Case №752/16096/18 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_19 of receiving undue advantage for committing actions using the authority of a judge in the interests of a third party.
2. The court found PERSON_19 guilty, relying on evidence that included records of conversations where she discussed receiving money for requesting a license case, as well as the fact that she received money marked with a special solution, which was confirmed by an expert examination. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about provocation of the crime, pointing to the active role of PERSON_19 in the corruption scheme, her awareness of the working methods of law enforcement agencies, and the conspiracy measures she resorted to. The court also found no evidence of pressure on PERSON_19 or her dependence on the applicant, and her offer to exchange money for assistance in passing the qualification assessment was regarded as bargaining. The court also found the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions and the search lawful, rejecting the defense’s arguments about procedural violations. The court noted that the actions that PERSON_19 was to perform concerned the interests of a legal entity, not a physical one, therefore the charge was changed. Also, the court, referring to the practice of the Supreme Court, distinguished between the concepts of “use of power” and “use of official position,” excluding the latter from the charge.
3. The court ruled to find PERSON_19 guilty and sentenced her to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and 6 months, with deprivation of the right to hold positions in state authorities for a term of 3 years, with confiscation of all her property.
Case №920/550/23 dated 06/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Sumy City Council on the transfer of a land plot to BVKK Fedorchenko LLC for lease without land auctions, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement for this plot, and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right to lease.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the rights of the territorial community, since the requirement to recognize as illegal the decision of a local government body that has already been executed is not an effective way to protect rights. In addition, the requirement to recognize as invalid a lease agreement that has been partially executed, without a requirement to apply the consequences of invalidity (return of the land plot), is also ineffective. The court emphasized that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to combine the requirement to recognize a transaction as invalid with the requirement to apply the consequences of its invalidity for the effective protection of violated rights. Since the prosecutor did not state the requirement to return the land plot.
and the court of first instance rightly dismissed the claim, and the appellate court mistakenly overturned this decision. The court of cassation also noted that the claim to cancel the decision on state registration of rights is an improper way of protection, since it exhausts its effect at the moment of registration.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 903/871/24 dated 06/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of insurance compensation in the amount of UAH 4,769,040.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence, in particular, regarding the causal link between the insured event and the losses caused to the Enterprise. The court of cassation drew attention to the need for a thorough examination of the terms of the insurance contract and the validity of the calculation of the amount of insurance compensation. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out the importance of clarifying all the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute, including expert opinions and other evidence provided by the parties. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of the appellate court to provide a proper legal assessment of the parties’ arguments and substantiate its decision with reference to specific norms of substantive and procedural law. Given these shortcomings, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case for a new trial.
The court decided to partially grant the Enterprise’s cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s ruling, and send the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/13359/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty from Euro Smart Power LLC for overdue payment of a fine imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) for violation of legislation on protection of economic competition.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, was guided by the fact that the fine imposed by the AMCU is a type of liability, and the penalty is a way to ensure payment of this fine, and not a separate type of liability. The court emphasized that the accrual of penalties is suspended only for the time of direct consideration of the case by the court, and not for the entire period the case is in court. Also, the court noted that the previous judicial practice of the Supreme Court on this issue is stable and consistent, and its application does not depend on the good faith of the payer of the fine. The court rejected the arguments of Euro Smart Power LLC about the need to take into account the circumstances, on which
which the respondent could not influence, such as the terms for opening appellate proceedings, since the provisions of Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” only provide for the interruption of the accrual period of penalty due to appealing the court decision. The court also rejected the petition of LLC “Euro Smart Power” to transfer the case for consideration by the joint chamber or the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as no substantiated arguments were provided for deviating from the established practice of the Supreme Court, and no exceptional legal problem was identified that would require resolution at the level of the Grand Chamber.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to grant the claim of the AMCU and recover the penalty from LLC “Euro Smart Power.”
Case No. 910/8607/24 dated 06/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially granted the application for the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance, since the previous instances examined the provided evidence, assessed it in view of the subject and basis of the claim, the necessity, complexity, expediency of the lawyer’s actions, the proportionality, justification, and reasonableness of the expenses, in compliance with the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation instance noted that the criterion of reasonable necessity of expenses for professional legal assistance is an evaluative category, which is assessed by the court in each specific case based on the examination of evidence, in particular, provided in support of the circumstances of incurring such expenses, the scope and cost of services, taking into account the complexity of the case and the time spent by the lawyer. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that the obligation to prove the disproportionality of expenses rests on the party that files a motion to reduce the expenses for payment of legal assistance of a lawyer, which are subject to distribution between the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the additional decision and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 910/6186/23 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the state executor’s order on the seizure of the debtor’s funds in enforcement proceedings.
The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, noting that the actions of the state executor complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” in particular, regarding the imposition of seizure on the debtor’s funds in the amount of the recovery, taking into account the enforcement fee and other expenses. The court also indicated that the clerical errors made by the executor in the enforcement documents are not grounds for their cancellation, as lononly such errors can be corrected by the executor himself, and the complainant did not provide evidence of contacting the executor with a request for correction. In addition, the court took into account that the arrest from the debtor’s funds had already been lifted, and the enforcement proceedings had been terminated, which makes appealing the decision on the arrest impractical.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 917/777/20(440/1449/20) dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the tax authority’s request for permission to repay the enterprise’s tax debt at the expense of property that is under a tax lien.
2. The court refused to satisfy the tax authority’s claim, since at the time of the case, bankruptcy proceedings had already been initiated against the debtor, which provides for a special procedure for satisfying creditors’ claims, established by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUzPB). The court emphasized that from the moment of opening bankruptcy proceedings, the presentation and satisfaction of creditors’ claims to the debtor can be carried out only in the manner prescribed by the CUzPB, and not by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the satisfaction of secured creditors’ claims at the expense of the debtor’s property, which is the subject of security, is carried out only within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings. The court indicated that the tax authority’s claims are aimed at obtaining permission to repay the tax debt at the expense of the debtor’s property outside the procedures provided for by the CUzPB, using the procedure for repaying tax liabilities established by the Tax Code of Ukraine, which is not applicable to the debtor in bankruptcy proceedings. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which confirms the inadmissibility of granting permission to recover at the expense of the debtor’s property, which is under a tax lien, outside of the bankruptcy case.
3. The court ruled to leave the tax authority’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 922/2553/24 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, namely the amount of the loan and accrued interest.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which, referring to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, decided that the accrual of interest for the use of the loan is possible only until the end of the loan term. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court selectively applied the legal position of the Grand Chamber, without taking into account that the parties in the contract could provide for the accrual of interest as a measure
regarding liability for delay in fulfilling an obligation, which is governed by Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of interpreting the terms of the agreement to ascertain the parties’ actual intention regarding the accrual of interest after the credit period, and also pointed out the importance of analyzing the issue of applying paragraph 18 of the “Final and Transitional Provisions” section of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding exemption from liability for delay during martial law. The court also noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the terms of the loan agreement and did not refute the plaintiff’s arguments that the accrued interest after the loan period is precisely a measure of liability for delay.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 916/2299/24 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty in the amount of UAH 59,657,257.84 due to improper fulfillment of obligations to pay for supplied natural gas.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which reduced the amount of the penalty from UAH 60,257,257.84 to UAH 600,000, based on the court’s discretionary powers provided for in Articles 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, considering that the case file does not contain evidence of the plaintiff’s deteriorating financial condition or the existence of losses, as well as the significant difference in the scale of the parties’ business activities and the defendant’s objective impossibility to conduct full-fledged activities due to the temporary occupation of the territory. The court also considered that the main purpose of the penalty is to encourage the debtor to properly fulfill the obligation, and not to enrich the creditor, and that the application of penalties should not be an excessive burden for the debtor. The court of cassation emphasized that reducing the amount of the penalty is the court’s right, which depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and that determining the fair amount of the penalty is within the court’s discretionary powers.
3. The court of cassation ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal, and to uphold the decisions of the lower courts in the part of refusing to recover the penalty in the amount of UAH 59,657,257.84.
Case No. 911/658/24 dated 06/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 1,150,144,926.55, which includes a penalty and annual interest for the use of advance payment funds.
In the decision, the lower courts dismissed the claim for recovery of the penalty, but partially satisfied the claims for recovery of annual interest (20%) for the use of advance payment funds.
of daily payment. The plaintiff, LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine,” filed a cassation appeal, asserting the incorrect application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of previous instances. However, the Supreme Court, having reviewed the case materials, found no grounds for granting the cassation appeal. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, considering them well-founded and in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the law. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/10190/24 dated June 12, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an obligation to perform certain actions.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of LLC “Elektropivdenmontazh” against the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim against LLC “EK-Osnova” regarding the obligation to perform certain actions, with LLC “Promenergotek” acting as a third party on the side of the defendant. The court of cassation, having reviewed the case materials and the arguments of the cassation appeal, found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances. The decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged, as the Supreme Court did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the reversal of these decisions. The court considered all the circumstances of the case, the evidence presented, and the arguments of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Elektropivdenmontazh” and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 921/143/24 dated June 3, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of LLC “STANDARTBUD T” from the leased part of the site with reinforced concrete pavement, which is state property.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which granted the claim for eviction, pointing out the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the concept of “premises” in the context of the lease of state property, as well as the need for the balance holder to provide reasonable evidence of the need to use the leased property for its own needs. The court noted that the appellate court did not establish whether the balance holder’s notification contained sufficient justification for the need to use the object of lease specifically for its own needs, which is important for resolving the dispute. The courtThe court of cassation also pointed out the erroneous reference of the appellate court to Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property,” as it regulates the issue of including/excluding property from the lists for lease, and not the grounds for refusing to extend the lease agreement. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not properly examine the evidence and circumstances that are essential for the correct resolution of the dispute. **:** The court deviated from the conclusion stated in the decision of the Supreme Court of April 12, 2023, in case No. 917/565/22, that asphalt concrete pavement is not a premise by virtue of the provisions of the law, and therefore does not fall under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property.”
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 925/893/23 (925/309/24) dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of members of the garage-building cooperative on the exclusion of the plaintiff from the members of the cooperative.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, since the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which declared invalid the decision of the general meeting on the exclusion of the plaintiff from the members of the cooperative, because the cooperative violated the statute by not notifying the plaintiff in writing one month before the consideration of the issue of his exclusion. The court emphasized that such a violation deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to eliminate the reasons for exclusion. At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the court of first instance did not take into account which specific rights of the plaintiff were violated by other clauses of the general meeting’s decision (except for exclusion from membership), therefore, in this part, the appellate court’s decision was left unchanged. The court emphasized that in order to recognize the decision of the general meeting as invalid, it is necessary to prove that it specifically violates the rights and legitimate interests of the member of the cooperative, and not just state a formal violation of the procedure.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to satisfy the claim to recognize the decision on the exclusion of the plaintiff from the members of the cooperative as invalid, and in this part, upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 925/1240/21 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the ruling of the same court, which concerned a complaint against the actions of the liquidator in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal, in which the appellant argued that the appellate court did not take into account an important circumstance – вы
of the invalidity of the normative act on which the previous decision was based. The court of cassation noted that for the revision of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances, it is necessary that these circumstances existed at the time of the case’s consideration, were unknown to the applicant, and were of significant importance. In this case, the recognition of the normative act as invalid occurred after the decision being appealed was issued, therefore it cannot be considered a newly discovered circumstance. The court also departed from the previous conclusion regarding the impossibility of appealing the appellate court’s ruling refusing review based on newly discovered circumstances of a decision regarding a complaint against the actions of an arbitration manager, noting that such an appeal is possible.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 916/1533/24 dated May 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for natural gas supplied by the “last resort” supplier, and the obligation to write off accounts payable.
2. The court dismissed the initial claim for debt collection, as BONA VITA – BC LLC acts as the manager of an apartment building and acts in the interests of co-owners, providing them with heat through a rooftop boiler, i.e. is a collective domestic consumer. The court took into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Natural Gas Market” and found that Naftogaz of Ukraine Gas Supply Company LLC should have applied the maximum price for domestic consumers. Also, the court granted the counterclaim, obliging Naftogaz of Ukraine Gas Supply Company LLC to write off the debt in accordance with the Law of Ukraine No. 2479-IX, since BONA VITA – BC LLC consumed gas for the needs of the population, and the amount of debt exceeding the cost of gas at a fixed price is subject to write-off. The court found that BONA VITA – BC LLC had already paid an amount sufficient to cover the cost of gas at the established price and transportation services.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 910/25711/13 dated June 12, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of the State Enterprise “Ukrainian Aviation Transport Enterprise “Khoriv-Avia” against the actions of the state executor regarding the double debiting of funds in the enforcement proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision in the part obliging the state executor to return the funds to the debtor, but upheld the decision on the illegality of the executor’s actions regarding the repeated seizure of funds. The court of cassation agreed that the actions of the state executor regarding the repeated seizure of funds
were unlawful, as at the time of the decision on the re-arrest, there were already funds on the deposit account that had been previously recovered. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account that at the time of the case’s review in the court of cassation, the funds had already been transferred to the creditor in fulfillment of the court decision, and therefore, there were no grounds for their return. The court of cassation indicated that the debtor’s complaint is actually aimed at protecting his violated property right/legitimate interest, and the proper way to protect it in this case may be a lawsuit, in particular, for compensation for damages caused by the unlawful actions of the state executor.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the obligation of the state executor to return the funds, but upheld the decision on the unlawfulness of the executor’s actions regarding the re-arrest of funds.
Case No. 922/4805/24 dated 06/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of inflation losses and 3% per annum, accrued on the debt under a previous court decision.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not provide sufficient justification for the validity of the reasons for missing this deadline. The court noted that the issue of the validity of the reasons for missing the procedural deadline is decided by the court based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence, and to restore the deadline, it is necessary to establish the existence of objectively insurmountable circumstances that prevented the timely filing of the complaint. The court also emphasized that each party bears the risk of the consequences associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions by it, and that the mere fact of filing an application for the restoration of the deadline does not oblige the court to automatically restore it. The court of cassation indicated that the application by the appellate court of legal consequences in case of non-compliance by the appellant with the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine cannot be regarded as an expression of excessive formalism by the court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/4606/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” of inflation losses and 3% per annum in connection with the improper performance by the defendant of obligations under the agreement on providing services to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources.
2. The court of cassation agreed
with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that according to the general provisions of civil law, obligations must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the contract and the requirements of the law, and a breach of obligation entails liability. The court emphasized that the debtor’s lack of sufficient funds does not relieve him of liability for breach of a monetary obligation, and arguments about the absence of fault due to the Regulator’s failure to include the relevant expenses in the tariff structure are not grounds for exemption from liability. The court also noted that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Electricity Market”, referred to by the complainant, do not contain rules governing liability for breach of monetary obligations, therefore, the general provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine on liability for such breaches are applicable. The court took into account that the courts of previous instances, partially satisfying the claim, recalculated the amounts to be recovered and postponed the execution of the decision, taking into account the financial condition of the defendant and the importance of its activity for the state.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”‘s cassation appeal, and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case №918/1063/24 dated 04/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the right of private ownership of the complex of buildings and structures for the storage and processing of agricultural products.
2. The court of cassation partially overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on real estate, since the prosecutor’s claims were not of a property nature and did not directly concern the return of property to the plaintiff, and therefore, the imposition of an arrest was not consistent with the subject of the claim. At the same time, the court agreed with the prohibition to perform any registration actions regarding the real estate object and the prohibition to the defendant to perform actions aimed at dividing or combining the property, since the defendant had previously taken actions aimed at making it impossible to enforce a previous court decision. The court noted that the party applying for the security of a claim must substantiate the reasons for applying with such an application, and the measures to secure the claim must be proportionate to the stated requirements. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish the risk of failure to ensure effective protection of the plaintiff’s violated rights and the proportionality of the chosen type of security of the claim with the claims made.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decision
