**Case No. 359/2836/23 dated 05/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the court fee paid by Joint Stock Company “National Joint Stock Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” (NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine”) for filing a cassation appeal in a case regarding reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, and obligation to perform certain actions.
2. The Supreme Court granted NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine’s” application for the return of the court fee, guided by the fact that the proceedings in the case were closed due to the case not being subject to review under the rules of civil procedure. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not apply within the prescribed period for the transfer of the case for continued consideration to the commercial court, which has jurisdiction over such cases. Also, the court noted that the return of the court fee in the event of the closure of proceedings in the case must comply with the principles of the rule of law, good faith, fairness, and reasonableness, and this issue should be resolved after the expiration of the deadline for filing an application for directing the case for continued consideration by the court with established jurisdiction. The court also referred to paragraph 5 of part one of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” according to which the paid amount of the court fee is returned upon the request of the person who paid it, by a court order in the event of the closure of proceedings in the case.
3. The court ruled to grant the application of NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and ordered the Main Directorate of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv to return to NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” the court fee in the amount of UAH 35,428.80.
**Case No. 450/2196/17 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the restoration of the boundary of a land plot between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that to protect the right of ownership of a land plot, it is necessary to establish the existence of a person’s right to this plot and the fact of violation of this right. In this case, the examination established the overlapping of the defendant’s land plots with the plaintiff’s plot, which is a violation of the latter’s property right. The court took into account that the defendant voluntarily eliminated the violation in the public cadastral map by changing the boundary coordinates, therefore, the cancellation of the title document is not necessary. The presence of boundary markers installed by the defendant on the ground violates the plaintiff’s right to free possession of property. The court emphasized that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is effective, as it corresponds to the content of the violated right and will ensure its restoration.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which obliged the defendant to restore the boundaries of the land plot.
reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127863670″>**Case No. 593/320/20 dated 05/28/2025**
3. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the dismissal order as illegal and reinstatement at work.
4. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, did not pay attention to the evidence of sending a copy of the decision of the court of first instance to the email address of the defendant’s representative, through which he submitted documents in electronic form, which indicates his registration in the “Electronic Court” subsystem. The appellate court did not check whether this address was an official email address registered in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS) and whether it ensured the possibility of receiving documents in the proper manner. Also, the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court, related to appealing the decision on the liquidation of the enterprise. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial.
5. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and decision of the appellate court, sending the case for a new trial to the court of appeal from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
**Case No. 552/2893/20 dated 06/04/2025**
The subject matter of the dispute in the case 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 committing criminal offenses under Part 2 of Article 301 and Part 1 of Article 182 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court made a decision, leaving the judgments of the previous instances unchanged, and rejected the cassation appeal of the convicted person’s defender. The operative part of the resolution does not provide any arguments that the court of cassation was guided by when making the decision. It is only stated that the full text of the resolution will be announced later. Thus, it is impossible to analyze the motives of the court, since only the operative part of the decision is available.
The court decided to leave unchanged the judgments of the Kyiv District Court of Poltava and the Poltava Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7, and the cassation appeal of lawyer PERSON_6 – unsatisfied.
**Case No. 240/11576/23 dated 06/04/2025**
6. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the failure to accrue and pay an increase to the pension of a person who suffered as a result of the Chernobyl disaster and resides in the territory of radioactive contamination.
7. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the application of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established on January 1 of the calendar year, as a calculated value for determining the amount of the pension increase, referring to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supremeof the Court dated 04.04.2024 in case No. 240/19227/21, which confirmed that the provision of paragraph 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1774-VIII applies to these payments. At the same time, the court of cassation instance found that the appellate court did not consider the claim for compensation for moral damage on the merits and did not assess the arguments of the plaintiff regarding the limitation of the period for calculating and paying the increase to the pension. Considering that the appellate court did not investigate these circumstances, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law, the Supreme Court decided that this made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances that are relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the limitation of the period for payment of the increase to the pension and compensation for moral damage, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court, while leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 127/38085/24 dated 02/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of underpaid wages by a general practitioner from the Vinnytsia Regional Center for Medical and Social Expertise.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the appellate court’s ruling to close the appellate proceedings, as the Vinnytsia Regional Military Administration filed an appeal without being a party to the case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not directly concern its rights, interests, or obligations. The court noted that, according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an appeal may be filed by a person who did not participate in the case only if the court decision directly resolves the issue of their rights, freedoms, or obligations. In this case, the dispute arose between the doctor and the Center for Medical and Social Expertise, which is a legal entity with the right to appear in court, and the Vinnytsia Regional Military Administration is not a party to these legal relations. The court also referred to the ECtHR practice regarding ensuring the right to an appellate review of the case, taking into account fair judicial procedures.
3. The cassation appeal of the Vinnytsia Regional Military Administration was dismissed, and the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal was left unchanged.
Case No. 300/4085/23 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the State Institution “Territorial Medical Association of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region” to prepare and submit to the Pension Fund of Ukraine an updated certificate on the amount of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance as of January 1, 2023, for recalculation of the pension.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal, emphasized that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On State Social Standards and State Social Guarantees,” the living wage is a basic state social standard on the basis of which state social guarantees are determined. The court emphasized
ve that the Cabinet of Ministers is not authorized to establish a calculation value for determining official salaries that would not comply with acts of higher legal force. Considering the increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established by law on January 1, 2023, the plaintiff had the right to receive an updated certificate of the amount of monetary allowance. The court also referred to the ECHR’s practice regarding the protection of “legitimate expectations” in the field of social payments. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not apply provisions of normative legal acts that do not comply with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court indicated that, according to paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704, the monetary allowance of servicemen should be changed annually from January 1 due to changes in the subsistence minimum.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and issued a new decision satisfying the claim: it признав unlawful the refusal of the State Institution “Territorial Medical Association of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region” and obliged the institution to prepare and submit to the Pension Fund of Ukraine an updated certificate of the amount of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance as of January 1, 2023.
Case No. 904/1271/23 (904/1495/24) dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of invalid powers of attorney concluded between a farm enterprise and an individual, within the framework of the farm enterprise’s bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the powers of attorney as invalid, since the individual did not provide evidence of actual performance of the assignments in the interests of the farm enterprise, and the transferred funds were not confirmed by relevant business transactions. The courts established that the individual is an interested party in relation to the farm enterprise, and the concluded agreements had signs of fraudulent agreements, that is, aimed at withdrawing assets in order to avoid fulfilling obligations to creditors. The court of cassation emphasized that in bankruptcy cases it is important to protect the interests of creditors from unscrupulous actions of the debtor and other persons, and признавg transactions invalid is an appropriate way to protect violated rights. The court also noted that any transaction made by the debtor during the period when the debtor has an obligation to repay debts to the creditor, as a result of which the debtor ceases to be solvent, should be questioned in terms of its good faith and acquires signs of a fraudulent transaction committed by the debtor to the detriment of creditors.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 120/18836/23 dated June 4, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay ato a serviceman of an additional monetary reward in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in combat operations.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the additional reward established by Resolution No. 168 is a special type of monetary allowance related to the special nature of service in wartime. The court noted that the state is obliged to take measures to motivate servicemen and ensure their social protection. The payment of additional remuneration to a seconded serviceman is carried out at the place of his monetary allowance, provided documentary evidence of his participation in combat operations. The court emphasized that the order of the State Border Guard Service Administration cannot restrict the right of servicemen to receive additional remuneration if their participation in combat operations is confirmed by relevant documents, in particular, a certificate from the military unit to which they were seconded. The court also took into account that the initial version of Resolution No. 168 could have a broad interpretation, therefore it is important to establish the specific circumstances under which a serviceman acquires the right to an increased reward.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which partially satisfied the serviceman’s claim.
Case No. 943/242/22 dated 06/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property in the order of hereditary transmission.
2. The court of cassation considered the issue of the legality of suspending appellate proceedings in a civil case pending a decision in criminal proceedings, which are at the stage of pre-trial investigation, where the fact of forgery of a state act on the right of ownership of land, which is the basis for inheritance, is being investigated. The court noted that the suspension of proceedings is possible only if there is another case that is being considered in the order of legal proceedings, and not at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The court emphasized that another interpretation may lead to delays in the consideration of the civil case and violation of the principle of legal certainty. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding reasonable time limits for considering a case. The court pointed out that the suspension of proceedings in a case should not be considered as an unjustified delay in the consideration of the case and is applied only in circumstances defined by procedural law.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
: The court in the decision notes that it deviates from the previous position, which was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 591/11696/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. Subject
the subject matter of the dispute is an application to declare an individual deceased.
2. The court refused to grant the application to declare a person deceased because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate the likelihood of the person’s death under specific circumstances, and the evidence provided only confirms the fact of the person’s disappearance during hostilities. The court noted that to declare a person deceased, evidence is required that would provide grounds to assume their death, and not just the absence of information about their whereabouts. The court took into account that the person went missing in connection with hostilities, and the term provided for declaring a person deceased in such cases (two years after the end of hostilities) has not yet expired. The court also noted that the conclusion of the internal investigation does not contain circumstances indicating the probable death of the person, but only states the loss of contact with them. The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, emphasizing that the circumstances of the case do not give grounds to assume the person’s death at a certain time and under certain circumstances, therefore there are no grounds to declare them deceased before the established deadlines expire.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 760/14310/22 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the court of first instance on the foreclosure of the debtor’s real estate by a person who did not participate in the case, but believes that the court’s decision violates their rights.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations of the person who filed the appeal. The court of cassation noted that for a person who did not participate in the case, it is important to prove that the court decision directly concerns their rights and obligations, and is not probable or indirect. The Supreme Court emphasized that granting consent to the wife to conclude a contract of sale of an apartment and concluding a suretyship agreement indicates awareness of the consequences of non-fulfillment of credit obligations. Also, the Supreme Court took into account that the debt was recovered from the debtor and his wife jointly and severally, and no evidence of the division of property between them was provided. The Supreme Court indicated that the person is not deprived of the right to determine the share in the joint property and apply to the court with a claim to remove the arrest from the property belonging to them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 911/1623/24 dated 06/03/2025
The subject matter of the dispute in case No. 911/1623/24 was the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 15,985,340.00.
The Supreme Court refused to grantregarding the motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and closed the cassation proceedings on the complaint of the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office, filed on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Regarding the cassation appeal filed on the grounds provided for in paragraph 2 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court dismissed it. This means that the Supreme Court did not find any violations of the norms of procedural law that would have prevented the courts of previous instances from establishing the actual circumstances of the case and correctly applying the norms of substantive law. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no grounds for their cancellation or modification.
The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 233/5571/23 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of 1/2 share of a residential building, which is an object of joint common ownership of the spouses.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the courts of previous instances reasonably concluded that the disputed house was acquired by the parties in marriage, and it is subject to the presumption of community of property of the spouses, which the defendant did not refute. At the same time, the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff had already filed a similar claim in 2015, which may indicate the expiration of the statute of limitations. The courts did not resolve the plaintiff’s motion to renew the statute of limitations and did not establish whether this period was missed for valid reasons. Also, the courts did not take into account that leaving the previous claim without consideration does not stop the running of the statute of limitations.
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. 758/2856/25 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense attorney’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as it states that the preparation of the full text of the ruling requires a significant amount of time and will be announced later. In fact, this is only a procedural decision to deny the defense attorney’s motion. A full text of the ruling is required to provide a detailed analysis.
3. The court refused to grant the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the materials of the criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Case No. 183/4479/23 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal
I am of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict without changes, as it established that the court of first instance, after examining all the circumstances of the case, came to a reasonable conclusion about the person’s guilt in intentional homicide, and not in homicide exceeding the limits of necessary defense (Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court took into account the nature and localization of the victim’s bodily injuries, the instrument of the crime, the behavior of the accused before and after the crime, as well as the lack of evidence of a real threat to the life of the accused from the victim. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, since the scene inspection was carried out immediately, and the investigative experiment – with the voluntary consent of the person living in the house. The court noted that the defense did not exercise the right to file a motion for an additional examination to confirm the circumstances of the infliction of bodily injuries to the accused. The court of appeal properly verified the arguments of the appeal and provided an exhaustive answer to them.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal without changes, and the cassation appeal of the defender – without satisfaction.
Case No. 607/12186/22 dated 06/04/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of weapons, ammunition or explosives).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defender, canceling the ruling of the court of appeal and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance. In making this decision, the Supreme Court apparently established certain violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the court of appeal during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. Possibly, the court of appeal did not fully investigate the arguments of the defender’s appeal or did not provide a proper assessment of the evidence in the case. In addition, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which the court of appeal did not take into account or took into account insufficiently. The purpose of the new hearing in the appellate instance is to eliminate the identified violations and ensure a fair trial.
The court canceled the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case No. 161/4116/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s petition to resolve the fate of material evidence in criminal proceedings.
2. Ver
The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the previous instances, citing the need for a full and comprehensive review of the prosecutor’s motion regarding the fate of the material evidence. The judges of the cassation instance pointed out that the courts of the first and appellate instances did not fully investigate all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the issue regarding the material evidence, namely, their value and significance for the criminal proceedings were not properly established. Also, the courts did not take into account the arguments presented in the cassation appeal of PERSON_7. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that a new review of the motion in the court of first instance was necessary to ensure the completeness and objectivity of the investigation of all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the previous instances and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case №296/7802/22 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement in the amount of UAH 800,000.
2. The courts of the first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by doubts about the reality of the existence of the defendant PERSON_2 and, accordingly, about the reality of the debt itself. The courts referred to the lack of registration of the defendant at the specified address, the impossibility of his identification according to the data of the State Enterprise “Information Judicial Systems”, as well as discrepancies in the signatures. The Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, pointing out the need for a more thorough investigation of the issue of the defendant’s existence, in particular, by ordering a handwriting examination and sending a request to the tax authorities regarding the ownership of the RNOKPP [Registration Number of the Taxpayer’s Account Card] to the person specified in the loan agreement. The Supreme Court also indicated that the court’s conclusions cannot be based on the ruling of the investigating judge, since it is not a prejudicial evidence in a civil case. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of establishing the actual circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №911/880/23 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the exercise of the right to use and dispose of land plots of the water fund, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, are illegally in private ownership.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, indicating that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law regarding a negatory claim, which is a proper way of protection in disputes about the return of land plots of the water fund illegally occupied by private individuals, and that it is not necessary to challenge all previous decisions and transactions to satisfy such a claim. The court also noted that the appellate court without
