**Case No. 640/4422/19 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against tax assessment notices issued by the tax authority based on a documentary unscheduled on-site audit.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing the importance of complying with the procedure for notifying the taxpayer about the audit. The key argument was that the tax authority did not provide adequate evidence of timely and proper notification of the individual about the documentary unscheduled on-site audit, namely, the fact of sending a copy of the order to conduct the audit and a written notice of the date of its commencement and place of conduct was not proven. The court emphasized that failure to notify the taxpayer about the audit renders it illegal, and its results invalid. The court also referred to previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which emphasize the need to maintain a balance between public and private interests during audits.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 260/2959/22 dated 05/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Uzhhorod City Council on the termination of the powers of the first deputy mayor and reinstatement to the position.
2. The court of cassation, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the position of deputy mayor is part of the executive committee of the city council, and therefore is elective and the term of office is limited by the term of office of the executive committee. The court noted that after the expiration of the council’s term of office, its executive committee exercises its powers until a new composition of the executive committee is formed. Since the plaintiff was dismissed in connection with the formation of a new composition of the executive committee, the court recognized this dismissal as lawful. The court also took into account that previous court decisions, on the basis of which the plaintiff was reinstated, were overturned. The arguments of the cassation appeal about the failure of the courts of previous instances to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, the court considered erroneous due to the dissimilarity of legal relations in these cases. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the indefinite nature of his powers, as they contradict the city council’s decision on his appointment to the position.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 320/9995/24 dated 05/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the reduction of the amount
regarding pensions and refusal to recalculate it based on new certificates of monetary allowance.
2. The court of appeal returned the appeal because it considered that the lawyer had not properly confirmed his authority by submitting a warrant where the place of providing legal assistance was indicated as another institution, not the court. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case file, found that an order was submitted together with the appeal, which indicated the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal as the place of providing legal assistance, which confirms the lawyer’s authority. Thus, the court of appeal erroneously applied the norms of procedural law, without examining all the documents attached to the complaint.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 400/1651/20 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against the tax authority’s claims for payment of tax debt on a single social contribution (SSC) and recovery of excessively paid amounts.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, because the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the courts did not check whether the plaintiff had the status of an individual entrepreneur at all during the period of SSC accrual, whether he submitted a registration card to include information about him in the Unified State Register, and also did not investigate the issue of his status as a pensioner and possible exemption from SSC payment in accordance with the law. The court also indicated that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the grounds and period of the debt, as well as regarding the defendant’s compliance with the procedure for adopting the disputed claims.
3. The court of cassation ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 500/5509/23 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a tax notification-decision on the accrual of penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URTI).
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances erroneously applied the norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine (TC of Ukraine) regarding the terms for making a tax notification-decision (TND) after considering the taxpayer’s objections, since in this case the controlling body canceled the previous TND by its own decision and adopted a new one. The court noted that in this case, other norms of the TC of Ukraine and the Procedure for Sending Tax Notifications by Controlling Bodies should be applied.
of tax assessment notices to taxpayers, which establish a three-day period for the adoption of a new TAN after the cancellation of the previous one. In addition, the court pointed out the need to clarify the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the previous TAN, and to verify the legality of the actions of the controlling authority. Regarding the violation of the principle of venire contra factum proprium, the court noted that it is impossible to assert the contradictory behavior of the controlling authority, since the content of the new TAN did not differ from the previous one. Also, the court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the plaintiff’s arguments about the timely submission of some tax invoices for registration, although their registration was carried out by the controlling authority with a delay.
3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 440/11265/24 dated May 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Oktyabrskyi District Court of Poltava regarding the violation of the terms of delivery of rulings and improper consideration of the judge’s recusal, as well as a claim for compensation for moral damages.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that appealing against the actions of the court, committed during the administration of justice, is possible only within the limits of the procedural law, and not by filing a separate administrative claim. Judges and courts cannot be defendants in cases of appealing against their actions during the consideration of other court cases. Also, the court emphasized that the disputed legal relations are not administrative-managerial, but relate to procedural issues, the resolution of which takes place within specific cases. In addition, the claim for compensation for moral damages related to these actions should be considered in the order of civil proceedings, since the main dispute is not public-legal. The court took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights regarding restrictions on the right to appeal, which are legitimate to ensure the independence of judges and legal certainty.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 420/31201/23 dated May 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state registrar on the state registration of ownership of a non-residential block by North-Plat LLC, which, according to the plaintiff Ryshelie Wine Cellars LLC, violates its rights to own and use non-residential premises.
2. The Supreme Court, satisfying the cassation appeal of North-Plat LLC, proceeded from the fact that the dispute is not public-legal, since it concerns the protection of the plaintiff’s civil rights in a dispute with another legal entity (North-Plat LLC) regarding real estate. The court emphasized that the resolution of the issue of cancellation
The fact of state registration of ownership affects the property rights of the person for whom an entry has been made in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that such disputes should be considered in the order of economic or civil procedure, depending on the subject matter of the parties. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that appealing registration actions performed in favor of another person is a dispute about civil law. Given that the plaintiff was not the applicant for the appealed registration actions, the dispute is of a private law nature.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to appeal to the court of economic jurisdiction.
Case No. 280/2549/24 dated 05/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing a tax assessment notice regarding the imposition of a fine on an individual entrepreneur for violating the procedure for maintaining records of inventory and conducting settlement operations.
2. The Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the tax assessment notice as illegal. The court noted that the order to conduct an actual audit was lawful, as the controlling body had sufficient information about possible violations. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not investigate the circumstances regarding the issuance of the fiscal receipt and its compliance with the requirements of the law, in particular, whether a fiscal receipt that meets the requirements for settlement documents was provided, and whether it contained all the necessary details. In addition, the courts did not take into account the arguments of the tax authority regarding the discrepancy between the data in the inventory accounting form and the absence of primary documents confirming the origin of the goods. The court emphasized that information from the System of Accounting Data of Registrars of Settlement Operations (SAD RRO) can be used by the controlling body during the audit. Since the courts did not establish all the circumstances relevant to the case, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new hearing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/8368/24 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery from SE NAEK Energoatom in favor of TSM Group Corporation of the amount of debt under the contract due to improper fulfillment of obligations to pay for works and goods.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that there are no grounds for canceling the decision in the part of the recovery of three percent per annum, since the right to recover them is a guarantee of protecting the creditor’s property interests. The court indicated that reducing the amount of interest
of annual interest is a right, not an obligation of the court, and may be exercised by it in each specific case based on the assessment of the case’s circumstances. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the courts of first and appellate instances enjoy a certain freedom of discretion regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of interest, assessing the circumstances that are of significant importance. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court of cassation noted that the amount of the fee may be fixed, and the courts of previous instances reasonably reduced the claimed amounts, considering the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE NNEGC “Energoatom”, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, and additionally recovered from SE NNEGC “Energoatom” in favor of the TSM Group Corporation UAH 10,000 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 240/1622/25 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of an individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, supported the position of the court of first instance on the need to secure the claim by suspending the decision to cancel the registration of the single tax payer. The court of cassation emphasized that the purpose of securing the claim is to avoid violation of the rights and interests of the plaintiff, as well as to ensure the real enforcement of the court decision in case the claim is satisfied. The court noted that the cancellation of registration as a single tax payer will lead to a change in the taxation system and an additional tax burden on the plaintiff. The court also took into account that failure to take measures to secure the claim may lead to the impossibility of carrying out economic activities and termination of business relations with counterparties. The court emphasized that the chosen method of securing the claim is proportionate to the claims and aimed at preserving the existing situation until the case is considered on its merits. The court of cassation also indicated that the appellate court did not refute the plaintiff’s arguments and did not take into account the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which determine the transition to the general taxation system.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on granting the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 380/17986/22 dated May 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order on bringing the customs post inspector to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a reprimand for improper performance of official duties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which established that the customs post inspector violated the requirements of the Customs Code of Ukraine by processing customs declarations
regarding the actual arrival of vehicles in the customs control zone, which is a violation of the established procedure. The court emphasized that the inspector’s duty is to check compliance with the deadlines for submitting customs declarations, and in case of violation of these deadlines, to refuse to accept the declaration. The court also noted that the appellant’s reference to the need to form a conclusion regarding the application of preferential norms of the Customs and Tax Codes is unfounded, since the essence of the disciplinary offense was precisely in violation of the procedure for processing customs declarations, and not in the incorrect application of benefits. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 160/11478/22, since the legal relations in this case are not similar to those under consideration.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 805/2777/17-a dated 05/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a supply agreement between two companies and the recovery of funds to the state revenue, initiated by the tax authority.
2. The court refused to satisfy the tax authority’s claim, since the verdict in the criminal case against the director of one of the companies is not sufficient proof of the invalidity of the transaction between the companies, because this verdict does not contain circumstances regarding the conclusion and execution of a specific supply agreement, and the other company was not included in the list of entities that contributed to the formation of an artificial tax credit. The court also noted that the tax authority did not provide evidence of the conclusion of the contract without the purpose of actual legal consequences or the absence of actual business operations. The court emphasized that the primary documents confirm the implementation of business operations under the contract, and the tax authority did not prove the inconsistency of these documents with the actual circumstances. The court took into account that the supplier company paid all taxes according to the transaction. The court noted that the claims for the return of funds to the state revenue are derived from the claims for the recognition of the contract as invalid, and therefore are also not subject to satisfaction.
3. The court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 300/1608/20 dated 05/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Forward Agro Trade” LLC against tax notices-decisions, which increased tax liabilities on income tax and VAT, and also reduced the amount of negative VAT value.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance, emphasizing the importance of proper documentary confirmation of the reality of business operations for the formation of tax credit and expenses, as well as the obligation of the tax authority to clearly and thoroughly substantiate itstheir conclusions on violations of tax legislation, referring to specific primary documents. The court indicated that formal deficiencies in the оформленні documents are not sufficient grounds for признання operations as unreal if there is other evidence confirming the actual movement of assets and changes in the имущественном state of the taxpayer. The court also noted that information from internal databases of the State Tax Service cannot be the sole basis for conclusions about violations, and conclusions about understating income and overstating the себевартості must be clearly обґрунтовані with reference to specific primary documents. In addition, the court emphasized that the obligation to prove the legitimacy of its decisions rests with the tax authority.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the постанову апеляційного court in the part of отказывающий in satisfying the claim and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, удовлетворяя the claim of LLC “Forward Agro Trade”.
**Case No. 620/4675/22 dated May 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the оскарження of orders on the dismissal of a police officer from service for a gross violation of official discipline, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The Supreme Court, reversing the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. The court indicated that the day of detection of the disciplinary offense is considered the day of утверждения conclusion of the official investigation, and from this moment begins the course of the monthly term for applying disciplinary action. In this case, although official investigations were conducted several times, the fact of violation (absence from service) remained the same, so the term for привлечение to responsibility should be counted from the date of approval of the first conclusion of the official investigation. Since disciplinary action was applied after the expiration of this term, the dismissal order is противоправним. The court also noted that the legitimacy of the purpose of the actions of the subject of властных powers cannot justify violations of legislatively established procedures. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the circumstances regarding the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence, which is the basis for sending the case for a new trial in this part.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of отказывающий in satisfying the claim on the скасування of dismissal orders and reinstatement to the position, satisfied the claim in this part, and in the part of the recovery of average earnings, sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 154/2892/22 dated May 27, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the оскарження of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ухвали апеляційного court regarding the conviction of a person for premeditated murder (Part 1 of Article115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances, based on the examined evidence, including witness testimonies, expert opinions (forensic medical, genetic, criminalistic), scene inspection reports, and other case materials, reached a reasonable conclusion on the proof of the convicted person’s guilt in intentional homicide. The court took into account that traces of the victim’s blood were found on the convicted person’s clothing and body, and the convicted person’s testimonies were refuted by other evidence, in particular, witness testimony and data from a video surveillance camera. The court also took into account the absence of mitigating circumstances and the presence of aggravating circumstances, such as recidivism and commission of the crime while intoxicated, when imposing the sentence. The appellate court, having reviewed the arguments of the appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 462/4128/22 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for treason committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the guilt of PERSON_6 is based on objectively established circumstances and evidence that were examined and evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, the court took into account the data from the search protocols, inspection of the mobile phone, the results of the analysis of information from the phone, as well as other documents confirming the connection of PERSON_6 with a representative of the Russian Federation and the transfer of information to him that poses a threat to the national security of Ukraine. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, violation of the right to defense, and illegality of the actions of the investigative bodies, noting that the procedural order for collecting evidence was followed. The court also emphasized that the qualification of PERSON_6’s actions under Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code is correct, since his actions were aimed at assisting a foreign state in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine under martial law.
3. The court upheld the judgment of the Zaliznychny District Court of Lviv and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 753/9988/22 dated May 29, 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 a person for hooliganism committed against a representative of authority.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances correctly established the actual circumstances of the case and gave them a proper legal assessment. The court of first instance, having examined the evidence, reached a reasonable conclusion about the guiltcommitting hooliganism accompanied by exceptional audacity, and the appellate court, having reviewed the verdict, did not find any violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the law on criminal liability. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case and the need to re-evaluate the evidence cannot be the subject of review in the cassation court. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of grounds for mitigating the punishment or applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on exemption from serving the sentence with probation, since the chosen method of apologizing to the victim was of a formal nature.
3. 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 convicted person and his defense counsel.
Case No. 910/8847/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Russian Federation of property damage caused to PJSC “CB “Promeconombank” as a result of armed aggression and temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of previous instances that refused to satisfy the claim of the Individuals’ Deposit Guarantee Fund (IDGF) against the Russian Federation for the recovery of losses caused to the bank due to the occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine. The courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that the IDGF does not have the right to sue after the liquidation of the bank, since, in their opinion, the IDGF could only appeal to the court in the interests of the bank, and not its creditors. The Supreme Court emphasized that the IDGF has the right to appeal to the court in the interests of the creditors of the bankrupt bank whose claims have not been satisfied, especially if the losses were caused as a result of armed aggression. The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case, did not evaluate the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and did not establish a causal link between the actions of the defendant and the damage caused. The courts also unjustifiably focused on examining the legality of the IDGF’s actions during the liquidation of the bank, instead of assessing the illegality of the actions of the Russian Federation.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 405/1004/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order to suspend the employment contract between the employee and the Private Joint-Stock Company for Gas Supply and Gasification “Donetskoblgaz”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the employee’s claim, since at the time of the suspension of the employment contract, there were circumstances that made it impossible for the employer to provide work due tomilitary aggression and occupation of the territory where the Dokuchaevsk branch of the company was located. An important factor was that the employee did not inform the employer of their location after leaving the occupied territory and of their desire to continue working. The court noted that the suspension of a labor contract requires the simultaneous impossibility of providing work by the employer and its performance by the employee. The court also took into account that the obligation to prove the circumstances that make the provision and performance of work impossible rests with each party. The court of cassation emphasized that the conclusions of the appellate court do not contradict previous decisions of the Supreme Court, since in this case, specific circumstances were established that justify the suspension of the labor contract.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 494/633/20 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the early termination of a land lease agreement and the return of the land plot to the state’s management due to its use for a purpose other than that designated.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, in particular, it did not take into account that procedural succession involves the replacement of a party in the case, and also did not take into account that a change of ownership of the land plot (transition from state to communal ownership) is not an obstacle to the continuation of the proceedings in the case, and the prosecutor can represent the interests of the state, even if the territorial community has an interest in the return of the land. The court also noted that the appellate court did not examine the merits of the arguments of the appeal, and therefore prematurely changed the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance. In addition, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, which states that changes in the administrative-territorial structure during the proceedings in the case do not affect the possibility of satisfying the claim and executing the court decision in favor of the proper subject (territorial community).
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 348/1239/15-ц dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unauthorized construction of a sanitary unit, the invalidity of decisions of the city council, the certificate of ownership, the sale and purchase agreement, as well as the recognition of the right to use the land plot.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not resolve all of the stated claims, in particular, regarding the recognition of the unauthorized construction of a sanitary unit and the invalidity of decisions of the city council, the certificate of ownership, and the sale and purchase agreement, did nothaving provided no reasons for these claims. The courts of previous instances did not take into account the previous instructions of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff is entitled to a land plot for the maintenance of her house in the normatively determined size. Furthermore, the courts failed to consider that the claim for the recognition of the transaction as invalid is not derived from the claim regarding the right to land. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should have considered that the plaintiff is entitled to a part of the land plot in sizes not exceeding those established by the second part of Article 67 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
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. 530/1288/23 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of land plots, the cadastral numbers of which were clarified during the consideration of the case.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the involvement of the legal successor of the original defendants in the case. The court noted that, according to Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, legal succession is possible at any stage of the judicial process, and in this case, since the defendants gifted the disputed land plots to their son, he is their legal successor in the disputed legal relations. The court also indicated that the transfer of rights and obligations under the donation agreement is singular succession. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the missed deadline for filing an application for the replacement of the defendant and the lack of notification to the legal successor about the consideration of the case were rejected, as the involvement of the legal successor is possible at any stage of the process, and the applicant is not authorized to act in the interests of the legal successor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 1301/1540/2012 dated 05/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution based on the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim.
2. The court of appeal overturned the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the replacement of the claimant, as LLC “FC “Invest-Credo” did not acquire the rights of claim under the mortgage agreement, since the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim only specified the loan agreement as the main obligation, without reference to the mortgage agreement. The court noted that for the procedural replacement of a party in the case, primary documents are necessary, which confirm the transfer of rights and obligations to another person. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that the mortgage is derivative in nature from the main obligation, and the absence of proper documentary evidence of the assignment of rights under the mortgage agreement means that the right to the mortgage is not vested in LLC “FC “Invest-Credo.”
» did not arise legally. The court also took into account that in another case it was established that PJSC “Delta Bank” was the mortgagee, and the bank did not assign its rights under the mortgage agreement to the new creditor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Invest-Credo” and upheld the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeal.
Case №741/484/22 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses, namely a residential building and vehicles, as well as the recognition of the residential building as the personal private property of one of the spouses.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not determine what share of the residential building was built during the period of the parties’ marriage, which is important for determining the ownership of this property. The courts did not take into account the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses’ property, placing on the wife the obligation to prove a significant contribution to the construction of the house, and also did not properly assess the wife’s arguments that the main part of the construction was carried out during the marriage. In addition, the courts did not ascertain the material increase in the value of the property as a result of improvements made during the marriage and did not justify the conclusion about the wife’s insignificant contribution to the construction. Considering that special knowledge is needed to clarify these circumstances, the courts should have ordered a construction expert examination.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part concerning the division of the residential building and the recognition of it as personal private property and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №922/1675/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which recognized the monetary claims of the creditor, as the creditor provided sufficient evidence to support its claims, and the debtor did not refute them. The court noted that in a bankruptcy case, the commercial court does not consider the merits of disputes regarding monetary claims filed against the debtor, but only establishes the existence or absence of the corresponding monetary obligation of the debtor by examining the primary documents. The court also indicated that the analysis of the norms of the Bankruptcy Code shows that from the moment of official publication of the announcement of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, the term for fulfillment of all obligations of the debtor that arose before the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against him has effectively arrived. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the security payment is a deposit, not an advance payment, since the contract does not contain provisions that would
the possibility and conditions for the security (advance) payment remaining the property of Party 1 in the event that the main contract is not concluded.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgments of the previous instances.
**Case No. 642/7544/21 dated 29/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of spouses, namely a residential building and a land plot acquired during the marriage.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which divided the residential building between the former spouses in equal shares, and dismissed the claims for the division of the land plot, as it was acquired by the defendant at personal expense. The court noted that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, taking into account the principle of dispositiveness of civil proceedings, according to which the court considers the case within the stated claims. Since the plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance in the part refusing to recognize the right to a share of the land plot, the appellate court reasonably upheld this decision. The court of cassation instance also emphasized that the arguments of the cassation appeal boil down to a revaluation of evidence, which goes beyond its powers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances in the appealed part.
**Case No. 552/116/21 dated 28/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation in kind of a part of a residential building and the determination of the procedure for using the land plot between co-owners.
2. The court of cassation instance disagreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the absence of conclusions on the possibility of allocating a share of the immovable property to other co-owners, unauthorized construction by the plaintiff of an extension and a garage, as well as the absence of documents confirming the right to use the land plot by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court noted that the courts did not take into account that the disputed house actually consists of three separate apartments, which correspond to the shares of the co-owners, and that other co-owners did not file claims for the allocation of their shares. In addition, the unauthorized extension and garage were not included in the share of the co-owner, and no claims were made for their allocation. The court also pointed to the existence of a decision of the city council on assigning the land plot to the house and the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the immovable property located on it, which indicates the fallacy of the courts’ conclusions regarding the plaintiff’s lack of the right to use the land plot.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal.
of cassation instance.
**Case No. 916/3227/24 dated 05/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in распоряжении and the use of property by признания незаконным decisions, недействительным certificate and obligation to return property, namely, an anti-radiation shelter.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse to satisfy the prosecutor’s application for securing the claim, since the prosecutor did not provide sufficiently substantiated arguments and evidence that the failure to take such measures could complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision or effectively protect the rights of the state. The court noted that there is no evidence of the defendant’s actions to alienate the disputed property from the moment the claim was filed. The court also took into account that the prosecutor is not deprived of the right to re-apply for securing the claim in case of a change of circumstances and the provision of relevant evidence. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of the parties and adhering to the principle of proportionality when applying measures to secure the claim. The court also noted that the key is the establishment by the court of: 1) the existence of a dispute between the parties; 2) the risk of failure to ensure effective protection of the plaintiff’s violated rights; 3) the proportionality of the type of securing the claim chosen by the plaintiff with the stated claims and 4) the real purpose of the person’s appeal to the court with an application for securing the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 902/9/23 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use and распоряжении of property, namely a water body and the land plot under it, by obliging to return them to communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized the importance of adhering to the standard of proof of “probability of evidence” and the need to compare the evidence of both parties. The court noted that the defendant provided more probable evidence to confirm the lawfulness of using the disputed land plot on the basis of a state act, in particular, technical documentation and other documents confirming the procedure for allocating the land plot. The court took into account that the Klebanska village council committed violations in the registration and transfer to the archive of the session materials, for which the defendant cannot be held responsible. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized the need to take into account the practice of the ECHR regarding the protection of the right to peaceful possession of property, in particular, the principle of proportionality between the interests of the state and the individual, and took into account the long-term (more than 30 years) use of the disputed plot by the defendant without proven illegal behavior on his part. The court also took into account that errors of state bodies cannot be corrected byat the expense of private individuals.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied the prosecutor’s claim.
Case №918/969/23 dated 30/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of purchase and sale agreements and donation of a land plot as invalid, the reclamation of the land plot, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of it and the fire reservoir located on this plot.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court to suspend proceedings in case No. 918/969/23, as the consideration of this case is objectively impossible until the resolution of case No. 918/437/23, in which the legality of the decision of the Rivne City Council is challenged, on the basis of which the purchase and sale agreement of the disputed land plot was concluded. The court noted that the outcome of case No. 918/437/23 will significantly affect the outcome of the dispute in case No. 918/969/23. The court of cassation instance also pointed out that the appellant did not exercise the right to apply to the court with a motion to resume appellate proceedings in case No. 918/969/23, for the purpose of a quick and effective consideration of the case within a reasonable time, but challenged the ruling on its suspension, thereby depriving the appellate court of the opportunity to resume appellate proceedings in case No. 918/969/23. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the right of a person to a fair trial corresponds to the obligation to exercise procedural rights in good faith and to refrain from actions that delay the court proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case.
Case №942/924/21 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of paternity, the amendment of the birth record of a child, and the recovery of alimony.
2. The appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings, considering that the defendant was aware of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance and submitted an application certified by a notary. The court decided that the grounds for reinstating the term for appeal were not confirmed. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the appellate court reached a premature conclusion, as the case file was absent, and the appellate court did not initiate the issue of restoring the lost court proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial procedures must be fair, and a person cannot be unreasonably deprived of the right to appeal. Also, the Supreme Court referred to the need to restore the lost court proceedings, which is a guarantee of ensuring the right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned
reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case to the appellate court for continued consideration.
[**Case No. 732/737/24 dated 05/30/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127825837)
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement initiated by the landowner who inherited the land plot after the death of the previous owner.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance to terminate the land lease agreement and closed the proceedings in the case, reasoning that the dispute is subject to consideration in the commercial court within the framework of the bankruptcy case of the lessee (APC “Starosilskyi”), since the decision in the case will affect the bankrupt’s liquidation estate. The court took into account changes in land legislation that allow the lessee to dispose of the lease right without the consent of the landowner, which makes the lease right a property asset that can be included in the liquidation estate. The court also noted that the consideration of all property disputes in which the debtor is a party in a bankruptcy case must take place exclusively in the commercial court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, within the scope of that case. The court of cassation agreed with the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that it cannot be considered a “court established by law” within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
[**Case No. 404/2058/23 dated 05/29/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127826184)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment imposed on PERSON_7 for violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim and bodily injuries to another person.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, since the appellate court, in sentencing PERSON_7, violated the requirements of Part 3 of Article 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine by increasing the term of imprisonment after the previous appellate court’s judgment was overturned on the cassation appeal of the defense, which is inadmissible. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court had no legal basis to impose a more severe punishment than was imposed by the previous judgment overturned by the Supreme Court on the appeal of the defense. At the same time, the court of cassation rejected the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the possibility of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving the sentence with probation), since the appellate court reasonably took into account the severity of the crime and the consequences that ensued, and concluded that the convict could not be reformed without actual imprisonment. The court of cassation took into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the non-priority of the victims’ position regarding the imposition of punishment.
3. The Supreme Court amended the appellate court’s judgment
of the court, reducing the term of imprisonment for PERSON_7 to 3 years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years, and in the rest, the appellate court’s verdict was left unchanged.
Case No. 910/15693/24 dated 28/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Kyiv against LLC “IBK “Smart Renovation” for the return of property transferred for storage.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s funds and property, as the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, did not substantiate with proper evidence the need to take such measures, and their conclusions were based only on assumptions about the possible complication of the execution of the court decision. The court noted that to secure a claim, it is necessary to have circumstances confirmed by evidence that indicate a real threat of non-execution of the decision, and not just a potential possibility of evading the fulfillment of the obligation. Also, the courts did not substantiate the criterion of proportionality of securing the claim, imposing an arrest simultaneously on both the funds and the property of the defendant, without explaining why they did not limit themselves to arresting only the property to be returned. ** The court deviated from the previous practice, according to which the imposition of arrest on property is possible only in property disputes, referring to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which allows the application of such a measure of security also in non-property disputes, if there is a risk of complicating the protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rejected the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 927/1218/23 dated 28/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decisions of the Nizhyn City Council regarding the renewal of the land lease agreement with Individual Entrepreneur Kotliarevskyi, as well as the recognition of the lease agreement concluded between the city council and Individual Entrepreneur Kotliarevskyi as invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that Individual Entrepreneur Kotliarevskyi H.V. complied with the procedure for renewing the lease agreement, timely applying to the Nizhyn City Council with an application and a draft agreement. The council, although with a violation of the term established by law, made a decision on renewing the agreement. The court emphasized that the new version of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” grants the lessee a preferential right to conclude a new agreement, not to renew the previous one, and the parties may agree on the essential terms of the new agreement. The court also indicated that the Council’s failure to comply with the one-month term for considering the application of Individual Entrepreneur Kotliarevskyi H.V. is not a basis for terminating his preferential right to renew the lease agreement. The court rejected the arguments of Private Enterprise “Hrivas” about the violation of its right to participate
participate in land auctions, as Individual Entrepreneur Kotliarevskyi H.V. exercised his preferential right to renew the lease agreement.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed PP “Grivas”‘s cassation appeal without satisfaction and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 904/2112/24 dated May 29, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is LLC “Enerhiya”‘s application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The court partially granted LLC “Enerhiya”‘s application, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made, and taking into account the criteria of commensurability, reasonableness, and proportionality of expenses for legal assistance. The court took into account the evidence provided by the defendant regarding the scope of services provided and their cost, as well as the plaintiff’s objections regarding the inflated cost of certain services. At the same time, the court rejected the request for reimbursement of expenses for drafting a petition to close the cassation proceedings, as it was not satisfied. The court also noted that the recovery of expenses for legal assistance should not be a way for a party to unduly enrich itself.
The court ruled to recover from JSC “Ukrgazvydobuvannya” in favor of LLC “Enerhiya” UAH 25,000.00 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 686/18578/23 dated May 28, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of state registration of ownership of the apartment and the obligation to conduct documentary оформлення and state registration of documents on ownership of the apartment in the order of privatization.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which defended the rights of the plaintiffs, based on the fact that the plaintiffs moved into the apartment legally as bank employees, had been using it as a dwelling in good faith for a long time, and the bank, in turn, took actions that indicated agreement to privatization, issuing an order to transfer the apartment to the plaintiffs’ ownership. The court took into account the principle of good faith, according to which the bank’s behavior contradicted its previous actions regarding the agreement to privatization. Also, the court noted that the absence in the bank’s constituent documents of provisions on privatization is not an obstacle to completing this procedure, since the bank can create an appropriate body or conclude an agreement with other authorized bodies. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, as it was not proven that the bank objected to the plaintiffs’ right to privatization.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed JSC “Oschadbank”‘s cassation appeal without satisfaction and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 465/1215/20 dated May 28, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the privatization as invalid.
privatization of the apartment, cancellation of the order on the transfer of apartments to the ownership of citizens, invalidation of the apartment donation agreement, termination of ownership of the apartment, and elimination of obstacles in using the apartment by way of entry.
2. The court substantiated the decision by the fact that the privatization of the apartment took place without the consent of the plaintiff, who had the right to use the apartment at the time of privatization, which was established by a previous decision of the Supreme Court, and therefore her rights to privatization were violated; the alienation of the apartment based on the donation agreement also took place without her participation, which makes the transaction invalid; the courts of previous instances reasonably proceeded from the fact that a canceled court decision does not generate any legal consequences from the moment it is issued, but its cancellation in itself is not a basis for reviewing all legal facts that arose, changed, or terminated based on the relevant decision; the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff had previously exercised the right to privatization; the appellate court did not take into account that the other defendant did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 676/4537/23 dated May 14, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely a residential building and a land plot.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the ruling of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings on the appeal of a person who did not participate in the case, as her rights were not violated by the decision of the court of first instance; the court proceeded from the fact that the disputed property was acquired by the defendant in marriage, therefore it is considered the joint common property of the spouses, however, the presumption of the community of interests of the spouses implies that one of the spouses acts with the consent of the other, and in this case the rights of the wife were protected by the husband, who was the defendant in the case and appealed the court decision; the court also noted that the decision to recover property does not entail the automatic eviction of residents, and the issue of protecting the rights of children was not the subject of consideration in this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 922/1675/24 dated May 21, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor against a debtor in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the recognition of the creditor’s monetary claims, since the creditor did not provide proper evidence to support its claims, namely: the original license agreement was of inadequate quality, which raised doubts about the fact of its conclusion, and there is no evidence of sending the debtor claims for
