**Case No. 924/740/23 dated 01/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a joint-stock company in favor of shareholders of arrears in the payment of a portion of net profit for 2020 and dividends for 2021 and 2022, as well as inflation losses and three percent per annum for delay in the performance of a monetary obligation.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claim, closing the proceedings in the part of the claims for which payment was made by the defendant before the decision became effective, and refusing to satisfy the claims for dividends for 2022, since the term for their payment had not yet arrived at the time of the appeal to the court. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court correctly took into account the previous instructions of the Supreme Court regarding the period of accrual of inflation losses and three percent per annum. The Supreme Court noted that it cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, and also pointed out that the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding specific rules of law was not properly substantiated by the appellants. The Supreme Court also clarified the procedure for closing proceedings in the case due to the absence of the subject of the dispute, emphasizing that this is possible only if the circumstances causing the absence of the dispute arose before the decision was made by the court of first instance.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the постанову (resolution/decision) of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case No. 210/1936/22 dated 30/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child after the termination of actual marital relations between the parents.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, in determining the child’s place of residence with the father, did not take into account important circumstances, namely: the conclusion of a forensic expert that the child’s opinion was formed under the influence of the father, who restricted her communication with the mother. The appellate court did not properly assess the fact that the father was obstructing the mother from communicating with the child, which is contrary to the best interests of the child, as no evidence of the mother’s antisocial behavior was provided. Also, the court did not take into account that the emotional connection between the child and the mother was broken, but not lost, and that limiting contact with the mother deprives the child of the necessary emotional support. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a complete and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case and the study of all the evidence in its entirety, and not a formal approach to resolving the issue of the child’s fate.
3. The decision of the appellate court was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 480/3555/24 dated 05/05**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123480](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123480)
**Case No. 990/66/24 of 01/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the State Labor Service (Derzhpratsi) regarding the non-registration of the declaration of compliance of the material and technical base with the requirements of legislation on labor protection, submitted by “Educational and Methodological Center for Labor Protection “Bezpeka” LLC.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that Derzhpratsi unlawfully refused to register the declaration, since all mandatory fields were filled in according to the established form, and the requirement to submit a separate declaration for each region is excessive formalism. The court noted that a business entity has the right to submit one declaration, even if the activity covers several regions, provided that its implementation in these territories is documented. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the registration of the declaration is a notification procedure that does not involve its approval by the permitting authority, and the absence of a requirement to indicate information about employee certificates in the declaration makes the refusal for this reason unreasonable. The court also noted that the obligation of Derzhpratsi to register the declaration is not an interference with discretionary powers, since the body did not act within the law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123479](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123479)
**Case No. 990/125/24 of 01/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the actions of the High Council of Justice.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, leaving unchanged the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation, dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. The court presumably agreed with the conclusions of the court of cassation regarding the absence of grounds for recognizing the actions of the High Council of Justice as unlawful. It is possible that the court of cassation correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and also fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case. The Grand Chamber, having reviewed the case on appeal, found no grounds to overturn the decision of the court of cassation. Accordingly, the actions of the High Council of Justice were recognized as lawful.
The court decided to dismiss the appeal, and the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123478](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127123478)
**Case No. 990/199/24 of 01/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (VKKSУ) to refuse to make a recommendation on the appointment of a person to the position of judge.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and recognized as unlawful the decision of the VKKSУ to refuse to make a recommendation on the appointment of PERSON_1 to the position of judge of the Commercial Court of Zakarpattia Oblast. The court obliged
obliged the HQCJU to conduct a repeated interview with the plaintiff, who was the winner of the competition for positions as judges of local general courts. The court justified its decision by stating that the HQCJU did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and did not take into account all the circumstances relevant to resolving the issue of her appointment as a judge. The court also pointed out the need to ensure objectivity and impartiality when interviewing candidates for the position of judge. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established procedure for appointing judges and ensuring the right of each candidate to a fair review of their candidacy.
3. The court granted the appeal of PERSON_1, overturned the decision of the court of first instance, and declared illegal the decision of the HQCJU to refuse to recommend her appointment to the position of judge, obliging the HQCJU to conduct a repeated interview.
Case No. 756/167/23 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person, namely an adult son, as having lost the right to use a residential premises that was not privatized.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the defendant had not lived in the disputed apartment for a long time without valid reasons, which indicates his loss of interest in the dwelling. The court took into account that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm obstacles in using the apartment, and his appeals to the police were not effective. Also, the court took into account that the defendant has another place of residence, in particular abroad. The court noted that the mere fact of appealing to law enforcement agencies is not unconditional proof of obstacles in using the dwelling. The court emphasized that the absence of a person in the dwelling for more than the established period and the absence of valid reasons for this is the basis for recognizing him as having lost the right to use the residential premises. The court stated that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that was evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the resolution of the claims against the adult son remained unchanged.
Case No. 545/3175/22 dated 04/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of the mortgage due to non-fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court partially incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law regarding the statute of limitations, since it linked the beginning of the statute of limitations after its interruption to the moment of the appellate court’s decision, and not to the moment of filing the initial claim with the court. Also, the court of cassation pointed out the erroneous conclusion of the appellate court.
about the fact that the statute of limitations was missed in the period from September 23, 2017, to April 02, 2020, since the interruption of the statute of limitations is possible exclusively within the statute of limitations itself, which, under the circumstances of this case, expired in 2017. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court concluded that the claim requirements should be partially satisfied, but erroneously stated in the operative part of the decision that the claim requirements are subject to full satisfaction. Also, the court of cassation indicated the need to investigate the circumstances of the transfer of the right of claim under the mortgage agreement to the plaintiff, since the evidence attached to the case does not allow to establish this fact.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 753/12589/23 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the head of the Department of State Enforcement Service on the refusal to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property, imposed within the framework of the enforcement proceedings, which was returned to the claimant due to the absence of property that could be foreclosed.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint, motivating it by the fact that the enforcement proceedings are not completed, and the return of the writ of execution to the claimant does not imply the obligation of the state enforcement officer to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property. The Supreme Court noted that although at the time of the return of the writ of execution, the state enforcement officer had no grounds for removing the arrest, since the claimant could re-present the writ of execution for enforcement within a year, however, as of the time the complainant applied to the enforcement service, the writ of execution had not been re-presented, the term for its presentation had expired, the claimant (bank) was terminated as a legal entity, and the court refused to satisfy the application for the replacement of the claimant with a successor. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the preservation of the arrest on the debtor’s property for a long time is an unjustified interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the complaint about obliging the state enforcement officer to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property and made a new decision to satisfy the complaint in this part, obliging the state enforcement officer to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property.
Case No. 938/143/20 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right of ownership to a residential building in the order of inheritance by law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the concourt ruling of the appellate court on the closure of appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed by a person who was not a party to the case, and the court decision did not resolve the issue of her rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations. The court noted that in order to resolve the issue of accepting an appeal from a person who was not a party to the case, it is necessary to establish whether the appealed court decision resolved the issue of the rights and obligations of this person, taking into account a comprehensive assessment of all the evidence. In this case, the subject of the dispute was only part of the residential building, and not the entire building, and the other part belonged to the applicant’s testator, therefore her rights were not violated. The court also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of the appellate court was upheld.
Case No. 484/2665/22 dated April 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as lawful, denial of armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, since the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal regarding contradictory testimonies of witnesses and their inconsistency with the actual circumstances of the case, and also did not assess the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of screenshots from the social network as evidence. The court of appeal formally stated about the assessment of the witnesses’ testimonies by the court of first instance, which was not true, and ignored important arguments of the appeal, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. Also, the court did not provide justified reasons for applying the most severe type of punishment. Taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court decided to release PERSON_6 from the penitentiary institution.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 128/2953/23 dated April 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the district state administration, the state act for land, the cancellation of state registration of land plots and the land easement agreement, as well as the obligation of the defendant to restore boundary markers and remove the fence.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court took a formal approach
Was up for consideration the plaintiff’s motion for exemption from payment of court fees, without taking into account the information provided by the plaintiff from the State Register of Individuals – Taxpayers on the absence of income for the previous calendar year, and also did not provide an opportunity to provide other evidence that would confirm his difficult financial situation. The court of cassation emphasized that information from the State Register of Individuals is proper evidence to confirm a person’s financial situation when deciding on exemption from payment of court fees. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out the inconsistency of the appellate court, which, on the one hand, refused to grant the motion for exemption from payment of court fees, and on the other hand, returned the appeal due to the failure to provide evidence that was not required when the complaint was left without movement. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to appeal review of the case as one of the basic principles of legal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 676/1678/23 dated April 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a verdict convicting a person of inflicting minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder to the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances had fully and comprehensively examined the evidence, properly assessed it, and reasonably found the person guilty of committing a criminal offense. The court noted that the conclusions about guilt are based on a set of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, and other case materials. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances complied with the requirements of the criminal procedure law regarding the adversarial nature of the parties and ensuring the right to defense. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incompleteness of the trial, the incorrect assessment of evidence, and violations of the procedural order of collecting evidence were found to be unfounded. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the courts of previous instances regarding the amount of compensation for moral damage, recognizing it as fair and commensurate with the victim’s suffering.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 369/13247/17 dated April 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to renew the term for appealing the verdict of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court
did not take into account the person’s claim regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing, namely a severe eye disease and surgeries performed, which objectively deprived him of the opportunity to appeal the verdict within the period established by law. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not properly analyze the nature of the disease and its impact on the possibility of filing an appeal. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the provided medical documents that confirmed the treatment and eye surgeries. In addition, the appellate court did not indicate in the operative part of the decision the return of the appeal, which is a violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court recognized them as significant and grounds for quashing the decision of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 202/3885/23 dated May 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Department of Education and Science of the Donetsk Regional State Administration and the Main Department of the State Treasury Service in the Donetsk region for compensation for material and moral damages caused by unlawful dismissal from work.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the partial satisfaction of the claim. Regarding moral damages, the court noted that the unlawful dismissal of the plaintiff was proven, which is grounds for compensation for moral damages in accordance with Article 237-1 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and Article 23 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The amount of moral damages was reduced by the appellate court to UAH 2,000.00, taking into account the principles of reasonableness, balance and fairness, as well as the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, the depth and duration of the plaintiff’s mental suffering. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the expert’s conclusion based on the results of the psychological examination is only one of the pieces of evidence, which is evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. Regarding material damage, the court agreed with the refusal to compensate it due to the plaintiff’s failure to prove the claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed PERSON_1’s cassation appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance in the unchanged part and the постанову (ruling) of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 9901/57/21 dated May 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the removal of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from office.
2. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that the powers of the President of Ukraine are exhaustively defined by the Constitution of Ukraine, and there are no provisions that would allow the President to remove a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from office; the special constitutional and legal status of a judge of the Constituti
Constitutional Court of Ukraine provides guarantees of independence and inviolability, which exclude the possibility of applying measures to secure criminal proceedings against them without the consent of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine; the absence in the Constitution and the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” of a procedure for resolving the issue of removing a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not mean that the President has such powers; the principle of legal certainty requires clear legal argumentation, and the lack of presidential powers regarding the removal of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine undermines this certainty; all judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine have equal constitutional and legal status, regardless of the subject of appointment. The court also took into account that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court had already expressed a similar legal position in another case.
3. The court granted the claim and declared illegal and annulled the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the removal of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from office.
Case No. 127/16205/24 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her two minor children.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the father’s claim for deprivation of the mother’s parental rights, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the deprivation of the mother’s parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. The courts also noted that the fact that the mother is abroad is not an unconditional ground for depriving her of parental rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with such conclusions, pointing out that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not obtain the mandatory opinion of the guardianship and trusteeship body regarding one of the children, and did not hear the opinion of the children, which is important when resolving such disputes. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the mother’s lack of participation in the upbringing of the children and her residence abroad, which may indicate evasion of parental responsibilities. The court also took into account that the defendant’s expressed desire to participate in the upbringing of the children does not indicate her real interest in the children and her desire to change her behavior.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 756/10790/21 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the rights of the mortgagee, the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement, the cancellation of decisions on state registration, as well as the recognition of the invalidity of the mortgage agreement.
2. The Supreme Court partially disagreed with the conclusions of the appellateof the court that overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the cancellation of the court decision, on the basis of which the ownership of the subject of the mortgage was acquired, automatically terminates the mortgage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mortgage is derived from the main obligation and is valid until the termination of the main obligation or the expiration of the mortgage agreement, and the transfer of ownership of the subject of the mortgage to a third party is not a basis for termination of the mortgage. The Supreme Court emphasized that a canceled court decision does not create any legal consequences from the moment it was issued, but its cancellation in itself is not a basis for reviewing all legal facts that arose on the basis of the relevant decision. The Supreme Court also took into account that in case No. 756/15538/15-c it had already been established that the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” does not provide for such grounds for termination of a mortgage as the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer or the lack of the owner’s consent to the transfer of real estate to a mortgage. The Supreme Court indicated that in the resolution of June 15, 2021 in case No. 922/2416/17, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated, through specification, from the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the consequences of the cancellation of a court decision on the basis of which the entry on the encumbrance was excluded from the State Register of Mortgages.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part of resolving the claims for recognition of the mortgagee’s right, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, and changed the reasons for refusing to satisfy other claims.
Case No. 753/11948/23 dated 04/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the legality of applying Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to the convicted PERSON_7, who was convicted of theft committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances took into account all material circumstances of the case, in particular, mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse, assistance in solving the crime, compensation for damages), data on the identity of the accused (young age, no previous convictions, positive procedural behavior) and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The court also noted that the appellate court duly verified the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the leniency of the punishment and reasonably rejected them. In addition, the cassation court took into account that PERSON_7 is serving in the military and participating in combat operations. The court emphasized that the court’s discretionary powers regarding the imposition of punishment were exercised within the limits of the law, and the appellate court’s ruling is lawful, substantiated and reasoned.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and uphold the ruling of the Kyiv Appellat
The ruling of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal of October 10, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, remains unchanged.
**Case No. 369/11739/22 dated 05/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a will drafted in favor of the defendant as invalid, since the plaintiff believes that the testator’s expression of will was not free and did not correspond to her will, and that the requirements regarding the form and certification of the will were also violated.
2. The court granted the claim because it found that the requirements regarding its form were violated during the certification of the will, in particular, there are no grounds stipulated by law for the will to be signed by another person instead of the testator, and the specific physical disabilities of the testator that would make her personal signature impossible are not indicated; in addition, the witnesses were not present when the text of the will was read to the testator. The court also took into account that there are documents in the case file where the testator put her personal signature, and there is no evidence that she could not read or sign documents at the time of drawing up the will. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the arguments of the appeal do not refute the correctness of the conclusions of the court of first instance, and the witnesses did not confirm that the testator expressed a desire to bequeath the property to the defendant. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the courts fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, verified them with evidence, and came to a reasonable conclusion that there were grounds for recognizing the disputed will as invalid.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 718/2212/24 dated 04/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment of PERSON_7, convicted of illegal possession of weapons, drugs, and planting cannabis.
2. The court of cassation left the judgment of the appellate court without changes, agreeing that the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release PERSON_7 from serving his sentence with probation. The court took into account PERSON_7’s previous convictions, the severity of the crimes committed, and also the fact that release from punishment would not contribute to the correction of the convicted person. The court of cassation also noted that the storage of ammunition cannot be considered a minor act, since it poses a public danger. The appellate court, when imposing the punishment, took into account mitigating circumstances, such as admission of guilt and sincere remorse, and applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code, imposing a punishment lower than the lowest limit established by the sanction of the article.
3. The Supreme Court left the judgment of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal without changes, and the cassation appeals of the defender and the convicted person – without satisfaction.
href=”https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127138349″>Case No. 359/2836/23 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Subsidiary Company “Naftogaz Bioenergy” regarding the distribution of court costs and the return of court fees due to the closure of proceedings in the case on the claim for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the application, guided by the following: the proceedings in the case were closed due to the fact that the case is subject to consideration in the commercial court, not in the civil court; the plaintiff was informed of the right to file an application for the transfer of the case to the commercial court, but he did not do so; in this case, the issue of returning the court fee is resolved after the expiration of the deadline for filing an application for sending the case according to the established jurisdiction; since the plaintiff is exempt from paying court fees, the court fee paid by the defendant for filing a cassation appeal is subject to return; the court of appeal considered the case on the merits and did not close the proceedings, therefore the Supreme Court cannot resolve the issue of returning the court fee paid for filing an appeal.
3. The court ruled to partially grant the application of SC “Naftogaz Bioenergy” and ordered the return of the court fee paid for filing a cassation appeal.
Case No. 274/1658/21 dated April 28, 2025
Case No. 401/44/21 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of paternity of PERSON_2 in relation to PERSON_3 by a court decision and the introduction of changes to the civil registration record of the child’s birth.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as the defendant evaded the genetic examination appointed by the court to establish paternity, which, in accordance with Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, allowed the court to recognize the fact of paternity as established. The court took into account that the defendant was duly notified of the need to appear for the selection of biological samples, but did not do so without valid reasons. The court also took into account that the defendant did not deny the existence of a relationship with the child’s mother, and the establishment of paternity is in the best interests of the child, as provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court noted that DNA testing is an important piece of evidence in paternity cases, but intentional evasion of it allows the court to recognize the fact of paternity based on other available evidence. The court also indicated that the applicant did not substantiate the need to form a separate conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of procedural law in this case.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_2 and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances withoutamendments.
**Case No. 623/1555/20 dated 04/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code (violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
2. The Supreme Court points out that the appellate court, when imposing the sentence, did not take into account all the circumstances relevant to the individualization of the punishment, namely the positive characteristics of the convicted person, his participation in hostilities, sincere remorse, partial compensation for damages, as well as the position of the victim, who had no claims. The court also emphasized that the crime under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code is a crime of negligence, and the law does not contain reservations regarding the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code (release from serving a sentence with probation) to persons who committed such an act. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the probationary period established by the local court had expired, and there is no information about the convicted person’s failure to fulfill his assigned duties. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court’s conclusion about the impossibility of correcting the convicted person without isolation from society is unmotivated and not based on the materials of the criminal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court amended the appellate court’s judgment, releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation for a probationary period of 3 years.
**Case No. 361/8962/19 dated 04/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions for the compulsory sale of a land plot as invalid and compensation for damages caused, according to the plaintiff, by the unlawful actions of a private enforcement officer.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, motivating this by the fact that the private enforcement officer, when taking actions to search for the debtor’s property, established, on the basis of title documents and information from the State Land Cadastre, the debtor’s rights to the disputed land plot. The court took into account that although during the enforcement proceedings information about the ownership of the plot by another person was entered on the basis of a donation agreement, the decision to register this right was canceled. The appellate court emphasized that in order to acquire ownership of real estate before 2013, it was not enough to only conclude an agreement, state registration of property rights was necessary, which was not carried out. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of challenging the electronic auctions by a third party who considered themselves the owner of the plot.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
**Case No. 542/5**
**Case No. 9/22 dated 23/04/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement, cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, return of the land plot, and recovery of rent.
2. The court of appeal, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that although the original lessor received the rent in advance, there is no evidence of an agreement between the parties regarding the specific period for which the advance payment was made, therefore these agreements do not apply to the heir. The appellate court considered that since there were no changes in the contract regarding advance payment, the lessee improperly performed the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that the law does not prohibit the payment of rent in advance, and the signing of expenditure orders confirms the agreement to such a payment procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that the rights and obligations of the previous owner under the lease agreement pass to the new owner of the land plot, and the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances regarding the period for which the advance was paid, and whether this amount covers the rent for the disputed period.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
**Case No. 761/14055/22 dated 01/05/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of minor children and securing a counterclaim by obliging the mother not to obstruct the father’s communication with the child.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which reversed the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim, since the father did not prove the fact that the mother created obstacles in communication with the child and did not substantiate the need for such a measure. The court of appeal took into account that the proposed measure to secure the claim is abstract and non-specific, which may lead to abuse of procedural rights and violation of the child’s interests. Also, the court of cassation noted that promoting the restoration of relations and emotional contact between the child and one of the parents should prevail over the desire of other persons to limit or isolate the child from meetings, but in this case, there is no evidence to confirm that the mother actually obstructs the father’s communication with the child. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the mother’s violation of the deadlines for appellate appeal, since the appellate court reasonably reinstated this deadline.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged, recovering from the father in favor of the mother the costs of professional legal assistance in the court of cassation in the amount of UAH 2,000.
**Case No. 202/16769/23 dated 28/04/2025**
**Case [No.] Undefined**
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the term of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the criminal proceedings, since they did not take into account that, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the period from the date of the decision to suspend criminal proceedings to the date of its cancellation by the investigating judge is included in the terms of the pre-trial investigation. The court emphasized that the investigating judge exercises judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings, and his decision is a guarantee of the observance of these rights at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The court noted that the courts of previous instances prematurely closed the criminal proceedings, without taking into account all the circumstances, and made decisions with significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. Also, the court of cassation pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the cancellation of the decision to suspend the pre-trial investigation by the prosecutor, and not by the investigating judge, does not affect the calculation of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 755/16625/23 dated 04/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 due to the expiration of the term of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing out that the courts did not take into account important circumstances, namely: the prosecutor informed the defense that the materials of the pre-trial investigation contain 19 volumes, and not 17, as the defense believed. The suspects, realizing their right to familiarize themselves with the materials, did not actually confirm the fact that they were given access to the materials in full and did not express a clear position on unwillingness to familiarize themselves with the materials, but took actions to artificially create conditions for allegedly incomplete disclosure of the materials of the pre-trial investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the defense must confirm in writing the fact of familiarization with the materials, or confirm in writing the refusal to familiarize themselves. The court of cassation believes that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess these circumstances, which led to a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 520/1949/24 dated 05/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the refusal to recalculate
