**Case №908/2289/23 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the assignment agreement as invalid within the framework of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the application of the insolvency receiver to invalidate the assignment agreement concluded between “Sem LТD” LLC and “Free Energy Company “Palivenergo” LLC. The appellate court found that the price of the contract was economically justified, taking into account the debtor’s financial condition and the risks of debt collection, and there is no evidence that after the conclusion of the contract, the debtor had no assets left to satisfy the creditors’ claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that not all transactions concluded during the “suspicious period” can be recognized as invalid, but only those that violate the rights of creditors, and the burden of proving this lies with the applicant. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the signs of fraudulence of the disputed contract, in particular, the intention of the parties to evade fulfillment of obligations to creditors and the debtor’s insolvency as a result of the conclusion of this transaction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case №914/1134/22 dated 06/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of land to the ownership of the servicing cooperative as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this land plot.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protecting the rights of the territorial community, since at the time of applying to the court, the right of ownership of the disputed land plot had already been registered to the cooperative. The court indicated that the proper method of protection in this case is a claim for recovery of property from illegal possession, and not simply the cancellation of the decision of the local self-government body, which in itself will not lead to the return of the plot to the ownership of the community. The court also noted that the cancellation of the state registration of ownership by the cooperative will not automatically restore the ownership right of the territorial community, since it was not previously registered for it. The court emphasized that choosing an improper method of protection is an independent basis for refusal in the claim.
ovi. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the effectiveness of the claim for recovery of property in similar cases.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 922/535/22 dated 03/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery by the prosecutor’s office from an individual of non-residential premises in favor of the territorial community, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, were illegally disposed of from communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the recovery of property, since the courts established that the individual is a bona fide purchaser who acquired the property under a contract for consideration, relying on the data of the State Register of Real Property Rights, and was not aware of the violations committed during the privatization of the property by previous owners. The court noted that granting the claim for the recovery of property in such a case would violate the fair balance between the interests of the territorial community and the property rights of a bona fide purchaser, placing an excessive burden on them. The court also took into account that at the time the individual acquired the property, there were no court decisions on the illegality of its initial alienation. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the prosecutor’s office did not provide evidence of the connection between the actions of the individual and the previous owners regarding the illegal privatization of the property.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/1568/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the association of co-owners of an apartment building of debt for gas supplied in the amount of UAH 1,780,078.25.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, closing the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraphs 3, 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no violations of substantive and procedural law that would lead to the cancellation of the appealed decisions. In addition, the Supreme Court partially granted the defendant’s motion for the distribution of court costs, recovering from the gas supply company UAH 5,000 in costs for professional legal assistance.
incurred by the Condominium Association in connection with the cassation review of the case. The court considered the reasonableness and documentary evidence of these expenses.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company Naftogaz of Ukraine” without satisfaction, and the decision of the Commercial Court of Lviv Oblast and the постанову of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case №910/10047/24 dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal to open proceedings in the case of bankruptcy of Private Enterprise “Pressa Service” initiated by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case, since the tax debt referred to by the STS is a penalty, and according to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, penalties are not included in the composition of monetary obligations that may be the basis for opening a bankruptcy case. The court noted that the task of the preparatory meeting is to verify the validity of the initiating creditor’s claims, and the creditor’s obligation is to provide evidence of the existence of an outstanding monetary obligation. The court also took into account the prejudicial circumstances established by the decision of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv, and emphasized the need to adhere to the principle of legal certainty. The court indicated that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures is a special law in this area, and its provisions prevail in case of inconsistency with other acts. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the reasoning of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case №902/966/22 dated 06/12/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the inaction of the private enforcement officer regarding the non-suspension of enforcement proceedings for the forced recovery of debt from JSC “Vinnytsiagas” in favor of LLC “Operator GTS of Ukraine”.
The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating the erroneousness of their conclusions. The court noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, considering that the transfer of assets of JSC “Vinnytsiagas” to the management of ARMA makes it impossible to enforce court decisions regarding this company. The Supreme Court emphasized that the management of ARMA assets does not changeproperty rights, and therefore, is not an obstacle to enforcement proceedings. Furthermore, the court of cassation indicated that the court of first instance incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Measures Aimed at Overcoming Crisis Phenomena and Ensuring Financial Stability in the Natural Gas Market,” since the executor is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings if the debtor is included in the relevant register, and the amount of recovery is subject to settlement in accordance with this law, regardless of the period of debt occurrence. **:** The court indicated that it deviated from the conclusions set forth in the постанові [resolution] of the Supreme Court of 19.12.2024 in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of property rights.
The Supreme Court granted the complaint of JSC “Vinnytsiagaz,” признав [recognized] the inaction of the private executor as unlawful, and obliged him to suspend enforcement actions.
Case No. 916/3296/23 dated 03/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PJSC “ATP 15168” against LLC “OTEKS” to remove obstacles to the use of a land plot owned by the plaintiff under the right of permanent use.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since LLC “OTEKS” is the owner of real estate located on the disputed land plot, and “peacefully possesses” it since 2001, which gives the defendant “legitimate expectations” regarding the use of the land under this property; the court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the illegality of the defendant’s use of the land plot and the creation of obstacles to its use by the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that according to the principle “superficies solo cedit”, a person who legally acquired ownership of real estate has a civil interest in оформленні [formalizing] the right to the land plot under it. The court also took into account that current legislation передбачає [provides for] the transfer of rights to a land plot upon acquisition of ownership of a real estate object. The court of cassation noted that it cannot establish new circumstances of the case, since this is beyond its powers.
3. The court left the cassation appeal без задоволення [unsatisfied], and the decisions of the previous instance courts – without changes.
Case No. 917/1998/23 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the признання [recognition] as invalid of a loan agreement and a financial agrarian receipt.
2. The court of cassation overturned the постанову [resolution] of the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court did not take into account that the ухвала [ruling] on the opening of proceedings in the case of bankruptcy
bankruptcy was rendered in a court session in which not all parties to the case appeared, and the court proceedings were not recorded using technical means; the official publication of the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case took place after the decision was made by the court of first instance in this case. Also, the appellate court did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments set forth in the appeal and did not examine whether the stated claims could affect the change in the size or composition of the debtor’s liquidation estate. The court of cassation emphasized that the decision of the local commercial court was overturned only on formal grounds of consideration outside the bankruptcy case, which is unacceptable. In addition, there was no statement on violation of territorial jurisdiction rules, and the case was considered by the same court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.
2. The decision of the appellate court was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 918/822/23(918/797/24) dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the provision of the charter of “Tradeks” LLC regarding the quorum for holding a general meeting of participants.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that although the provision of the charter regarding the quorum contradicts the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies”, this is not a basis for recognizing it as invalid, since from 06/17/2019, the norms of the Law are subject to application, and not the provisions of the charter that contradict it; the plaintiff did not prove that the disputed provision of the charter prevents him from convening and holding a general meeting; the plaintiff approved the disputed charter, which indicates his contradictory behavior; the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective, since the satisfaction of the claim will not change the scope of the rights and obligations of the parties. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the lack of notification about the convocation of the general meeting, since this is refuted by the presence of the minutes of the meeting and the charter signed by the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 907/82/25 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “MARKAN” LLC for taking measures to secure a claim before filing a lawsuit against “RHYTHM 2011” PE to eliminate obstacles in the use of land
regarding the land plot.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “MARKAN” LLC, overturning the appellate court’s ruling in the part refusing to grant one of the measures to secure the claim, namely, prohibiting the state registration authorities for real property rights from performing any registration actions regarding the real property owned by “RHYTHM 2011” PE. The court agreed that failure to take this measure could complicate the enforcement of a future court decision, as “RHYTHM 2011” PE could register ownership of the disputed object or alienate it to third parties. At the same time, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court in the part refusing to grant other measures to secure the claim, namely, prohibiting the issuance of a permit for construction works and carrying out actions related to the registration of a permit for construction works, since these measures are inadequate to the subject of the dispute and do not affect the possibility of enforcing the court decision. The court of cassation also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of procedural law by the appellate court when considering the motion for the judge’s recusal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “MARKAN” LLC, overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part refusing to grant one of the measures to secure the claim and upheld the first instance court’s ruling in this part, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 910/1885/23 dated 06/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, since the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the courts did not investigate all aspects of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, which was appealed, and did not take into account the possible impact of this decision on the plaintiff’s activities. Also, the courts did not pay attention to the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of his rights and interests as a result of the adoption of the appealed decision. Taking into account the indicated shortcomings, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to re-examine the case to ensure a comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of all the circumstances of the case.
The court of cassation ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
<a href=”htt
