**Case No. 751/2031/25 dated 08/05/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127190223](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127190223)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer a criminal proceeding from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different courts of appeal.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the arguments that the court relied upon when making the decision. Typically, the court takes into account circumstances such as ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the consideration of the case, the existence of circumstances that cast doubt on the court’s ability to consider the case impartially, ensuring the safety of the participants in the proceedings, as well as the complexity and scope of the case. Also, the court takes into account the stage of the judicial proceedings at which the motion is filed. The lack of justification in the operative part of the ruling does not allow to establish which arguments were decisive for the court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion to transfer the criminal proceeding from one court to another.
**Case No. 689/1771/23 dated 06/05/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127189844](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127189844)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is compensation for moral damages caused to a person as a result of unlawful criminal prosecution and an acquittal by the court.
2. The court of cassation upheld the plaintiff’s right to compensation for moral damages, as he was acquitted by the court, which is a basis for compensation for damages in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation of Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Engaged in Operative-Search Activity, Bodies of Pre-trial Investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Court.” The court took into account the length of time the plaintiff was under investigation and trial, as well as the provisions of the law establishing the minimum amount of compensation for moral damages for each month of such detention. The court noted that the determination of the amount of moral damages is not limited to the minimum amount and may be increased taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The court also emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly established the period of time the plaintiff was under investigation and trial and reasonably determined the amount of moral damages to be compensated. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, as the conclusions of the courts of previous instances did not contradict these conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the partial satisfaction of the claim for compensation for moral damages.
**Case No. 461/5264/22 dated 30/04/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127189835](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127189835)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of minor children and ensuring their communication with the mother during the court proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, emphasizing the priority of the best interests of the child in all cases concerning them.
and the importance of ensuring emotional contact between children and both parents, especially during a lengthy court process. The court took into account that the mother resides abroad, and ensuring remote communication (video calls, telephone calls) will contribute to maintaining the emotional connection between the children and the mother. The court noted that obstructing communication with the child by one of the parents is unacceptable, unless it harms the child. At the same time, the court agreed with the appellate court in the part regarding the cancellation of other measures to secure the claim, as they were not crucial for preserving the emotional connection between the mother and daughters and did not affect the possibility of enforcing a future court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part refusing to ensure the possibility of daily communication between the children and the mother via video and telephone communication, upholding the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged in the remaining part.
Case No. 206/3854/24 dated 05/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the appellate court to refuse to satisfy the application of a municipal enterprise for the compulsory hospitalization of a person to a psychiatric hospital without their consent.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, justifying this by the fact that the person was taken to the psychiatric institution without a referral from a local psychiatrist, but only on the basis of a police report, and the case file does not contain evidence of a deterioration in the person’s mental state at the time of delivery, which would pose an immediate danger to them or others. The court also noted that the decision of the court of first instance was based only on the conclusion of a commission of psychiatrists, made after the person was taken to the hospital, and that the deadline for examining the person by a commission of psychiatrists and filing an application for compulsory hospitalization to the court was also violated. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that compulsory hospitalization is possible only in the presence of a severe mental disorder that poses an immediate danger to the person or others, or the inability to independently satisfy their basic life needs, and also that treatment is possible only in inpatient settings. The court also took into account that at the time of the case’s consideration, the person had voluntarily undergone a course of treatment and did not pose a threat to themselves or others.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 202/21075/23 dated 30/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to privatize an apartment between the plaintiffs and the Department of Housing of the Dnipro City Council.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for recognition of the right to privatization, justifying this by the fact that the plaintiffs did not
submitted the full package of documents, including a warrant for occupancy. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the absence of a warrant is not an unconditional basis for refusing privatization, especially when the plaintiffs have resided in the apartment for a long time, are registered there, bear the costs of its maintenance, and their right to privatization within the housing check has not been fully realized. The court also pointed to the need to take into account the principle of good governance and the close connection of the plaintiffs with the housing, which is important under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized the need to verify the effectiveness of the method chosen by the plaintiffs to protect their rights.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 464/2647/22 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of interest under a loan agreement, namely 3% per annum and inflation losses, accrued on the amount of debt that had already been recovered by a previous court decision.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering 3% per annum and inflation losses only within the three-year statute of limitations that preceded the appeal to the court with this claim. The court took into account the defendant’s statement on the application of the statute of limitations and the provisions of paragraph 18 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which exempts the borrower from liability under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (inflation losses and 3% per annum) for the period of martial law and 30 days after its completion. The court also noted that the debtor’s failure to fulfill the monetary obligation is a continuing offense, but the right to claim is limited to the last three years preceding the filing of the claim. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, considering them unfounded and amounting to a reassessment of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 316/2369/19 dated 05/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of decisions on the privatization of an apartment, a certificate of ownership, and a purchase and sale agreement, as well as the recognition of a person who privatized the apartment as having lost the right to use the housing.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared invalid the order on privatization, the certificate of ownership, and the purchase and sale agreement of the apartment, since the privatization took place without the consent of the plaintiff, who also had the right to privatize this housing. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the improper notification of the defendant about court hearings, as she was duly notified.
via electronic cabinet and at the address indicated by her for correspondence. The court also rejected the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of witness testimony, as these pieces of evidence were not decisive in making the decision to grant the claim regarding the invalidation of the transactions related to the apartment. The court emphasized that the party to the case who was improperly notified can invoke this as a ground for appealing the decision, and that the defendant did not prove the violation of her right to participate in the consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 161/6489/22 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding criminal offenses under Articles 127, 146, 187, 263, 289, 297 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as concerning other individuals under Articles 127, 146, 185, 289, 297 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments. It is only evident from the text that the hearing took place in the cassation criminal court, composed of three judges, with the participation of the prosecutor and the court secretary. The court heard the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6. Given that the full text of the ruling will be announced later, it is currently impossible to provide the court’s arguments that it relied upon when making its decision. The court refers to Articles 376, 433, 434, 436, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC). It is also stated that the ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement, is final, and not subject to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6.
Case No. 759/7269/21 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds to compensate for the necessary expenses for the maintenance and preservation of property, namely 1/2 of a residential building owned by the defendant.
2. The court refused to grant the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that they had taken measures to inform the defendant about the need for repairs, and also did not prove the urgent need for major repairs, as the emergency condition of the building was not confirmed by a relevant expert opinion. The court noted that the mere fact of mentioning the impossibility of normal operation of the building in the report does not indicate the existence of a danger of destruction of the property. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove that they are a person entitled to make a claim against the defendant. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, noting that the plaintiff did not fulfill the obligation to notify the defendant of their actions, which is a necessary condition for the emergence of the right to reimbursement of expenses. The court of cassation also emphasized that the conclusions of the courtsThe decisions of the previous instances do not contradict the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №947/4452/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of mobilization).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, dismissing the convicted person’s cassation appeal. The operative part of the resolution does not provide specific arguments that the court relied on, but it states that the full text of the resolution with justification will be announced later. Therefore, it is currently impossible to determine the motives that guided the Supreme Court in making the decision, as only the operative part is available. For a complete analysis, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the court decision.
3. The verdict of the Kyiv District Court of Odesa and the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6 were left unchanged, and the convicted person’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case №207/2612/21 dated 23/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on mortgaged property and the eviction of the debtor due to non-performance of obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of first instance closed the proceedings without considering the case on its merits, and the court of appeal, having overturned the decision of the court of first instance, mistakenly did not send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, but made a new decision to dismiss the claim, thereby violating the rules of procedural law. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal should have sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration, since the decision to close the proceedings is procedural and indicates that the court of first instance did not consider the claims on their merits. The court of cassation also noted that the additional decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim, made after the closure of the proceedings, does not indicate consideration of the case on its merits. The court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal made an erroneous conclusion about the consideration of the claims on their merits, since it reviews the decisions of the courts of first instance after their consideration on the merits.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову [ruling/resolution] of the court of appeal, sending the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.
Case №751/5180/23 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the correctness of the qualification of the actions of PERSON_7, who was found guilty by the courts of first and appellate instances of committing intentional homicide exceeding the limits of necessary defense (Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and the prosecutor insists on a ququalification of her actions as intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not thoroughly verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the absence of a state of necessary defense in the actions of the convicted person, did not properly assess the totality of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the convicted person herself, eyewitness testimonies, expert opinions, audio recording of her conversation with the “102” operator, and video recordings from the body camera of police officers. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not ascertain whether the victim’s actions were a socially dangerous encroachment that posed a real threat to the life and health of the convicted person, and whether her intent was directed precisely at defense, and not at causing harm to the victim. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not adequately motivate why it gave preference to some evidence over others. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account the state of alcohol intoxication of the convicted person and the victim, their previous relationship, and the conflict over the shared apartment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 161/6683/19 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, who was found guilty of committing criminal offenses under Part 4 of Article 358, Part 1 of Article 187, and Part 2 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the appellate court, pointing to a number of violations. The appellate court did not state in the verdict all the factual circumstances of the crime, in particular, the repeated nature and state of alcohol intoxication during the illegal seizure of a vehicle. Also, contradictions were found in the verdict between the reasoning and operative parts. The appellate court did not take into account the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability under Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and did not explain the consequences of this to the accused, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law and incorrect application of the law on criminal liability. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the punishment imposed by the appellate court within the minimum limits of Part 1 of Article 187 and Part 2 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine should be considered lenient.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for PERSON_7 in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
Case No. 646/2223/18 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the accusation of PERSON_7 in committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the arguments of the court. A full text of the resolution is needed for their analysis.
3. The ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal dated November 11, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, isleft unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6 – without satisfaction.
Case No. 619/4687/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of invalidity of agreements on the provision of electric energy distribution services, on the provision of commercial accounting services for electric energy, and on the supply of electric energy by a universal service provider, concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff actually consumed electric energy and paid the bills, which indicates his accession to the terms of the agreements with energy supply companies, despite his claim about the absence of an electrical installation in his household; the court also noted that the act on the absence of an electrical installation, drawn up by the plaintiff together with unidentified persons, is not proper evidence, and a certificate on the absence of information about the electrical installation is not proof of its absence. The court took into account that the consumption of electricity and payment of bills are actions that confirm the consumer’s desire to conclude an agreement, and also referred to the fact that the agreements are public adhesion agreements, the terms of which were accepted by the plaintiff through consumption and payment of electricity. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the invalidity of the agreements, provided for in Articles 203, 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation instance left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 759/3986/23 dated 05/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the restoration of the civil capacity of an individual who was previously declared incapacitated.
2. The court of first instance, with which the court of appeal agreed, satisfied the application for the restoration of civil capacity, relying on the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination, which confirmed a significant improvement in the mental state of the applicant, previously declared incapacitated. The court of cassation instance rejected the cassation appeal, recognizing that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasized that for the restoration of legal capacity, an expert opinion on a significant improvement in health or recovery of a person is necessary. The court also noted that there were no grounds for appointing a repeated examination, since no reasoned arguments were provided that would refute the conclusion of the initial examination. In addition, the court of cassation instance does not have the authority to establish new circumstances of the case or re-evaluate the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes, confirming the restoration of the person’s civil capacity.
Case No. 554/7965/21 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a donation agreement for a part of a residential building.
and cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights to this property.
3. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the claims, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiffs did not prove the violation of their rights by the disputed donation agreement, since their shares in the joint property did not change. The court noted that the owner has the right to independently dispose of his/her share in the joint partial ownership, and in this case, PERSON_2 rightfully disposed of the 67/100 shares of the house belonging to him/her. The court also emphasized that the consent of other co-owners to the donation of the share is not required, since the right of pre-emptive purchase does not apply to donation agreements. The court took into account that PERSON_2’s ownership of the alienated share is confirmed by the relevant title documents. The court did not find any violations of the norms of procedural law in the adoption of the additional decision of the court of appeal.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 757/33591/22-ц dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions and the act of conducting the auctions as invalid, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the courts mistakenly applied the norms of substantive law and violated the norms of procedural law. The court noted that the plaintiff’s ownership of 1/2 of the non-residential premises was registered back in 2009, so there was no need for additional registration of this right in the State Register of Real Property Rights after the division of the spouses’ property. Also, the court indicated that the plaintiff was aware of the open enforcement proceedings and the actions of the private enforcement officer, but did not take any measures to protect his rights. In addition, the court noted that the property was sold at electronic auctions, and not at a fixed price, as the courts of previous instances mistakenly indicated. Taking all this into account, the court concluded that there are no grounds for recognizing the auctions as invalid and recovering the property from the acquirer.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and dismissed the claim.
Case No. 761/24719/20 dated May 7, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of the Kyiv City Council and the Department of Land Resources regarding the refusal to grant the plaintiff a land plot as discrimination.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the fact of discrimination based on a certain personal characteristic on the part of the defendants, and also did not provide evidence of biased attitude towards him. The court noted that the very fact that a person applies to a competent authority in order to exercise the right to obtain a land plot does not confirm the emergence of such a person’s reasonable right to appeal to the court in the event that this plot is granted to another person. Resolved
The handling of the issue of land allocation should be carried out in compliance with the principles of good faith and reasonableness. The court also indicated that non-execution of a court decision cannot indicate discrimination, and the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to apply to the court within the framework of judicial control over the execution of court decisions. The court took into account that liability for non-execution of a court decision is provided for by Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the plaintiff can protect their rights within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 523/3985/13-c dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the renewal of the term for presenting enforcement documents for execution and the issuance of duplicates of writs of execution.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the application of JSC “Universal Bank” for renewal of the term and issuance of duplicates of writs of execution, motivating this by the fact that the bank provided sufficient evidence of the loss of the originals of the writs of execution, which is the basis for issuing duplicates. The court took into account that the applicant applied to the court with a corresponding application, as well as the recognition by the state executive service of the fact of loss of duplicates of writs of execution. The debtors’ arguments that they were not properly notified of the court hearings were rejected, since the case file contains evidence of sending them summonses, and their failure to appear is not an obstacle to the consideration of the case. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a revaluation of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 756/14949/15-c dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in a case on the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and the recognition of the termination of surety, namely, the replacement of the original creditor (JSC “UkrSibbank”) with its legal successor (LLC “FC “Ukfinstandard”).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances on replacing the party in the case. The court noted that procedural succession is possible at any stage of the process and is closely related to the substantive one, since it provides for the transfer of rights and obligations from one person to another. The Supreme Court emphasized that the replacement of the creditor in an obligation does not require the consent of the debtor, unless otherwise established by the agreement or the law, and that the rights of the original creditor are transferred to the new creditor to the extent and under the conditions that existed at the time of the transfer of these rights. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding improper notification of one of the defendants, since the appellant cannot appeal the violation of the rights of another person who did not file a cassation appeal. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out the error of the court of first
