Case No. 753/15296/20 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of certificates of ownership of apartments as invalid and the cancellation of entries on state registration, as well as the recognition of ownership of the apartment by the Homeowners Association (HOA).
2. The court of cassation considered cassation appeals against two rulings of the appellate court: on the closure of appellate proceedings and on the refusal of procedural succession. Regarding the ruling on the refusal of procedural succession, the Supreme Court noted that such a ruling is not subject to cassation appeal, and closed the cassation proceedings in this part. Regarding the ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the person who filed the appeal acquired ownership of the real estate after the decision of the court of first instance, and this decision does not violate their rights and interests. The court of cassation emphasized that the person is not deprived of the right to protect their interests in other court proceedings related to this property. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings unchanged, and closed the cassation proceedings on the cassation appeal against the ruling on the refusal to implement procedural succession.
Case No. 392/1727/19 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the representative of the civil defendant PrJSC “IC “PZU Ukraine” against the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments. It only appears from the text that the court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the representative of the civil defendant, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. The reasons for overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial are not given. The full text of the resolution will be announced later, and only then will it be possible to understand the logic of the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 372/2408/19 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of criminal proceedings against a person accused of receiving illegal benefits (bribe) due to the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court, in closing the criminal proceedings, did not directly examine the evidence and procedural docdocuments that were in the case file to verify the defense’s arguments regarding non-compliance with the terms of the pre-trial investigation. The appellate court did not examine the evidence, although it should have done so, especially when its decision contradicts the decision of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is, in fact, the last instance for verifying the completeness of the judicial review and the correctness of the establishment of the case’s circumstances by the court of first instance, which obliges it to examine and evaluate the evidence. Also, the appellate court did not resolve the defense’s motion to examine the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 420/35053/23 dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Military Academy regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff for a certain period.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly applied the wording of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which limits the term for applying to the court in labor disputes to three months, since the disputed legal relations arose before this wording came into force. The court emphasized that for cases where the legal relations lasted until July 19, 2022, the previous wording of Article 233 of the Labor Code is applied, which did not limit the term for applying to the court in cases of recovery of wages. The Court noted that it departs from previous conclusions regarding the application of the new wording of Article 233 of the Labor Code to legal relations that arose before its adoption. The court also pointed to the erroneous connection between the plaintiff’s exclusion from the personnel lists and the term for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 200/298/23 dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman who, according to him, participated in combat operations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not investigate the scope of tasks performed by the plaintiff, the duration and place of their performance, as well as the documents confirming these circumstances. The courts of previous instances did not take into account the representative of the plaintiff’s appeals with lawyer’s requests to military units for providing copies of documents confirming the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations, as well as responses to these requests. The appellate court mistakenly applied Instruction No. 188, and the court of first instance – Separate Order of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine No. 912/з/29, as they do not regulate the disputed legal relations. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances placed the obligation to prove the illegality on the plaintiff
and the inaction of the defendant, which contradicts the principle of presumption of guilt of the subject of power. The court emphasized the obligation of the court to take measures to clarify all the circumstances of the case, in particular, regarding the identification and request of evidence on its own initiative.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 160/23533/23 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay a serviceman an additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for the period of direct participation in hostilities.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances regarding the tasks performed by the plaintiff and the place of their performance, in particular, what specific tasks the plaintiff performed, in which direction, and how this is confirmed, which is of fundamental importance for determining the right to receive additional remuneration. The court noted that for an objective assessment of the legality of the defendant’s actions regarding the accrual and payment of additional remuneration, it is necessary to establish whether there were grounds for the payment of additional remuneration provided for in paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 168, in the disputed period. Also, the court of cassation pointed out the need to take into account the position of the Supreme Court, according to which the violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units does not indicate the absence of the serviceman’s right to remuneration. The court emphasized the obligation of the court to establish all the circumstances of the case, regardless of the position of the parties, and to carefully examine the entire set of evidence, without shifting the burden of the consequences of negligence of officials onto the serviceman.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 712/6399/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the private notary’s decision to refuse to perform a notarial act and the recognition of ownership of real estate (residential building and land plot).
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the change in the characteristics of the land plot (area, cadastral number, intended purpose), which was transferred to the mortgage together with the residential building, does not terminate the mortgage and does not deprive the creditor of the right to foreclose on this property. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the residential building and the land plot were the subject of a mortgage and were sold as a single object, and therefore the notary’s refusal to issue a certificate for both objects is erroneous. The court also referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the alienation of a real estate object separately from the land plot on which it is located is contrary to the law. In addition, the court indicated that
that the certificate of acquisition of property from public auctions is not a title document, but only confirms the fact of acquisition of property.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and granted the claim, canceling the decision of the private notary on the refusal to perform a notarial act.
**Case No. 916/3951/21 dated May 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the Association of Co-owners of an Apartment Building “Korolyova 17” (Association) in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application of the Association for the adoption of an additional decision on the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments:
* The court took into account the criteria of the reality of the incurred expenses and the reasonableness of their amount, based on the circumstances of the case and the financial condition of the parties.
* The court noted that the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance should not be a way of excessive enrichment and cannot constitute additional income.
* The court assessed the submitted evidence for relevance, admissibility, and reliability, in particular, whether the scope of assistance provided corresponds to the documents in the case.
* The court took into account that the appellate court partially overturned the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claims against the executive committee of the Odesa City Council.
* The court concluded that the amount of expenses claimed for recovery from the Odesa City Council is reasonable and proportionate, and the recovery from the executive committee should be denied.
* The court refers to the established practice of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the criteria for reimbursement of court costs.
3. The court partially granted the application, recovering UAH 2,500 from the Odesa City Council in favor of the Association for expenses for professional legal assistance, and dismissed the remaining claims.
**Case No. 500/3054/24 dated May 22, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of a fine for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the penalties for late registration of tax invoices that were registered before February 8, 2023, should be calculated based on paragraph 120-1.1 of Article 120-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and not at the reduced rates introduced later. The court emphasized that provisions that mitigate liability do not have retroactive effect if they establish new elements of tax offenses. Also, the court indicated that the principle of presumption of legality of the taxpayer’s decisions does not apply, since in this case there is no ambiguous interpretation of the rules. The court noted that the reduced amounts of penalties apply only to the facts of late registration of tax invoices drawn up and registered after February 8, 2023, or p
of tax invoices, the registration period of which had not expired as of the date of entry into force as of February 08, 2023. The court emphasized that paragraph 11 of subsection 10 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine provides for the application of the amount of penalties (financial sanctions) provided for by the law in force on the date of the decision on their application.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Elite Plast” Production and Commercial Firm LLC without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s decision remained unchanged.
Case No. 521/13401/23 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance, as the appellate court did not fully consider the circumstances of the case and the prosecutor’s arguments. The court of cassation, taking into account the severity of the crime, the identity of the accused, and the risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days. This decision is due to the need to ensure the proper behavior of the accused and to prevent attempts to evade justice during the new appellate review. The court considers that the preventive measure in the form of detention is justified and proportionate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 759/1426/22 dated 05/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the refusal of the Sviatoshynskyi District State Administration in the city of Kyiv to privatize the apartment and the obligation to take actions for its privatization.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that privatization bodies do not have the right to refuse residents to privatize housing, except in cases directly provided for by law, such as the absence of the right to privatization or the prohibition of privatization of a specific premises; at the same time, indicating in the warrant that the housing is provided in a dormitory, and not in the housing stock, does not affect the legality of the settling if the warrant has not been canceled or declared invalid. The court also emphasized that a change of owner of the housing stock or category of housing is not a basis for refusing privatization, and improper accounting of housing cannot create negative consequences for citizens who have the right to privatization. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the apartment did not acquire the status of a dormitory, and therefore is subject to privatization on general grounds, and placed an excessive burden on the plaintiff to initiate actions to change the status of the premises. The Court departed from the conclusion regardingapplication of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of the State Housing Fund,” as stated in the previous постановa of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need to take into account all the circumstances of the case and the inadmissibility of imposing the consequences of improper housing registration on citizens.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 761/9837/22 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order to suspend the employment contract, recovery of average earnings for the period of suspension, and compensation payment.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the suspension of the employment contract was illegal, since the plaintiff continued to perform her official duties remotely, and the defendant did not prove the impossibility of providing her with work. The court noted that the very fact of military aggression is not an unconditional basis for suspending the employment contract, but the simultaneous impossibility for the employer to provide work and for the employee to perform it is necessary. The court also emphasized that in the case of illegal suspension of the employment contract, the employee is paid average earnings for the period of forced absence based on analogy with Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the defendant did not cease its activities and did not prove the absolute impossibility of the plaintiff performing the work. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court in a similar case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 990/106/25 dated 22/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU).
The decision does not provide any arguments that the court was guided by. Only the introductory and operative parts are given.
The court refused to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to declare illegal and cancel the decision.
Case No. 340/6569/23 dated 22/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the head of the Kirovohrad Regional Council to announce a competition for the position of director of the theater, which the plaintiff held on the basis of a contract concluded under martial law.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which considered that the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” does not prohibit holding competitions for the positions of heads of communal institutions during martial law. The Supreme Court emphasized that although there is no direct prohibition on holding a competition, the appointment to the positions of heads of communal enterprises without a competition during the period of martial law is an exception to the general rule, justified by extraordinary circumstances. The court emphasized that
according to the second paragraph of part seven of Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” a competition for a position held by a person based on appointment during martial law may be announced only after the termination or cancellation of martial law. Since martial law had not been terminated at the time of the adoption of the contested order, the defendant had no legal basis for announcing the competition.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which declared illegal and canceled the order of the head of the Kirovohrad Regional Council regarding the announcement of a competition for the position of theater director.
Case No. 640/12281/22 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Office regarding the refusal to include periods of study in postgraduate studies and work as an assistant professor in the length of service as a civil servant, which affected the amount of seniority allowance upon the plaintiff’s dismissal.
2. The Supreme Court found that the courts of previous instances prematurely satisfied the claim without clarifying important circumstances: whether the plaintiff was a civil servant at the time of the previous version of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity” (until 10/11/2017), which allowed the inclusion of scientific experience in the length of service as a civil servant, and whether this right was exercised before the specified date. The court noted that the calculation of the length of service as a civil servant for periods before the entry into force of Law No. 889-VIII should be carried out according to the norms of legislation in force at that time, in particular Order No. 283. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts had to check whether the plaintiff held the position of a civil servant before 10/11/2017, and whether her scientific experience was taken into account at that time. Since the courts did not investigate these key issues, the decisions were found to be unreasonable and subject to cancellation. The court also emphasized that it cannot independently establish new circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 200/3967/23 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman, provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, for the period of direct participation in hostilities.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, what specific tasks the plaintiff performed and where during the disputed period, whether these tasks were related to direct participation in hostilities or ensuring measures for national security and defense. The courts did not investigate whether the defendant, for certain reasons, could not record the plaintiff’s participation in the relevant actions and measures in the documents that are the basis for the payment of additional remuneration.
of additional remuneration. Also, the courts did not assess the orders of the commander of the operational-tactical group, which were the basis for issuing a certificate of the plaintiff’s participation in measures necessary for the defense of Ukraine. The court emphasized the obligation of the court to establish the actual circumstances of the case, regardless of the position of the parties, and to take measures to identify and request the necessary evidence.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the lower courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 460/17825/21 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the refusal to recalculate and pay monetary allowance, financial assistance for health improvement, and compensation for unused vacation to a combatant.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal, noted that from January 29, 2020, after the cancellation of paragraph 6 of Resolution No. 103, the original wording of paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704 was restored, which provides for the calculation of official salaries and salaries for military rank by multiplying the amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established by law on January 1 of the calendar year, by the corresponding tariff coefficient. The court emphasized that the restriction on the application of the minimum wage, established by the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine,” does not affect these legal relations, since the calculation value is the subsistence minimum, not the minimum wage. The court recognized as erroneous the conclusion of the appellate court that there were no grounds for applying paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704 in its original wording. The court indicated that the court of first instance correctly established the unlawful inaction of the defendant, who calculated the payments based on the subsistence minimum as of January 1, 2018, and reasonably obliged to recalculate and pay monetary allowance and other payments.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the claims.
Case No. 990/81/25 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the President of Ukraine and obliging him to perform certain actions.
2. The decision does not state the arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided. Usually, the court substantiates its decision by referring to the norms of current legislation, the established factual circumstances of the case, and the evidence provided by the parties. The court analyzes the arguments of the plaintiff and the objections of the defendant, assesses their validity and compliance with the law. It is also important to take into account previous judicial practice in similar cases. In the absence of clear legislative regulation, the court may apply the analogy of the law or the right. In the decisions of administrative courts, references to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights are often found.
і.
3. The court dismissed the administrative claim against the President of Ukraine.
Case No. 420/18799/24 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the border detachment regarding the non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance upon the plaintiff’s dismissal from military service and the recovery of average earnings for the delay in settlement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law and violated procedural norms in determining the amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal. The court indicated that it is necessary to distinguish between the periods before and after July 19, 2022, when the wording of Article 117 of the Labor Code was changed, and accordingly apply different approaches to calculating average earnings. Before July 19, 2022, the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the proportional reduction of the amount of compensation should be taken into account, and after that date – no. Also, the courts did not take into account that the amount of indexation recovered in favor of the plaintiff by a separate court decision should be included in the calculation of average daily earnings.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/106/25 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) on the judge’s unsuitability for the position and the submission of a motion for his dismissal.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the HQCJU acted within its powers, since the decision was made on the basis of the version of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” in force at the time of the decision, which provides for the possibility of making a decision on the judge’s unsuitability for the position by the plenary composition of the HQCJU in the presence of a negative opinion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC). The court rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 9901/198/20, since other legal relations that arose before the amendments to the legislation were considered there. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unfoundedness of the PIC’s conclusion are not grounds for canceling the HQCJU’s decision, since these circumstances will be assessed by the High Council of Justice. The presence of dissenting opinions of the HQCJU members does not affect the legality of the decision made.
3. The court dismissed the judge’s claim, upholding the HQCJU’s decision on his unsuitability for the position.
Case No. 160/7238/22 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Dnipro City Council for the review of the Supreme Court’s decision of February 6, 2025, in the case regarding the appeal against the decision of the Dnipro City Council based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The provided text does not contain the arguments of the court that it used when making the decision, since only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are given.
ali. The full text of the court decision is needed to provide a complete analysis.
4. The court denied the application of the Dnipro City Council for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling and upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling of February 6, 2025.
**Case No. 360/598/23 dated May 22, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman who, in his opinion, was entitled to a payment of up to UAH 100,000 for participating in national security and defense measures.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, noted that in order to receive the increased additional remuneration of up to UAH 100,000, provided for by CMU Resolution No. 168, documentary evidence of the serviceman’s direct participation in hostilities or national security and defense measures is required. The court indicated that such confirmation is a combination of information from combat orders, combat logs, commanders’ reports and certificates of direct participation in hostilities. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts must carefully check the available evidence, taking it into account in its entirety, and not be limited to a formal list of documents. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that a violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot be the basis for refusing to pay remuneration if there is other evidence confirming the right to it. The court noted that the appellate court did not establish the key circumstances of the case, in particular, what tasks the plaintiff performed during his business trip and what confirms the data of the certificate of participation in hostilities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the appellate instance for a new trial to clarify all the circumstances of the case and provide a proper assessment of the evidence.
**Case No. 918/308/24 dated May 20, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the contract concluded between Komtekh Outdoor LLC and the Department of Infrastructure and Improvement of the Rivne City Council as concluded.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, supporting the position of Komtekh Outdoor LLC. The decision is based on an analysis of the circumstances of the case and the application of the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. In particular, the court took into account the arguments of the parties, assessed the available evidence and established that there were no grounds for canceling the decisions of the previous instances. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances regarding the existence of legal grounds for recognizing the contract as concluded. Also, the court resolved the issue of the distribution of court costs, in particular, it recovered from the Department of Infrastructure and Improvement of the Rivne City Council in favor of Komtekh Outdoor LLC the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Department of Infrastructure and
of the Rivne City Council on landscaping without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 922/2509/24 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region against “Cultural and Recreational Center “Dozvillia” Limited Liability Company for termination of the state property lease agreement and recovery of arrears of rent and penalties.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as the courts did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify the issue of the defendant’s ability to use the leased property in connection with military actions and damage to the leased object, which could be the basis for exemption from rent in accordance with Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The courts did not properly assess the defendant’s evidence of damage to the property as a result of a missile strike and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of substantive and procedural law in similar legal relations. Also, the courts did not examine the terms of the lease agreement regarding the distribution of responsibilities between the parties and the consequences of their non-performance. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv region.
Case No. 320/42472/23 dated 22/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the resolution of the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities (NKREKP).
2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments. I cannot qualitatively analyze the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of SE “UKRINTERENERGO” and NKREKP, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 240/29544/23 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax notice-decision on the accrual of penalties to Zhytomyr Meat Processing Plant LLC for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal of the tax authority, indicated that taxpayers are exempt from liability for late registration of tax invoices during the period of the moratorium introduced for the duration of quarantine, namely from March 1, 2020 to May 26, 2022, as well as during the period of martial law, provided that the requirements for confirming the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations are met. If tax invoices
if tax invoices were drawn up in the period from February 1 to May 31, 2022, but registered in violation of the deadline after July 15, 2022, the controlling body has the right to apply penalties. The court also noted that Law No. 2876-IX, which provides for increased registration terms and reduced penalties, does not have retroactive effect and applies only to tax invoices drawn up after February 8, 2023. In addition, the court emphasized that reference to martial law is not an unconditional basis for exemption from liability, and the payer must confirm the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations in the established procedure. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about discrimination and the need to apply the principle of presumption of legality of the taxpayer’s decisions.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and refused to satisfy the claim of Zhytomyr Meat Processing Plant LLC.
Case No. 902/1253/22 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the creditor’s monetary claims against the debtor in the case of bankruptcy of the farm.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to recognize the creditor’s claims, since the creditor did not provide proper evidence of the transfer of funds to the debtor, namely: there are no documents on the capitalization of cash in the company’s cash desk, given that cash payments in foreign currency are prohibited, and there is no evidence of a financial transaction through banking institutions, as required by law for amounts exceeding a certain limit. The court noted that the creditor, when entering into an agreement with a legal entity, should have provided for special rules for accounting and acceptance of funds, and also that the agreement itself is not proof of the actual performance of the business transaction. The court of cassation emphasized the increased standard of proof in bankruptcy cases, where there is a risk of creating fictitious debt, and pointed to the need for documentary evidence of the sources of origin of funds provided as a loan.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to satisfy the creditor’s application.
Case No. 756/6945/22 dated May 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of non-residential premises sale and purchase agreements and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of these premises, since the plaintiffs believe that their property rights to these premises were violated as a result of the conclusion of these agreements.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since a previous court decision declared invalid the investment agreement on the basis of which the plaintiffs acquired property rights to the disputed premises, and therefore, the plaintiffs did not acquire any rights to these premises. The court also took into account that the agreements on the basis of which the plaintiffs
acquire property rights were concluded after the court declared the investment agreement invalid, and the plaintiffs were aware of this, therefore, they cannot be considered bona fide purchasers. The court noted that the absence of property rights to the disputed premises for the plaintiffs means that their rights were not violated, and therefore there are no grounds for granting the claim. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs’ arguments amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 756/8307/19 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the assignment agreement of the right of claim under the mortgage agreement as invalid and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of the apartment.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the assignment agreement of the right of claim is not a factoring agreement, since it does not contain signs of providing a financial service, and the original creditors alienated their assets in the liquidation procedure, which is consistent with the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the claim for cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership is an inappropriate method of protection, since it will not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s right to the apartment, and the appropriate method of protection in such a case is the recovery of property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the improper notification of the plaintiff about the consideration of the case, since the case materials confirm proper notification. The court of cassation instance indicated 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.
3. The cassation appeal of PERSON_1 was dismissed, and the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of March 18, 2024, was upheld.
Case No. 203/3658/22 dated 22/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against orders on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, recovery of bonuses and moral damages.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared illegal the orders of reprimand to the chief accountant, since the employer did not prove the fact of violation of labor discipline. The courts found that the orders did not specify exactly which violations were committed, and no evidence of the employee’s guilt was provided. Also, the courts took into account that during the calculation of bonuses, which became the basis for the reprimand, the chief accountant was on sick leave. Since the disciplinary sanctions were declared illegal, the court agreed with the payment of the unpaid bonus for Independence Day. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court found them reasonable, taking into account the complexity of the case and the amount of services provided. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, since no violations of substantive and procedural law have been proven.
of substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals without satisfaction and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 759/12152/19 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land sale and purchase agreement as invalid and its reclamation into the ownership of the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the Kyiv City Council filed a lawsuit to recognize the land sale and purchase agreement as invalid and to reclaim it, because it believes that the land plot left communal ownership against its will. The court noted that the application of a specific method of protecting a civil right depends on the content of the violated right and the nature of its violation, and also that the legal regime of unauthorized construction is related to the right of ownership of the land. The court indicated that since the decision on the allocation of the disputed land plot was not made by the local self-government body, and the construction carried out on it is unauthorized, the proper method of protection in this case is a negatory claim to oblige the return of the land plot to a condition suitable for use by demolishing the unauthorized construction. The court also took into account the legal opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the importance of the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building or structure located on it.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the reasons for refusing to satisfy the claim, but left unchanged the decision to refuse to satisfy the claims of the Kyiv City Council.
Case No. 140/6769/24 dated 05/21/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region regarding an individual entrepreneur.
The Supreme Court, based on the results of the consideration of the cassation appeal, established that the court of appeal did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. In particular, the court of cassation instance pointed to the need to investigate all the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the legality of his actions and give them a proper assessment. Also, the court of appeal did not take into account important factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the court of appeal did not properly substantiate its conclusions, which is a violation of the requirements of procedural law. Considering the above, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it is necessary to cancel the decision of the court of appeal and send the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance for a complete and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case.
The court of cassation instance satisfied the cassation appeal of the individual entrepreneur, canceled the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance.
**Case No. 990/43/24 dated May 21, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs in an administrative case where the plaintiff partially won the case against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ).
2. The court, when issuing an additional decision, was guided by the norms of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU), which regulate the distribution of court costs between the parties in case of partial satisfaction of the claim. The court found that the plaintiff paid a court fee for two non-property claims, and since one of the claims was satisfied, the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of a portion of the paid court fee in proportion to the satisfied claim. The court also took into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” which determines the amount of court fee for filing non-property claims. The court noted that since the decision of May 07, 2025, did not resolve the issue of the distribution of court costs, there are grounds for issuing an additional court decision. The court emphasized that in case of partial satisfaction of the claim, court costs are borne by both parties in proportion to the amount of satisfied claims, and that the costs of the subject of power authority for legal assistance of a lawyer and payment of court fee are not included in the court costs to be distributed.
3. The court ruled to recover court costs for the payment of court fee in the amount of UAH 1211.20 from the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in favor of the plaintiff.
**Case No. 300/3219/23 dated May 22, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the delay in payment of amounts due to a serviceman upon dismissal.
2. The Supreme Court granted the serviceman’s cassation appeal, indicating that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the reduction of the amount of compensation for the delay in payment upon dismissal, since at the time of the dispute, the version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU) was in effect, which limited the period of payment of such compensation to six months. The court noted that since the entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX, the provisions of Article 117 of the LCU in the previous version have become invalid, as a result of which the legal regulation of relations falling under the scope of Article 117 of the LCU has been changed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of the criteria for reducing compensation, expressed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in previous decisions, to the disputed legal relations is inappropriate, since the legislator has already limited the period of payment of average earnings to six months, eliminating the circumstances that led to the violation of the criteria of proportionality and good faith.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court in part and issued a new decision, which satisfied the serviceman’s claims in full, recovering from the military unit the full amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
**Case No. 160/19149/23 dated May 22, 2025**
1.
