payments due upon dismissal, the share of paid and unpaid funds for the correct calculation of the amount of compensation.
3. **Court decision:** The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 160/19279/22 dated 25/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Zavodskyi Department of Social Protection of the Population to provide Person_1 with assistance for living as an internally displaced person.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and partially satisfied the claims. The court noted that an internally displaced person has the right to receive assistance for living if they have moved from a territory where hostilities are taking place and which is included in the relevant list approved by the government. At the same time, receiving other types of social assistance is not a basis for refusing to pay assistance for living as an IDP. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had already been paid assistance for living for a certain period, and therefore the refusal to extend it is illegal. Based on this, the court decided that the proper way to protect the plaintiff’s rights is to oblige the Department of Social Policy to resume the accrual and payment of assistance for living, starting from a certain period.
3. The court recognized the refusal of the Department of Social Protection of the Population as illegal and obliged the Department of Social Policy to resume the accrual and payment of assistance for living to Person_1 and her child, starting from October 1, 2022.
**Case No. 620/11008/24 dated 25/04/2025**
Good day! I will be happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the conclusion of the military medical commission (MMC) regarding the causal connection of the serviceman’s diseases, who believes that his diseases should be recognized as related to the defense of the Motherland.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the establishment of a diagnosis and the determination of the causal connection of diseases are discretionary powers of the MMC, and the court cannot interfere in their competence. The courts noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of a violation of the procedure for conducting a medical examination and making a conclusion by the MMC. In addition, the courts indicated that the plaintiff has the right to appeal the conclusion of the MMC to
