**Case No. 924/856/24 dated 05/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of additional agreements to land lease agreements as concluded, since the lessee believes that its preferential right to renew the agreements was violated due to the inaction of the city council.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, stating that for the renewal of a lease agreement by tacit consent (according to Part 6 of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”), it is necessary that the lessor does not send the lessee a letter of notification of objection within one month after the expiration of the agreement. The court took into account that the city council provided evidence of sending a letter of notification with a decision to refuse the renewal of the lease agreements, namely: a copy of the cover letter, a register of sent correspondence, a description of the enclosure in a valuable letter, a fiscal check, and a postal item with a delivery notification. The court noted that the lessee did not prove the inadmissibility of this evidence, and its arguments amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the court of cassation. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving the inadmissibility of evidence lies on the party that asserts it, and that the existence of a circumstance is considered proven if the evidence provided is more likely than the evidence provided to refute it.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 914/855/24 dated 06/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of JSC “Lviv Chemical Plant” against PE “NTA-Independent Television Agency” for refutation of inaccurate information disseminated on the YouTube channel.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that the disseminated information mainly concerned the owners, shareholders, and not the enterprise itself, sufficient evidence of the inaccuracy of the information was not provided, the disputed information was obtained from open sources and was in the form of evaluative judgments, and it was not proven that the dissemination of information led to a decrease in the business activity of the plaintiff; the court also noted that the failure of the plaintiff’s representative to appear at one of the court hearings is not an unconditional basis for leaving the claim without consideration, since the plaintiff’s representative participated in previous hearings. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the decision on partial reimbursement of legal aid costs, since the claimed amount was significantly reduced by the court of first instance, which corresponds to the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. The court of cassation also noted that the references of the courts of previous instances to the conclusion regarding censorship when deleting information from the website are unfounded, but this did not affect the correctness of the decision on the merits of the dispute.
3. The court of cassation
The Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Lviv Chemical Plant JSC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 645/934/21 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of spouses, namely a non-residential building acquired during the marriage.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for the division of property of the spouses, since it established that the disputed non-residential building was acquired by the husband as personal private property on the basis of a purchase and sale agreement, which stated the written consent of the wife to such acquisition. The court took into account that the wife did not appeal this agreement and concluded that the spouses had reached an agreement regarding the legal regime of this property as the husband’s personal private property. The court also noted that the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses can be disproved, and in this case, this presumption was disproved by the presence of the wife’s written consent to the acquisition of the property by the husband as personal private property. The cassation court emphasized that it expresses legal conclusions based on the specific circumstances of each case, and these conclusions are not universal. The court also took into account that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to a revaluation of the evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The decision of the court of first instance and the постановa [ruling] of the court of appeal were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 910/4606/24 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 99,739,671.29 from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of SE “Guaranteed Buyer”.
The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed with their conclusions. The courts of previous instances probably examined the circumstances of the case in detail, assessed the evidence and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. Since the text of the decision does not contain details regarding the arguments of the parties and the motives of the court, it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances considered the case fully and comprehensively, and the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” did not contain sufficient grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions. The absence of specific motives in the постановa [ruling] of the Supreme Court indicates that the cassation court did not find any violations of the norms of law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the dispute.
The court ruled: the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” was dismissed, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постановa [ruling] of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/6187/22 dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from “PROM-TECHNO GROUP” LLC in favor of SE SC SFEDI “UKRINMASH” which arose as a result of improper fulExecution of the commission agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of grounds for the recovery of the principal debt, inflation losses, and 3% per annum, since the commission agent duly fulfilled the terms of the commission agreement, and the principal did not provide evidence of timely appeal against the commission agent’s reports, which, according to the terms of the agreement and the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, means their acceptance. The court also took into account that the defendant was aware of the detected defects in the products and the need to compensate the expenses incurred by the commission agent. At the same time, the court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to refuse the recovery of the fine, since Part 2 of Article 231 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, which the plaintiff referred to, does not regulate liability for violation of monetary obligations. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law, since the court of first instance lawfully accepted the evidence submitted by the plaintiff with a delay, considering the valid reasons for not submitting it together with the statement of claim.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PROM-TEHNO GRUPA LLC, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 521/17641/18 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the defendants from the dormitory without providing other housing.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that at the time of the death of the person with whom the defendant lived as one family, and at this time the defendants were and are registered at another address and retain their right to reside there, and therefore they cannot be granted the right to use the disputed residential premises. The court of cassation agreed with this conclusion, noting that the defendant does not belong to the persons who cannot be evicted from official residential premises without providing other housing, since the provisions of Article 125 of the Housing Code of Ukraine provide for such impossibility only for persons who were provided with official housing, and the case file does not contain information that the deceased was provided with official housing. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the eviction of the defendant from the disputed residential premises in the dormitory does not constitute an excessive burden for her, is necessary to ensure the implementation of the housing rights of other citizens working in the Main Department of the National Police in the Odesa Region, who need to improve their housing conditions, in accordance with the law, is proportionate to the specified purpose and will constitute a reasonable balance between the interests of the individual and society, and therefore, will not constitute an unjustified interference with her right to respect for housing. The court of cassation also noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision on the eviction of the defendants from the dormitory.
Case No. 914/1434/14 dated 02/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the appeal of a person who was not a party to the case against the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of ownership of warehouse premises.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, based on the following:
* The appeal was filed after the deadline established by the Commercial Procedure Code, which was in force at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance.
* The appellate court reasonably found the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal to be invalid, as the appellant knew about the existence of the appealed decision long before the moment when, according to him, he received a copy of this decision.
* There are no exceptions provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code that would allow the renewal of the deadline for appeal, given that the appellant did not prove that he was not notified of the case hearing or was not involved in it, and that the court made a decision on his rights, interests and obligations.
* The opening of appellate proceedings without valid reasons for missing the deadline for appeal violates the principle of finality of a court decision as an element of the principle of legal certainty.
* The court of cassation has no right to establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances, to decide on the reliability of evidence or to collect new evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/13359/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine from Euro Smart Power LLC in the amount of UAH 3,269,684.00.
2. The Supreme Court granted the AMCU’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision and upholding the decision of the court of first instance. In fact, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, and the appellate court was mistaken. Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand from the text of the decision why the AMCU has the right to recover the penalty from Euro Smart Power LLC, as there are no arguments of the court.
3. The Supreme Court decided to grant the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, to overturn the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv, recovering UAH 78,472.42 of court fees from Euro Smart Power LLC in favor of the AMCU.
Case No. 917/1215/24 inід 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of immovable property and a land plot, the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body to register ownerless property, and the cancellation of state registration.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which closed the proceedings in the part of the claims for recognition of ownership of immovable property, since there is already a court decision between the same parties that has entered into legal force in a case with an analogous subject matter and grounds. The court noted that the plaintiff had already applied to the court twice with similar claims, and these claims were the subject of judicial review in previous cases. The grounds for the claims in this case and the previous cases completely coincide and relate to the creation of the disputed immovable property within the framework of the joint venture agreement, the status of KSP “Svitanok” as the sole participant of the joint venture, and the reorganization of KSP “Svitanok” into PSPA “Urozhai”. The plaintiff’s reference to new circumstances, such as the Council’s decision to register the property as ownerless, does not change the essence of the claim for recognition of ownership. The court considered the filing of a new statement of claim as an attempt to achieve a retrial of the case and a re-evaluation of the circumstances, which contradicts the principle of legal certainty.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
Справа №824/165/24 від 29/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) to recover from JSC “Ukrainian Energy Machines” in favor of INDUSTRIAL FIELDS LIMITED the debt for delivered products, penalties, 3% per annum, and losses from inflation.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following:
* National courts have limited powers to review decisions of international commercial arbitration, cannot re-evaluate them on the merits and verify the correctness of the application of substantive law.
* The grounds for canceling an ICAC decision are exhaustive and must be proven by the party applying for cancellation.
* The applicant did not provide evidence that the contested arbitration decision affects the public, economic and social foundations of the state of Ukraine or harms its sovereignty or security.
* Payment of funds in Russian rubles, although complicated due to the NBU’s resolution, does not cancel the debt and does not contradict the public order of Ukraine.
* There is no evidence that the funds recovered in favor of INDUSTRIAL FIELDS LIMITED will be transferred to PJSC “Novolipetsk Metallurgical Combine” (which is subject to sanctions), since there is an act of reconciliation of mutual settlements, which
Confirms the absence of debt of INDUSTRIAL FIELDS LIMITED to PJSC “Novolipetsk Metallurgical Combine”.
* The absence of sanctions directly against INDUSTRIAL FIELDS LIMITED is also an important factor.
3. The court decided to leave the appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Energy Machines” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 910/6822/24 dated 06/04/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 9,383,582.50.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, leaving the cassation appeal of LLC “Lizard Soft” unsatisfied. The courts of previous instances thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case and provided a proper assessment of the evidence, taking into account the arguments of the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the review of court decisions in the cassation procedure aims to correct judicial errors, and not to re-evaluate evidence that has already been investigated by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation instance did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the cancellation of the appealed decisions. Also, the Supreme Court renewed the effect of the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
The court decided: To leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Lizard Soft” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 910/7421/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the ownership right of LLC “Trade Dnipro” to the RENAULT truck on the basis of a financial leasing agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the closure of the appeal proceedings, since the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, interests and obligations of LLC “Investbud”, which filed an appeal, since at the time the court decision on the recovery of part of the advance payment from LLC “Brand Leasing” in favor of LLC “Investbud” entered into legal force, the ownership of the disputed car had already passed to the lessee (LLC “TLA Dnipropetrovsk”, and later to LLC “Trade Dnipro”). The court also emphasized that LLC “Trade Dnipro” rightfully recovered the costs of professional legal assistance, since all the necessary evidence was provided, and the amount of costs was commensurate with the complexity of the case. The court of cassation instance noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal, since evidence of the proper performance of the leasing agreement was submitted and investigated, and references to the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Real Property Rights and Their Encumbrances” are irrelevant, since the car is not immovable property.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals of LLC “Investbud” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the additional постанову [resolution/ruling] of the same court – unchanged.
Case No. 910/8607/24 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the state enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of the limited liability company “Azimut Yug” of the amount of UAH 25,994,932.30.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, guided by the articles of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the limits of reviewing the case in the cassation instance, the powers of the court of cassation instance, as well as the consequences of considering the cassation appeal. The court probably agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the validity of the plaintiff’s claims and the absence of grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions. The decision does not specify the specific arguments of the cassation appeal, but it can be assumed that the defendant tried to appeal the decisions of the previous courts on procedural or substantive legal grounds. The court of cassation instance, having checked the legality and validity of the decisions of the previous courts, found no grounds for their cancellation.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the additional decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the постанову [resolution/decree] of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 755/7632/22 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the representative of the defendant’s motion for an additional court decision regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The court of cassation instance, granting the motion for an additional decision, proceeded from the fact that the parties to the case have the right to legal assistance, and the costs for it are subject to distribution between the parties in proportion to the satisfied claims. The court took into account that the defendant provided evidence of incurring expenses for legal assistance, and the plaintiff did not dispute their amount. At the same time, the court was guided by the criteria of the reality of attorney’s fees (establishing their validity and necessity) and the reasonableness of their amount, based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the information reflected in the provided evidence regarding the nature and scope of the work performed by the attorney corresponds to the criterion of reasonableness and the time spent by the attorney on performing the relevant work. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the compensation of court costs.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to grant the motion of the defendant’s representative and recover from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant the costs of professional legal assistance in the amount of 50,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 490/5655/22 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as partially invalid of the contract of purchase and sale of a house and
land plot and return of property to the plaintiff’s ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that the plaintiff was aware of the consequences of concluding the sale and purchase agreement, her expression of will was aimed at the real occurrence of legal consequences, and also that the plaintiff took actions aimed at preparing for the sale of the property (ordered technical inventory, property valuation, received extracts from the cadastre, etc.). The court also noted that the parties to the contract confirmed the absence of error, deception or violence during its conclusion. In addition, the appellate court took into account that the plaintiff paid taxes related to the sale of property. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the obligation to prove the invalidity of the transaction lies with the party that disputes it, and that the evidence must be proper and admissible. The court also noted that it cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/4731/24 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the amount of UAH 15,327,564.00 from the state enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of the limited liability company “Gildendorf Energy”.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts, confirming their conclusions. The decision does not provide detailed arguments that the court of cassation instance was guided by, but it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the Supreme Court found no grounds for their cancellation. The absence of the plaintiff’s representative at the hearing did not affect the consideration of the case, as the defendant was represented by a lawyer. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the recovery of the amount from the “Guaranteed Buyer” is justified.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the state enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer”, and to leave unchanged the additional decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 914/3625/23 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,875,266.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, dismissing the cassation appeal of Vestavtotrade LLC. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case and properly assessed the evidence presented by the parties. Perhaps the courts found no grounds for satisfying the claims of Vestavtotrade LLC.
d,” or concluded that the plaintiff’s arguments were unfounded. Also, the courts could have taken into account the arguments of the defendant, Kamianka-Buzka Feed Mill LLC, and the third party, Ekoniva LLC, which could indicate the absence of violations of the plaintiff’s rights or the existence of other circumstances that exclude the possibility of granting the claim. Considering that the Supreme Court did not find grounds to overturn the decisions of the previous instances, it can be assumed that they were well-founded and lawful.
The Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of Vestavtotrade LLC and to uphold the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 824/161/24 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is an application for an additional court decision regarding the distribution of court costs in the case of recognition and granting permission for the enforcement of an International Commercial Arbitration decision.
The Court partially granted the application, reasoning that the plaintiff incurred expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal, which are subject to reimbursement by the defendant. The Court took into account the provided evidence regarding the scope of services provided and their cost, as well as the principles of reasonableness and fairness in determining the amount of compensation. The Court also took into account the provisions of procedural law governing the distribution of court costs between the parties. At the same time, the court rejected the claims for reimbursement of other types of expenses, as they were not properly substantiated or documented. The Court emphasized the obligation of each party to prove the amount of expenses incurred and their connection with the case.
The Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal in the amount of EUR 750.00.
Case No. 910/10124/23 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the amount of UAH 21,631,819.49 from the State Company “Ukrspecexport” in favor of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, as the courts of the previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for recovering the specified amount from the Company in favor of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. At the same time, the Supreme Court took into account the arguments and justifications set out in the cassation appeal, but did not find grounds to overturn the appealed court decisions. The court of cassation acted within its powers defined by procedural law.
The Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and to uphold the decisions of the previous instances.
Case №944/3932/20 of 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of unauthorized modification of information in a computer system and abuse of office, which led to serious consequences in the form of the state’s failure to receive customs payments.
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, since the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the person in committing the incriminated crimes, in particular, did not provide evidence that would refute the fact that the vehicle was in the customs control zone. The Court of Appeal, having reviewed the case, confirmed that the information was entered into the system in accordance with the powers and duties of the person, and no violations were established. The court also took into account that the concepts of “completion of customs formalities” and “crossing the state border” are not equivalent, and the information of the border service does not confirm the absence of the person during customs procedures. The court of cassation noted that the prosecutor’s arguments amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case №944/3932/20 of 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the acquittal of PERSON_5, accused of abuse of power and official position.
Unfortunately, this ruling does not state the arguments of the court that it relied on when making the decision, as only the operative part is provided. To understand the logic of the court, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons why the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal. Without the full text, it is impossible to understand why the court decided to leave the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_5 remained unchanged.
Case №910/3370/21 of 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the joint-stock company “Gas Distribution System Operator “Kryvorizhgaz”.
2. The decision does not state the arguments of the court, so I cannot analyze them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Kryvorizhgaz”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №640/31738/20 of 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is
