[Case No. 905/291/23 dated 06/12/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128169800)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal of a court ruling on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against a limited liability company.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings, as the arguments of the appeal of the individual entrepreneur (IE) Sheludchenko H.H. were identical to the arguments that had already been considered by the appellate court during the review of the case on the debtor’s complaint. The court of cassation emphasized that the purpose of Article 272 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine) is to prevent the repeated review of a court decision based on reasons that have already been the subject of consideration. The court noted that IE Sheludchenko H.H. did not provide new arguments that had not been taken into account by the appellate court in the previous consideration of the case. The court also took into account that the Supreme Court had already agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that there were no grounds for applying the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP) regarding the prohibition of opening bankruptcy proceedings against enterprises located in areas of hostilities.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
[Case No. 918/195/24(918/700/24) dated 05/27/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128169833)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of decisions of the village council, recognition of the land lease agreement as invalid, and cancellation of the state registration of the lease right that arose within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the Nemovytsia Village Council violated the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine by transferring the land plot to the lease of “Dubenska Agrarian Company” agricultural company without the written consent of “Sluch” agricultural production private enterprise, on the territory of which the real estate of the latter is located. The court emphasized that the owner of a land plot cannot transfer it for use to third parties if there are real estate objects belonging to other owners located on it, and there is no consent from them. Also, the court noted that since the village council’s decision to transfer the land for lease was illegal, the lease agreement concluded on the basis of this decision is also invalid. The court stated that the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right is derived from the recognition of the lease agreement as invalid, and therefore is also subject to satisfaction. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of procedural law, in particular regarding the consideration of the case by an unauthorized composition of the court and in the order of simplified proceedings, noting that these violations did not affect the correctness of establishing the actual circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/18507/23 dated 06/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt from a defense industry enterprise.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the complaint of UKRSPECSYSTEMS LLC against the actions of the state executor. The court proceeded from the fact that, according to paragraph 10-2 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, during the period of martial law, enforcement actions are suspended against defense industry enterprises included in the relevant list approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Since the debtor (SE SC “UKRSPECEXPORT” – SFTE “SPETSTEHNOEXPORT”) was included in such a list, and the claimant (UKRSPECSYSTEMS LLC) did not provide evidence that it falls under the exceptions provided for in this paragraph (in particular, it did not provide an order from the Ministry of Strategic Industries on the inclusion of UKRSPECSYSTEMS LLC in the list of enterprises to which the suspension of enforcement actions does not apply), the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings were recognized as lawful. The court also noted that the obligation to notify the executor of the circumstances that cause the suspension of enforcement actions rests with the debtor. The arguments of the cassation appeal were reduced to the plaintiff’s own interpretation of paragraphs 22-23 of paragraph 10-2 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of UKRSPECSYSTEMS LLC and upheld the decision of the appellate court without changes.
Case No. 922/3626/24 dated 06/17/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 92,456,704.08 under the original claim and the recognition of the obligation to pay 3% per annum and inflation losses as terminated under the counterclaim.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the original claim. The court did not state specific arguments in this ruling, only indicated the need for a new trial in the first instance. The reasons for the reversal of the decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, where the court will probably point out the incorrect application of the norms of substantive or procedural law by the courts of previous instances. It is important to note that the case is being returned for a new trial, which indicates the existence of issues that require additional investigation or reassessment of evidence. The court of cassation, probably, found some shortcomings in the reasoning of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which became the basis for the reversal.
The court reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy theof the claim and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 910/10190/24 of June 12, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the obligation of “Elektropivdenmontazh” LLC to “EK-Osnova” LLC under the supply agreement due to the introduction of a moratorium on the fulfillment of obligations to persons associated with the aggressor state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the introduction of a moratorium is not a basis for termination of the obligation, but only temporarily restricts its fulfillment. The courts found that contractual relations arose between the parties for the supply of goods, which are subject to payment. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 187 does not establish such a basis for terminating the obligation to pay for the received goods as the introduction of a moratorium on the transfer of funds. In addition, the courts took into account that at the time of concluding the supply agreement, the plaintiff knew about the citizenship of the Russian Federation of the ultimate beneficial owner of the defendant, who was legally present on the territory of Ukraine. The courts also noted that the defendant assigned the right of claim to a third party, which also makes it impossible to satisfy the claim against the original creditor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Elektropivdenmontazh” LLC, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/14916/23 of June 11, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation to return the leased property and recover arrears of rent, as well as counterclaims for the recognition of the lease agreement as extended and recalculation of the rent.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the recovery of rent arrears, proceeded from the fact that the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property” of October 3, 2019 No. 157-IX, which is a special law in this area, does not provide for such a basis for extending the term of the lease agreement as “tacit consent.” The court noted that for the extension of the lease agreement, legally significant actions of the lessee are necessary, in particular, applying for an extension of the agreement no later than three months before the expiration of its term. The absence of a decision by the lessor regarding the lessee’s application for an extension of the agreement is not a basis for applying the provisions of Article 764 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the lessee’s obligation to pay rent remains only until the termination of the agreement, and not after its expiration. Since the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the agreement prolonged after July 27, 2020, there are no grounds for recovering rent arrears for the period after this date.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the recovery of arrears
regarding the rent and dismissed the claim in this part, and in the part of the obligation to return the property and in the part of the claims under the counterclaim – amended, stating their reasoning parts in the resolution, and in the rest – left unchanged.
Case No. 914/1171/24 dated 17/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 3,216,905.50.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about the arguments of the court from the provided text. The text lacks the reasoning part of the court decision, so it is impossible to analyze exactly what arguments the cassation court was guided by when overturning the decision of the appellate court and remanding the case for a new trial.
The cassation court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 924/55/25 dated 12/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection against unfair competition, namely the dissemination of misleading information by placing inaccurate information on the facades of pharmacies.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence in its entirety, in particular, did not take into account the results of a consumer survey conducted by the AMCU, and did not assess the explanations of the parties regarding all circumstances and evidence in their relationship and credibility. The court also pointed out the error in the application by the courts of previous instances of the provisions of the legislation on the protection of rights to trademarks for goods and services, since the compliance of the actions of an economic entity with the requirements of this legislation does not release it from the obligation to comply with the legislation on protection against unfair competition. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances investigated and assessed only the arguments of the party in whose favor the decision was made, without properly assessing on the basis of a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct investigation of all evidence available in the case.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 924/834/24 dated 12/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of construction work certificates as invalid and the recovery of funds on the basis of the invalidity of these certificates.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting their conclusions. The court probably agreed that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support the invalidity of the executed work certificates. Perhaps the courts of previous instances established
and that the works were actually performed, and the acts correspond to the scope and quality of the performed works. Also, it is possible that no violations were found during the preparation and signing of these acts that could be the basis for declaring them invalid. The absence of significant violations that would affect the reliability of the information in the acts could be a key factor in dismissing the claim.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Reddito” Construction Company LLC, and to leave the additional decision of the Commercial Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the resolution of the North-Western Commercial Court of Appeal regarding the review of this additional decision unchanged.
Case No. 922/4129/19 dated 06/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz” against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of court fees from JSC “Kharkivgaz” in favor of JSC “Ukrtransgaz”.
2. The courts of previous instances satisfied the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz”, based on the fact that the company has a state share in the authorized capital of more than 25%, and therefore, the compulsory execution of decisions regarding it should be carried out by the state enforcement service, and not by a private enforcement officer; the courts also referred to the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the management of ARMA assets is identical to the right of ownership. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the management of assets transferred to ARMA is not identical to the right of ownership, since the asset owner retains the right of ownership, and management only restricts the implementation of certain powers for the duration of the seizure. The court of cassation emphasized that the mere fact of a share in the authorized capital of the company being managed by ARMA cannot be the basis for prohibiting a private enforcement officer from enforcing a court decision. The Supreme Court noted that it departs from the conclusions set out in the resolution of the Supreme Court dated December 19, 2024, in case No. 903/62/23, according to which the content of asset management is identical to the content of the right of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz” against the actions of the private enforcement officer.
Case No. 927/875/24 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the commission of JSC “Chernihivoblenergo” on the obligation of the garage cooperative to eliminate violations related to the use of electricity for non-household needs without proper accounting.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular the provisions of the Retail Electricity Market Rules (REM Rules) in the version that was not in effect at the time of the disputed legal relations, violating the principle of non-retroactivity of the law in time. The court of appeal did not investigate
independently the evidence in their totality, including the act of violation signed by a representative of the cooperative without objections, and did not assess the consumer’s obligations regarding the use of electricity at the appropriate tariff. The court did not clarify whether other methods of proving the fact of the violation, in addition to the act of violation, were provided for by law at the time the act was drawn up. The court of cassation emphasized the principles of adversariality and dispositivity of the commercial process, according to which each party must prove the circumstances it relies on, and the court evaluates the evidence based on internal conviction, which is based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective consideration of all the circumstances of the case in their entirety.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/4863/22 dated 06/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s return of the appeal of JSC “Dniproazot” against the decision of the court of first instance on recognizing the termination of obligations of JSC “Zaporizhia Ferroalloy Plant” to JSC CB “PrivatBank”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which returned the appeal of JSC “Dniproazot”, since it was submitted to the court’s email address, and not through the electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS), although the appellant had such a cabinet registered. The court emphasized that, according to current legislation, persons who have an obligation to register electronic cabinets in the UJITS must submit procedural documents in electronic form exclusively through this system. The court also noted that the return of the appeal does not deprive the applicant of the right to submit it again, following the established procedure. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the lack of access to the case materials in the electronic cabinet, pointing to the possibility of submitting documents in paper form as an alternative. The court emphasized that the right to access to court must be effective, and there are alternative ways to appeal to the court, including in paper form.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Dniproazot” and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 924/834/24 dated 06/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of transactions concluded under a contract agreement as invalid, and the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts regarding the partial satisfaction of the claims for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, since the defendant stated the need to distribute these expenses in the response to the claim, provided a preliminary calculation and evidence that existed at that time. The court took into account that some evidence was incurred
were drawn up after the decision of the court of first instance, which is a valid reason for not submitting them before the end of the pleadings. The court also noted that the amount of reimbursement for professional legal assistance is determined taking into account the criteria of reality, validity, reasonableness and proportionality, assessed in each specific case. The court rejected the applicant’s arguments about the disproportionate cost of the lawyer’s services, since the circumstances of reimbursement are subject to evaluation in each specific case, and disagreement with the court’s assessment does not indicate the illegality of the decision. The court also emphasized that the procedural law does not define specific requirements for the form of the application for reimbursement of expenses, the main thing is that the intention is expressed before the end of the pleadings.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 921/110/23(921/787/23) dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 200,000 in debt under the agreement on the provision of repayable financial assistance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the agreement on repayable financial assistance is essentially a loan agreement, and in this case the defendant provided sufficient evidence of the return of funds, namely receipts to cash receipt orders with the signatures of officials and the company’s seal, which is sufficient proof of the return of funds to the company’s cash desk. The court noted that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating the evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to appoint an expert examination were rejected, since the appointment of an expert examination is a right, not an obligation of the court. Also, the court of cassation noted that the circumstances regarding the possible actions of former officials to conceal documents may be the basis for a separate claim for subsidiary liability.
3. The cassation appeal of Tierra LLC was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/542/22 dated 06/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the replacement of an improper defendant in the case.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the ruling on the replacement of an improper defendant is not subject to appeal separately from the court decision, since the determination of the validity of the formation by the plaintiff of the subject composition of the defendants can be carried out only as a result of resolving the dispute on the merits; replacing an improper defendant with a proper one and replacing a party in the case (procedural succession) or a party in the enforcement proceeding are different procedural actions.
