Case No. 759/13157/22-ц dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the State Mortgage Institution (SMI) to restructure the obligations of the plaintiff under the loan agreement in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending”.
2. The appellate court granted the claim, obliging the SMI to conduct the restructuring, as the borrower met the criteria established by the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending” for mandatory restructuring: no overdue debt as of January 1, 2014, the existence of an outstanding monetary obligation at the time the law came into force, securing the obligations with a mortgage on residential real estate that is the borrower’s permanent residence. The court also took into account that the plaintiff applied for restructuring within the period specified by law and provided all the necessary documents. The existence of a court dispute regarding the recovery of debt, opened after the entry into force of the law on restructuring, is not an obstacle to the restructuring. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court correctly determined the nature of the disputed legal relationship, fully examined the evidence, and made a lawful and justified decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the SMI’s cassation appeal, and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming the mandatory nature of the restructuring of the plaintiff’s obligations.
Case No. 990/413/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) on recognizing as significant a violation of the procedure for taking the qualification exam by a candidate for the position of judge, which consisted of the presence of a mobile phone in the pocket of a jacket during the exam.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that a candidate for the position of judge is obliged to comply with the rules for taking the exam, including the requirements for turning off and placing electronic devices in a special package, as provided for by the Regulations on the Procedure for Taking the Qualification Exam. The court noted that the fact of the presence of a mobile phone in the pocket of a jacket during the exam, regardless of its use, is a violation that casts doubt on the candidate’s compliance with the requirements for a professional judge, the principles of fairness, legality, and transparency. The court also took into account the discretionary powers of the HQCJ in assessing the materiality of violations and emphasized the importance of trust in the judiciary, which is formed depending on the trust in persons holding the positions of judges. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, since the fact of the presence of the phone was recognized by both parties, and the video recording of the exam is publicly available. The court also noted that the HQCJ ensured the plaintiff’s right to provide explanations regarding the circumstances of the violation.
3. The court dismissed the claim, recognizing the decision of the HQCJ as lawful.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127631703″>**Case No. 160/1741/23 dated 05/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint of LLC “Nikoprogressbud” against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the obligation of the Pension Fund to credit certain periods of work to the preferential length of service of an individual and to review her application for the assignment of a pension on preferential terms.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since LLC “Nikoprogressbud” is not a participant in public law relations in this case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of its rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations. The court took into account the previous conclusion of the Supreme Court in a similar case, which stated that employers do not have the right to appeal decisions on the assignment of a pension on preferential terms, even if they have an obligation to reimburse the costs of paying such pensions. The court also rejected the applicant’s motion to attach evidence, as the cassation instance does not have the right to establish new circumstances or re-evaluate evidence. The Court noted that it deviated from the previous position stated in the ruling of November 11, 2024, in case No. 160/7289/22.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Nikoprogressbud”, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127668253″>**Case No. 460/11311/24 dated 05/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Rivne region regarding the refusal to recalculate the pension of PERSON_1.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly closed the appellate proceedings, considering that the lawyer did not have the proper authority to represent the interests of the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that the warrant issued in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activity” is an independent document confirming the authority of the lawyer, and the current legislation does not require the provision of a legal aid agreement together with the warrant. Also, the court noted that the invalidity of the power of attorney does not disprove the existence of authority if there is a valid warrant. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to appeal the case and avoiding excessive formalism, which may limit access to justice.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appellate instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127678294″>**Case No. 909/395/24 dated 05/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract for the development of technical documentation on land management and the obligation to perform the contract in kind.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which terminated the contract due to a material breach of its terms by the defendant, namely the failure to perform the work within the stipulated period, and refused
or in satisfying a counterclaim regarding the obligation of the client to provide access to land plots, as the contract was terminated. The court noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of appealing to the client with a demand to provide access to the plots during the term of the contract, and the correspondence between the parties took place after the initiation of the contract termination. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about the client’s failure to provide initial data, as it was not proven that the contract could not be performed due to this. The court of cassation emphasized that its role is to verify the correct application of legal norms, and not to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 520/102/24 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the customs’ decision to adjust the customs value of goods and the card of refusal to accept the customs declaration.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly calculated the amount of court fee that the Kharkiv Customs was to pay when filing an appeal, since when appealing a decision to adjust the customs value together with the refusal card, the court fee should be calculated only based on the difference between the customs value declared by the plaintiff and the value determined by the customs, without additional charges for appealing the refusal card as a non-property claim. The court also took into account that the appeal was filed in electronic form, which provides for the application of a reduction coefficient to the court fee rate. The appellate court’s error in calculating the amount of the court fee effectively deprived the customs authority of the right to appeal, which is a violation of the basic principles of administrative proceedings, including ensuring the right to appellate review of the case. Considering that the customs paid an amount that exceeded the proper amount of the court fee, the conclusion of the appellate court on the failure to eliminate the deficiencies of the appeal is premature.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 909/1031/23 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of the chapel by evicting one religious community and settling another.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting their position on the validity of the claims of the religious community, which owns the chapel according to the State Register of Real Property Rights, and whose ownership has not been canceled in accordance with the law. The court took into account that the defendant uses the chapel without any contractual relations with the owner. The court also referred to the legal opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of vindication and negatory claims for protection
of property rights, emphasizing that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of obstacles in the use of their property from any person who creates such obstacles. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the chapel was an unauthorized construction, as the court decision cited by the defendant had been overturned by the appellate court. 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 and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in this assessment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 560/2607/20 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions by which the enterprise’s tax liabilities for VAT and income tax were increased, and the amount of the negative value for these taxes was reduced.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing to the incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case. In particular, the appellate court took a formal approach to examining the tax authority’s arguments regarding the unreality of the enterprise’s business operations with counterparties, did not properly verify the facts of the conclusion and execution of transportation agreements, the availability of labor and material resources at the counterparties, the movement of goods along the supply chain, and also did not take into account the circumstances established in the criminal proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized the need to examine the specifics of operations with grain crops, in particular, the availability of documents confirming the quality of the grain, as well as circumstances related to loading and unloading operations. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances did not examine information from the log of registration of weighing of goods on truck scales, quantitative and qualitative accounting of grain, etc. At the same time, in this particular case, the method of loading grain crops at the location of the counterparties into transport indicated in the consignment notes and transportation to the points of their unloading by vehicles that were absent was not documented, which the appellant pointed out. The court of cassation also indicated that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the method of establishing business relations and communication between the plaintiff and the counterparty regarding the deliveries made and the persons who personally participated in this.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 420/11582/21 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the decision to refuse granting access to state secrets.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the SSU and the Office of the Prosecutor General, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part recognizing as illegal the SSU’s conclusion on the refusal of access to
state secrets. The court of cassation likely took into account the arguments of the SSU and the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the legality and validity of the denial of access to state secrets, possibly in view of national security considerations or other circumstances provided for by law. At the same time, the other part of the appellate court’s decision remained unchanged, which may indicate partial satisfaction of other claims not directly related to appealing the SSU’s conclusion. The plaintiff’s cassation appeal was dismissed, which confirms the legitimacy of the actions of the SSU and the Prosecutor General’s Office in the disputed legal relations. The court also decided not to distribute court costs between the parties.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and to partially satisfy the cassation appeals of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Office of the Prosecutor General.
Case No. 260/4707/23 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the tax authority on the compliance of the enterprise with the VAT payer risk criteria.
2. The Supreme Court found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the disputed decision of the tax authority, did not investigate the grounds and procedure for its adoption, and did not verify whether the decision complies with the procedure established by law. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the availability of tax information to the controlling authorities, which determines the riskiness of a business transaction, must be preceded by monitoring of the tax invoice/adjustment calculation submitted for registration. In addition, the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the issue of the enterprise’s compliance with the VAT payer risk criteria should be considered by the commission at the regional level based on the results of the company submitting a tax invoice/adjustment calculation for registration and monitoring the taxpayer and the tax invoice/adjustment calculation sent for registration. Taking into account the indicated violations of the norms of procedural law, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 160/9858/19 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a fine and penalty from PrJSC “Yuzhkoks” to the State Budget of Ukraine on the basis of a resolution of the NEURC.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim of NEURC, since at the time of consideration of the case by the courts of first and appellate instances, the NEURC resolution on the imposition of a fine was canceled by a court decision, which eliminated the legal grounds for collecting the fine and penalty. The court noted that the cancellation of the decision to impose a fine eliminates the legal
requirements for its compulsory recovery, as the corresponding obligation loses its legal force. The court also indicated that although the decision to cancel the NERC decision was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, this does not affect the legality of the decisions of the courts of previous instances made at the time when the decision was considered invalid. The Supreme Court emphasized that legal certainty requires that court decisions be based on the circumstances that exist at the time of the case’s consideration, and that any changes in the legal status of the NERC decision that occurred after the appellate court’s decision cannot be the basis for overturning these decisions. The court noted that NERC has the right to review the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances based on newly discovered circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed NERC’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/6612/24 dated May 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of insurance compensation and the allocation of court costs incurred by the plaintiff for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, but taking into account certain reasons. The court noted that the courts of previous instances reasonably refused to reimburse expenses, since the plaintiff’s rights were not violated at the time of the appeal to the court, as the defendant was not notified of the insured event before filing the lawsuit. The court of cassation pointed out the mistake of the courts of previous instances, which applied Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine instead of Article 130, which regulates the distribution of court costs in the event of the closure of proceedings in the case. However, this error did not lead to the adoption of illegal decisions, therefore it is not a basis for their cancellation. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the third part of Article 130 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine in similar legal relations, referring to its own decision dated March 20, 2025 in case No. 910/10548/24.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 916/2999/24 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the procedure of using the pier.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for debt recovery, since the defendant could not use the pier due to the blocking of the port by the Russian Federation, which is confirmed by the certificate of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry on force majeure circumstances. The court noted that the contract does not provide for payment in case of impossibility of using the pier, and placing all financial consequences on the defendant would be unfair. An important factor was that in a previous case between the same parties with similar circumstances
and the court has already ruled in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff did not appeal it to the Supreme Court, which indicates the inconsistency of his actions. 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, and it has no right to interfere in this evaluation. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to form a new legal conclusion, since it was not proven that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, closing the cassation proceedings in the part opened under the exceptional case.
Case No. 620/14485/21 dated 05/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices that increased the tax liabilities for VAT and reduced the amount of the negative VAT value for Bahmachgazbudservice LLC based on conclusions about the unreal nature of business transactions with a number of counterparties.
2. The court, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, agreed with the conclusions of the tax authority regarding the non-commodity nature of business transactions of Bahmachgazbudservice LLC with counterparties, since the real origin of the goods was not confirmed, inconsistencies were found in the primary documents (lack of necessary details, discrepancies in data), and the lack of necessary resources in the counterparties to carry out the declared transactions was also established. The court noted that VC Blagobud LLC, as a third party, did not provide evidence of the violation of its rights by the appealed tax assessment notices issued against another business entity. The court also indicated that the order to conduct an audit of Bahmachgazbudservice LLC does not violate the rights of VC Blagobud LLC, since it is an act of individual action aimed at regulating relations between the controlling body and the directly audited taxpayer. The court took into account that the audit was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the law, and Bahmachgazbudservice LLC did not object to its conduct.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 826/6559/17 dated 05/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim between the bank and the company, concluded in 2014.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the dispute is not public-legal, but has a private-legal character, since it concerns the challenge of a transaction between business entities on the basis of the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the controlling body is not a party to the disputed agreement, does not have power over its participants in the disputed legal relations, and the chosen method of protection (recognition of the agreement as invalid) is
characteristic of private law disputes. The court also emphasized that the powers of the controlling authority to appeal to the court with such claims, provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine, do not change the private law nature of the dispute. The court indicated that the resolution of disputes related to economic activity falls under the jurisdiction of commercial courts. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the ruling of May 8, 2025, in case No. 420/1247/22, outlined a correct conclusion, according to which cases falling under the jurisdiction of commercial courts are defined by Article 20 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to appeal to the commercial court.
Case No. 160/2480/24 dated May 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the state registrar’s access to the State Register of Real Property Rights.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances, when considering the case, limited themselves to a formal verification of the appealed decision of the Ministry of Justice, without assessing the motives and justifications on which it was based, and also did not investigate the evidence to confirm or refute the violations that formed the basis for the complaint of Paxton LLC. The court emphasized that the courts had to clarify whether the state registrar complied with the requirements of legislation in the field of state registration of property rights, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Real Property Rights and Their Encumbrances,” and whether there were contradictions between the declared and already registered rights. The court also took into account that the absence of violations on the part of the state registrar was one of the main arguments of the claim. The court noted that the closure of proceedings regarding a part of the claims does not release the courts from the obligation to assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the absence of violations.
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. 906/189/24 dated May 27, 2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery from a limited liability company of damages caused to the state as a result of violation of environmental protection legislation.
The court of cassation instance, leaving unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed with their conclusions. The courts of previous instances established that the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the state, representing the interests of the State Environmental Inspection of the Polissya District and the Korosten City Council, regarding the recovery of damages from Agro Lug LLC. The courts found no violations of environmental protection legislation on the part of the defendant, as well as no causal link between the actions of the defendant and the damage caused, as insisted by the prosecutor. In addition, the courts took into account that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.
