Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 26/05/2025

Case №381/2544/15-а dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal inaction of the Kyiv City Council and the Main Department of Land Resources of the Kyiv City State Administration regarding the failure to amend the decision of the Kyiv City Council on the transfer of land plots to members of the garden association.

2. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal rightfully considered the case based on the available materials, since the restoration of the lost court proceedings was impossible. The court noted that the interference of the court of first instance in the exclusive competence of the Kyiv City Council and the Main Department of Land Resources regarding making changes to the list of land plots is inadmissible. Also, the court of appeal reasonably pointed out the lack of evidence of the plaintiff’s appeal to the defendants with a demand to amend the decision of the Kyiv City Council, which indicates the absence of illegal inaction on their part. The Supreme Court emphasized that resolving issues of registration and issuance of documents on ownership of land plots falls within the discretionary powers of the Kyiv City Council and the Main Department of Land Resources, and interference in these powers is inadmissible. The court of cassation also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to support his claims and actually withdrew from the consideration of the case.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.

Case №400/10605/23 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of returning to the prosecutor a statement of claim regarding the obligation of a communal enterprise to bring a civil defense protective structure to a proper condition.

2. S
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to return the statement of claim to the prosecutor, as it concluded that the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MD SES) in the Mykolaiv region, in whose interests the prosecutor applied to the court, does not have the authority to file such a claim. The court noted that the powers of the SES to apply to the court are clearly defined by law, and no regulatory legal act gives it the right to demand through the court that protective structures be brought into readiness. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor cannot be considered an alternative subject of appeal to the court and replace the proper subject of power who can and wants to protect the interests of the state. The court pointed out that the prosecutor may apply in the interests of the state only in exceptional cases when the subject of power cannot do it independently.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

Case No. 380/30282/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Office of the Prosecutor General in favor of the plaintiff of debt on monetary compensation for unused days of basic and additional vacations.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for compensation for unused vacations, based on the fact that when calculating the amount of compensation, it is necessary to take into account the payments made to the plaintiff in the calculation period, including the average salary for the period of delay in the execution of the court decision on reinstatement. The court noted that the basis should be the total earnings for 12 calendar months, which are divided by the number of calendar days in this period to determine the average daily wage, which is then multiplied by the number of days of unused vacation. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the need to exclude from the calculation period the time when the employee did not work, since the average salary was maintained for this period. The court also emphasized that the availability of data on accrued wages in 2023 allows the use of these payments to calculate compensation.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Office of the Prosecutor General and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

Case No. 592/5221/22 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to change the verdict regarding a serviceman convicted of failing to report for duty on time under martial law.
2. The appellate court, changing the verdict of the court of first instance, took into account the mitigating circumstances, the identity of the accused, and the martial law declared in Ukraine, considering it inappropriate to apply punishment in the form of detention in a disciplinary battalion. The appellate court decided that punishment in the form of official restriction
it is no longer expedient, as it will not entail a violation of the principles of balance and will ensure a fair balance between the interests of society and the rights of the individual. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that the prosecutor did not provide convincing arguments regarding the manifest unfairness of the imposed sentence, and the applied measure of coercion complies with the general principles of sentencing, the principles of legality, fairness, validity, and individualization of punishment. The court of cassation also took into account that the convicted person continues to perform military service.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 463/2401/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the convicted person’s appeal against the decision of the appellate court regarding the imposition of an additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance in the part regarding the imposition of the sentence, since the local court did not substantiate why it did not impose an additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles, despite gross violations of the Traffic Regulations, which resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim. The court took into account the convicted person’s previous administrative penalties for violations of the Traffic Regulations, as well as the fact that the deprivation of the right to drive will not deprive him of his main source of income, since he is a pensioner. The arguments of the defense regarding the need to drive a car to raise a grandson were rejected, since the child has parents. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the imposed punishment is fair, necessary and proportionate to the severity of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the convicted person provides passenger transportation services in a taxi, since the relevant contract was not provided during the appeal proceedings, and the evidence provided does not confirm the fact of such activity.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 575/696/22 dated May 20, 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_7 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, since the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, in particular the testimony of witnesses, expert opinions, protocols of the scene examination and other materials that confirm the guilt of PERSON_7 in intentional homicide. The court noted that the actions of PERSON_7 were qualified correctly, since he was aware of the socially dangerous nature of his act, foresaw the consequences and desired their occurrence. The court rejected the defense counsel’s arguments about the need to reclassify the actions of PERSON_7 as sArticle 116 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide committed under the influence of strong emotional disturbance), since it was not established that the victim’s cruel treatment or humiliation of honor and dignity were systematic and directly provoked the murder. The court also took into account that PERSON_7 fired shots from an automatic weapon, which he had prepared in advance, indicating an intent to deal with the victim. The cassation court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not commit significant violations of the criminal procedure law and ensured the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 420/7245/23 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of border detachments regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman for participating in combat operations.

2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully establish the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not clarify what specific tasks the plaintiff performed during the disputed period, limiting themselves only to checking the existence of a certificate of direct participation in combat operations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should examine the entire body of evidence, including combat orders, combat logs, reports of commanders, and verify whether these documents confirm the serviceman’s participation in combat operations during a specified period. The court also noted that violations of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot automatically deprive a serviceman of the right to remuneration if other evidence indicates his actual participation in combat operations. In addition, the Supreme Court recalled that the obligation to draw up documents rests with the commanders of military units, and the negligence of officials should not have negative consequences for the serviceman.

3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 400/9675/23 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine to terminate the right to use subsoil by Voznesenska Trade and Industrial Company LLC by annulling a special permit, given that the ultimate beneficial owner of the company is a citizen of the Russian Federation.

2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal of Voznesenska Trade and Industrial Company LLC, noted that although the amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil prohibit legal entities associated with the aggressor state from being subsoil users, Article 26 of the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil, which defines the grounds for annulling a special permit, does not contain such a ground as the presence of a beneficial owner with citizenship of the aggressor state. The court emphasized that the annulment of a permit is possible only on the grounds clearly defined in
conferred by Article 26 of the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the annulment of a special permit for the use of subsoil on grounds not provided for by law is a violation of the 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. The Court took into account that no sanctions were applied to the company that would provide for the annulment of the permit. The Court also noted that amendments to legislation regarding the list of subsoil users do not provide for the automatic annulment of permits already issued.

4. The Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claim of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine.

Case No. 757/14434/20-ц dated 21/05/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damage caused to a person as a result of a court decision that was subsequently overturned.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that there were no grounds for granting the claim. It noted that the law does not provide for the possibility of holding the court liable for the decision made, except in cases of a crime or disciplinary offense. Also, the overturning of a court decision in itself is not a basis for compensation for moral damage. The court emphasized that appealing against the actions of judges and court decisions is possible only in the manner prescribed by procedural law. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all the necessary conditions for holding the state liable, namely: unlawful actions of a state authority, the existence of damage, and a causal connection between them. The court also noted that the information contained in the court decision cannot be considered false information that is subject to refutation.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

Case No. 295/10495/23 dated 21/05/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of a decision on state registration of ownership of a part of a residential building.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as the plaintiff did not prove that his rights were violated by the challenged decision on state registration. The courts found that the registration by the defendant of ownership of a part of the house with an extension does not indicate the impossibility of registration of ownership by the plaintiff of the part of the house allocated to him by a court decision. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of applying to the state registrar for registration of his ownership right and receiving a refusal. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the very fact of registration of ownership of a part of the house with an extension does not indicate the impossibility of registration of ownership of the part of the house allocated to the plaintiff by a court decision. The court of cassation is a court of law, not of fact, and does not re-evaluate evidence.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation
that the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 466/13466/23 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the convicted PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in the part of sentencing based on the aggregate of judgments.

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, motivating it by the fact that the appellate court, when imposing a sentence based on the aggregate of judgments in accordance with Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, did not take into account the additional penalty of confiscation of property, which was imposed by the previous judgment, which is an incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Also, the appellate court did not examine the data characterizing the accused, which the prosecutor requested, which is a significant violation of the criminal procedural law. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court should have imposed a sentence that would be greater than the sentence for the new offense, as well as greater than the unserved part of the sentence under the previous judgment. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the appellate court’s judgment and order a new trial in the court of appeal.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal of June 26, 2024, regarding PERSON_6 and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.

Case No. 243/687/23 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land from someone else’s illegal possession.

2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that PERSON_1 illegally acquired ownership of the land plot, as she repeatedly exercised the right to free privatization, and then sold it to PERSON_2. The court noted that since the plot left the possession of the territorial community against its will on the basis of an illegal order, it must be recovered from the bona fide acquirer, which is PERSON_2. The court also took into account that PERSON_2, having exercised reasonable care, could have known about violations of land legislation during the acquisition of the plot by PERSON_1. The court rejected arguments about the application of the statute of limitations, since the prosecutor applied to the court within three years from the date of detection of the violation. The court also emphasized that PERSON_2 has the right to demand compensation for damages from PERSON_1.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 759/13850/22 dated 22/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot and the entry in the land register, since the plaintiffs believe that this prevents them from formalizing the right to use the land plot for the maintenance of their house.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as
However, the plaintiffs did not prove how the state registration of the land plot by the defendant violates their rights or legitimate interests, but only expressed an abstract statement about the impact on their right to formalize the use of the plot. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence regarding the area, boundaries, and configuration of the land plot necessary for the maintenance of their house, and that the registration of the plot itself cannot violate their rights merely because of the desire to obtain this plot into ownership or use. The court also took into account that the task of civil proceedings is to protect already violated rights, and not to satisfy future possible interests. In addition, the court noted that the cancellation of state registration of a land plot is possible only in cases provided by law, in particular, if no real right was registered for it within a year after registration due to the fault of the applicant, which the plaintiffs did not prove.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 633/372/20 dated 05/15/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement as invalid and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of another real right, since the plaintiff believes that his representative concluded the agreement exceeding his authority and contrary to his interests.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that his representative acted exceeding the powers granted by the power of attorney, which expressly stipulated the representative’s right to conclude lease agreements without any restrictions on the terms of the agreement. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of a malicious agreement between the representative and the defendant, and the terms of the agreement, in particular the term of the lease and the amount of rent, comply with the requirements of current legislation. In addition, the absence in the agreement of liability for non-payment of rent is not a basis for recognizing it as invalid, since the tenant is not released from the obligation to fulfill the agreement and is liable for its non-performance in accordance with the law. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not contact the defendant with a proposal to change the terms of the agreement.

3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 910/10971/23 dated 05/22/2025

The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the results of open tenders and the contract as invalid, as well as the recognition of the contract as concluded.

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, leaving them unchanged. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the open tenders, the conclusion of the supply contract and established the absence of violations that could be the basis for recognizing them as invalid. Also, the courts probably did not find grounds for recognizing the contract as concluded on the terms proposed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, having verified the legality and validity of the court
The Supreme Court did not find any violations of substantive and procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the dispute in the appealed court decisions. The absence of reasonable grounds for overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances was a key factor in the decision of the Supreme Court.

The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Interpipe Ukraine LLC and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.

Case No. 187/535/19 dated 12/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of violating traffic safety rules, which resulted in the consequences provided for in Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Since only the operative part of the постанову is provided, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive analysis of the court’s arguments. However, given that the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, it can be assumed that the court agreed with their conclusions regarding the absence of the elements of a crime under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the person’s actions, or the insufficiency of evidence of their guilt. It is possible that the courts of previous instances established the absence of a causal link between the person’s actions and the consequences that occurred, or the existence of other circumstances that exclude criminal liability. It is also possible that violations of procedural law were established during the pre-trial investigation or trial, which affected the legality and validity of the verdict. A full text of the court decision is required for a more accurate analysis.

The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim.

Case No. 522/17/21 dated 30/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Bright Investment LLC against individuals and legal entities for the renewal of the mortgage record, invalidation of apartment sale and purchase agreements, cancellation of decisions and records on state registration of ownership of it, since the plaintiff believes that its rights as a mortgagee were violated as a result of the forgery of a court decision, on the basis of which the mortgage was terminated.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that for the emergence of rights in the new mortgagee, not only a notarized agreement on the assignment of rights under the mortgage agreement is necessary, but also state registration of real rights to immovable property. Since the agreement on the assignment of the claim between FC Dniprofinansgroup LLC and Bright Investment LLC was not notarized, Bright Investment LLC did not acquire the right of mortgagee and, accordingly, is an improper plaintiff in the case. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the impossibility of notarizing the agreement due to the lack of the original mortgage agreement, since it was possible to obtain a duplicate. The court of cassation
he emphasized that the requirement for notarial certification of the agreement must be clearly stipulated by law, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the agreement null and void.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Bright Investment LLC, leaving the appellate court’s decision unchanged.

**Case No. 592/5221/22 dated May 20, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the indictment of PERSON_6 for committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, dismissing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, but the reasons for such a decision are unclear from the operative part. The full text of the resolution will be announced later, which makes it impossible to provide a detailed analysis at this time. The judges only indicated the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code that they were guided by when making the decision.

The court ruled to uphold the appellate court’s ruling and dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

**Case No. 635/2761/15-ц dated May 21, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of land plots from the illegal possession of a private individual and their return to the permanent use of a state enterprise.

2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for the recovery of land plots, citing the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account that the prosecutor filed the lawsuit, inter alia, in the interests of the state enterprise, and the prosecutor does not have the authority to represent the interests of state enterprises in court. In addition, the appellate court did not establish when exactly the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine, in whose interests the lawsuit was also filed, learned or could have learned about the violation of its rights, which is important for determining the commencement of the statute of limitations. Since the appellate court did not investigate these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided that the appellate court’s decision should be overturned, and the case should be sent for a new trial.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims filed in the interests of the state enterprise and dismissed the claim in this part, and in the part of the claims filed in the interests of the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine, overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

**Case No. 707/2954/23 dated May 21, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the order of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” on the suspension of the employment contract with the plaintiff and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.

2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the employee’s claims.
, based on the fact that the employer failed to prove the existence of legal grounds for suspending the employment contract, as JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” continued to operate, and the plaintiff’s workplace was not destroyed, i.e., there was an objective possibility to provide her with work, including remotely. The court noted that the suspension of the employment contract is possible only if it is simultaneously impossible for the employer to provide work and for the employee to perform it, which was not proven in this case. Also, the court took into account that at the time of the challenged order, there was a quarantine established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which extended the deadlines for applying to the court, defined by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court also applied the analogy of the law, namely the provisions of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, regarding the recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence, since the Labor Code of Ukraine does not have a direct provision that would regulate the issue of payment of average earnings for the time of illegal suspension of the employment contract.

3. The court of cassation upheld the appeal of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court without changes.

**Case No. 183/3170/22 dated 05/14/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the exclusion of information about paternity from the civil registration of a child’s birth.

2. The court dismissed the claim for exclusion of information about paternity, as a genetic examination established the probability of the plaintiff’s paternity of the child at the level of 99.9999%, which indicates the presence of blood relationship. The court noted that the expert’s opinion is proper evidence, which does not raise doubts about its validity, and the plaintiff’s arguments about the absence of intimate relations before marriage do not refute the results of the examination. The court also rejected the motion for a re-examination, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient grounds for doubts about the correctness of the initial expert opinion. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first instance and appellate instance, and it does not have the authority to interfere in this assessment. The court of cassation also noted that it cannot order an examination, as it is a court of law, not a court of fact.

3. The court upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts – without changes.

**Case No. 130/744/24 dated 05/21/2025**

The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 162 (violation of inviolability of dwelling) and Part 1 of Article 152 (rape) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defender and the prosecutor, overturning the decision of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. In making this decision, the Supreme Court likely took into account the arguments of the cassation appeals regarding the incompleteness of the appellate review or significant violations of criminal procedure.
of procedural law that could have affected the legality and validity of the appellate court’s ruling. The court also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which give grounds to believe that the accused may evade the court or commit other criminal offenses. The appointment of a new appellate review should ensure a comprehensive, complete and impartial investigation of all the circumstances of the case and the adoption of a lawful and well-reasoned decision.

The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.

Case No. 320/136/23 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv regarding the reduction of the plaintiff’s pension after its recalculation in execution of court decisions.

2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, focused on several key aspects. Firstly, it rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about violations of the procedure for determining the composition of the court of appeal, as no violations were found during the automated distribution of the case. Secondly, the court emphasized that disagreement with the results of the pension recalculation, carried out in execution of previous court decisions, is not a basis for a new lawsuit, since there are mechanisms for controlling the execution of court decisions provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court also noted that interference in the process of execution of a court decision by adopting a new decision is unacceptable, as it contradicts the principles of enforcement proceedings. Regarding the claim for compensation for moral damages, the court agreed with the appellate instance that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of moral damage and the causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the negative consequences for the plaintiff.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims regarding the obligation to recalculate the pension on the basis of previous court decisions and closed the proceedings in this part, and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged in the other part of the claims.

Case No. 522/13547/24 dated 04/29/2025
The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal to the person who appealed the investigating judge’s decision on the failure to enter information about a criminal offense into the ERDR.

The cassation court found that the appellate court mistakenly returned the appeal, believing that it was filed by a person who does not have the right to appeal, since the appeal was delivered to the court by the applicant’s authorized representative. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have clarified whether the appeal was made and signed by a person who has the right to file it, and not focus on the method of its delivery.
on the court. In addition, the court noted that the appellate court could have clarified the issue of authorship of the complaint during the appellate hearing with the participation of the applicant. Thus, the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the criminal procedure law, which is a significant violation that prevented the adoption of a lawful and justified court decision.

The court decided to cancel the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 759/10061/20 dated 20/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the acquittal of PERSON_6, accused of committing criminal offenses under Part 3 of Article 305, Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, however, the reasons for such a decision are not stated in the operative part. Considering that only the operative part has been announced, the full arguments of the court will be known after the full text of the ruling is pronounced. Currently, it can only be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the insufficiency of evidence of PERSON_6’s guilt or the presence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law that led to the acquittal. The judges of the cassation instance probably found no grounds to overturn the decision of the appellate court, considering it lawful and justified. A more detailed analysis requires familiarization with the full text of the ruling, which will contain all the reasons and justifications for the decision made.

The court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 910/8801/24 dated 22/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s unilateral termination of the bank account agreement with an individual entrepreneur as invalid.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the entrepreneur’s claim, as the bank lawfully terminated the agreement due to the establishment of an unacceptably high level of risk for the client. The appellate court found that the entrepreneur’s activity was suspicious, as she tried to carry out a financial transaction for a person who is under sanctions. The bank, as a primary financial monitoring entity, is obliged to refuse business relations with clients who pose a high risk. The entrepreneur did not provide the necessary information for verification, which became the basis for establishing a high level of risk. The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances examined all the circumstances of the case and came to a reasonable conclusion about the lawfulness of the bank’s actions.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the entrepreneur’s claim.

Case No. 522/13547/24 dated 29/04/2025
The subject of the dispute is the return of the appeal complaint to PERSON_6.

The court
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court, when returning the complaint, did not take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring the right of access to court. The court noted that the formal requirements for an appeal should not prevent the realization of the right to appeal a court decision, especially when the shortcomings of the complaint are not significant and can be eliminated. In addition, the court pointed out the need to provide the appellant with the opportunity to correct the shortcomings of the complaint before making a decision on its return. The court also took into account that the return of the complaint may have consequences for the fate of the criminal proceedings, therefore the appellate court must act with particular caution. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court violated the person’s right to a fair trial.

The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.

Case No. 206/3940/23 dated 05/21/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the application of a municipal enterprise for the provision of psychiatric care to a person in compulsory order through hospitalization to a psychiatric institution.

2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application for compulsory hospitalization, emphasizing the need to comply with the strict requirements of the law for such interference with human rights. The court indicated that compulsory hospitalization is possible only if several conditions are met simultaneously: treatment is possible only in a hospital setting, a severe mental disorder has been established, as a result of which the person poses an immediate danger to themselves or others, or cannot independently satisfy their basic life needs. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the deprivation of liberty of a mentally ill person is possible only if the mental disorder is proven, the need to be kept in the hospital, and the justification for prolonged treatment. The court emphasized that the conclusion of the commission of psychiatrists is not in itself sufficient for compulsory hospitalization if there is no evidence that the person is committing actions that pose an immediate danger to themselves or others.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged, confirming the refusal of compulsory hospitalization of the person to a psychiatric institution.

Case No. 309/3373/21 dated 05/14/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of an illegally constructed real estate object.

2. The court of cassation instance established that the plaintiff applied to the court with a proper method of protection, namely a claim for recognition of ownership of illegally constructed property, which complies with Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the appellate court mistakenly considered the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Planning to be an improper defendant, since the Khust City Council is the proper defendant. However, the court of cassation instance
The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the building’s compliance with state building codes, which is a necessary condition for granting a claim for recognition of ownership of unauthorized construction. As a result, the court of cassation agreed with the refusal to satisfy the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, pointing to the failure to prove the building’s compliance with building codes, and not to procedural violations.

4. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.

Case №359/7950/23 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly acquired property of spouses, namely a residential building and a land plot.

2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances, in particular, the defendant’s consent to the conclusion of contracts for the sale of the disputed property, which was recorded directly in the contract. The Supreme Court referred to its previous practice, according to which the provision by one of the spouses of consent to the acquisition of property by the other spouse indicates an intention to acquire this property as joint joint ownership. The appellate court did not clarify the content of this consent and did not substantiate why it rejected the defendant’s arguments that the existence of consent indicates joint ownership of the property. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances did not establish the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the case.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the division of the disputed residential building and land plot and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case №207/2396/22 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as having lost the right to use a residential premises and forced eviction.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for eviction of the granddaughter (PERSON_3) from the apartment. The courts proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of systematic violation by the defendant of the rules of cohabitation, which makes it impossible to live with her in the same apartment. The courts took into account that the apartment is the only housing for the defendant and her minor child, and eviction without providing other housing will be a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for housing, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Also, the courts noted that the existence of a prolonged family conflict is not enough for eviction, and the fact of applying to law enforcement agencies without proven systematic violations is not a basis for satisfying the claim. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.

3. The Supreme
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

Case No. 759/13330/22 dated May 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings on the reinstatement of an employee of SE NNEGC Energoatom.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of SE NNEGC Energoatom against the actions of the state enforcement officer. The courts proceeded from the fact that the state enforcement officer acted within the limits of his/her authority and in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since the writ of execution met the requirements of the law, and the presence in it of the debtor’s address, which did not quite correspond to reality, is not a basis for refusing to open enforcement proceedings. The court noted that the state enforcement officer had the right to indicate both addresses of the debtor in the decision to open enforcement proceedings, especially considering that at the stage of appellate review, the debtor was replaced with SE NNEGC Energoatom. In addition, the courts took into account that the court decision on the reinstatement of the employee became legally binding.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE NNEGC Energoatom and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

Case No. 917/753/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a standard natural gas supply agreement by a “last resort” supplier.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions regarding the partial satisfaction of the claim. The courts of previous instances, reducing the amount of penalty by 50%, took into account that the defendant is an operator of the gas distribution system, a natural monopoly and a critical infrastructure enterprise, and also took into account the difficult financial condition of the defendant and the possible negative consequences of recovering the full amount of the penalty for the enterprise and the population. The court of cassation emphasized that the issue of reducing the amount of the penalty is a discretionary right of the court, which is decided taking into account the specific circumstances of each case, and is not the task of the cassation court. The court of cassation also noted that the reduction of the amount of the penalty does not contradict the conclusions of the Supreme Court, to which the appellant referred, since the issue of reducing the penalty in each specific case is referred to the discretion of the court.

3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

Case No. 910/8801/24 dated May 22, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a unilateral transaction made by the bank against an individual entrepreneur as invalid.