**Case No. 914/2450/22(914/1083/24) of June 18, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 20,387,803.10, the value of unjustifiably retained property.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text lacks the court’s arguments that guided its decision. There are only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling. To provide a complete response, the motivation part of the court decision is required.
3. The decisions of the court of first instance and the court of appeal were overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 917/141/24 of June 6, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Construction Company “Combinat of Production Enterprises” LLC in favor of the Executive Committee of the Shcherbanivka Village Council of the Poltava District of the Poltava Region of UAH 2,917,677.33 of debt under the agreement on participation in the development of infrastructure.
2. The court of cassation considered the issue of the correlation between the institutions of installment (deferral) of execution of a court decision and a settlement agreement, in particular, whether it is possible by a settlement agreement to establish a term for the fulfillment of an obligation longer than the one-year term of installment (deferral) of execution of a court decision. The court noted that a settlement agreement is the result of an agreement between the parties based on mutual concessions, and not a unilateral expression of the debtor’s will, as in the case of installment execution of a court decision. The court emphasized that the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine does not prohibit establishing a payment schedule, including outside the one-year term, as a condition for approving a settlement agreement, since this is an expression of the mutually agreed will of the parties. The court also indicated that, when approving a settlement agreement, the court should not define force majeure circumstances and provide a list of evidence in the event of their likely occurrence, since it is the right of the parties to determine the terms of the agreement. The court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments about violation of the interests of the state, since the stable flow of funds to the budget and the phased payment of debt without the risk of termination of the defendant’s activity also meet the interests of the state.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement.
***: The court in this case departed from the legal position stated in the decision of the Supreme Court dated February 5, 2025 in case No. 917/1291/23, regarding the impossibility of approving a settlement agreement with conditions on the actual installment of the obligation’s fulfillment for more than one year.
**Case No. 910/10434/24 of June 17, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank “Privatbank” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Enterprise “Tavrida Electric Ukraine” of…
in the amount of UAH 4,136,080.92.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the previous instances. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds for cassation appeal provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that in this part, the appeal was filed in violation of procedural requirements. Regarding other grounds for cassation appeal, the Supreme Court found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the previous instances. The court also partially granted the petition of “Tavriда Electric Ukraine” LLC for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, awarding UAH 10,000 to be recovered from the bank.
The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the постанову (ruling) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 918/73/25 dated 06/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of advance payment for goods that were not delivered.
2. The court of cassation overturned the постанову (ruling) of the appellate court, noting that to secure a claim by way of seizure of property, evidence of a real threat of non-execution of the court decision is necessary, and not merely assumptions about it. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendant’s actions aimed at evading the fulfillment of obligations after the lawsuit was filed, such as the sale of property or preparatory actions for this. Also, the court took into account that the appellate court did not consider the lack of reasonable arguments regarding the proportionality of the chosen type of securing the claim and the reasonableness of the assumption that failure to take such measures would complicate the protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that there were insufficient grounds for granting the application for securing the claim, since it was not proven that failure to take measures would lead to the impossibility of executing the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of establishing the objective existence of risks, which must be confirmed by relevant evidence.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 910/19210/15 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from the Kherson Regional Council and the Main Department of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine in the Kherson Region.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the previous instances. The court of cassation, presumably, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first instance and appellate instance regarding the merits of the dispute, but decided to clarify or rephrase the justification for these conclusions. At the same time, judging by the operative part, the courts of previous instances made a lawful and well-founded decision.
case that does not require cancellation or amendment in the part of resolving the claims on the merits. Possibly, the changes concerned issues of jurisdiction, application of substantive or procedural law, or assessment of evidence. The absence of the full text of the decision does not allow for a more specific analysis.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left the court decisions unchanged otherwise.
Case No. 910/11875/22 dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of creditor claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk Region to PrJSC “Aerobud” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recognize a part of the creditor claims of the MD STS in the Dnipropetrovsk Region in the amount of UAH 728,606.55, since the debtor terminated the lease of the land plot and sold the real estate that was the object of taxation back in 2018, which is confirmed by relevant documents. The court noted that the controlling body should have taken these circumstances into account during the desk audit, and the provisions of Article 87 and Clause 56.11 of Article 56 of the Tax Code of Ukraine do not regulate the procedure for considering creditor claims in a bankruptcy case, which has a special nature. The court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, the court is responsible for verifying and providing a legal assessment of all creditors’ claims against the debtor, regardless of whether they are recognized or rejected by the debtor.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the MD STS in the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
Case No. 910/20104/23 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Kyiv City Council to grant the public organization “Veterans and Disabled People of ATO” a land plot for permanent use for housing construction, as well as the termination of the right of permanent use of this plot.
2. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances did not analyze the appropriateness and effectiveness of the method of protection chosen by the prosecutor. The Supreme Court indicated that in this case, the prosecutor actually insists on the absence of the right of permanent use of the disputed land plot by the PO “Veterans and Disabled People of ATO” due to its receipt by defendant-2 for use in violation of the requirements of land legislation. The court noted that the prosecutor’s claim to terminate the right of permanent use of the land plot does not correspond to the essence of the claims, since it is impossible to terminate a right that does not exist. The proper method of protection in this case is a claim for recognition of absence
the NGO “Veterans and Invalids of ATO” has the right of permanent use of the disputed land plot, but the prosecutor did not state such a claim. Since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, the claim should be dismissed on this basis, although the courts of previous instances correctly concluded that the claim should be dismissed, but on other grounds.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, but leaving unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 910/4461/23 dated 17/06/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of the right of a prior user, the recognition of the invalidity of a certificate for a trademark for goods and services, and the obligation to take actions to amend the register.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the previous instances regarding the claims for recognition of the certificate as invalid and obligating Ukrpatent to amend the register, closing the proceedings in this part. The court justified this by the fact that the dispute regarding the validity of the certificate for a trademark for goods and services is not subject to consideration in commercial courts, as this falls under the competence of the appeal chamber of Ukrpatent, and then the administrative court. Regarding the recognition of the right of prior use, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of its use of an identical or similar mark prior to the priority date of the defendant’s mark. The court also noted that the right of prior use arises only if the mark is used in good faith.
The court of cassation instance ruled to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of PE Popy Luchiana Ivanovich.
Case No. 910/17647/18 dated 27/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages and incurred expenses that Kyiv Terminal LLC considers to have been caused as a result of the termination of the investment agreement with the Department of Economics and Investments of the executive body of the Kyiv City Council, the Kyiv City Council, and the Kyiv City State Administration.
2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, proceeded from the fact that Kyiv Terminal LLC did not prove with proper evidence the fact of incurring losses in the stated amount, as well as the causal connection between the actions of the defendants and the damages caused. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the actual performance of work and services for which it demands compensation, and also did not substantiate the connection of these expenses with the implementation of the investment project. In addition, the court took into account that the beneficial owner of Kyiv Terminal LLC is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
that is the basis for applying a moratorium on the fulfillment of monetary obligations established by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in order to protect national interests in the conditions of martial law. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to violations of substantive and procedural law, since the conclusions of the court of appeal do not contradict the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellant did not substantiate the need to deviate from the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and also did not provide convincing arguments that would indicate the fallacy of such conclusions.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kyiv Terminal” LLC and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 904/5467/23 dated 05/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s ruling on the opening of proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual and the introduction of debt restructuring procedures.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which opened proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual, since the debtor filed a corresponding application, and the courts did not establish circumstances that would prevent the opening of proceedings. The court of cassation noted that the personal appearance of the debtor is important, but not always mandatory, especially when the court is provided with sufficient evidence of the debtor’s will and their identity. Also, the court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments about violations of procedural law and incorrect application of substantive law, since the appellant did not properly substantiate their arguments and referred to irrelevant case law. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances acted within the limits of their discretionary powers, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal and the ruling of the court of first instance.
**Case No. 910/14138/22 dated 17/06/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of actions as illegal and the requirement to stop certain actions between the State Enterprise of Foreign Economic Activity “Ukrinterenergo” and the Private Joint-Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo”.
The decision does not provide arguments of the court.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling and decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 991/1583/24 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of a deputy of the Ternopilof the regional council OSOBA_4 in receiving a bribe in a large amount (Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and illegal possession of ammunition (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court found OSOBA_4 guilty of receiving a bribe, establishing that he, being the chairman of the Ternopil Regional Council, requested and received UAH 612,000 from an entrepreneur for assistance in including the object in the list of financing and signing acts of completed works. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, protocols of covert investigative actions, which recorded conversations about “kickbacks,” and the fact of the transfer of money. The court rejected the defense’s version that the money was volunteer assistance, as this is not supported by evidence. The court found unproven the fact of demanding a bribe for agreeing on the list of relevant objects by the Ternopil Regional Council, since such agreement was not mandatory under the law. The court also found unproven the fact of OSOBA_4’s acquisition of ammunition, but established the fact of their illegal storage in the office.
3. The court found OSOBA_4 guilty and sentenced him to 9 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
Case No. ЗД/380/1/25 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the requirement of the Department of Natural Resources, Construction and Community Development of the Lviv City Council to dismantle the open summer площадка, installed by Limited Liability Company “BINP LTD”.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court on securing the claim, noting that the courts of previous instances did not properly substantiate the existence of circumstances that would indicate an obvious danger of causing harm to the rights and interests of the plaintiff if measures to secure the claim were not taken. The court indicated that entrepreneurial activity involves risks, and possible material losses are not a sufficient basis for securing a claim. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of a possible complication of the execution of a court decision in the future is not a sufficient basis for securing a claim, since this is a subjective judgment without indicating a specific danger. The court also noted that the method of securing the claim stated by the plaintiff actually replaces the court decision in the case, resolving the claims before the case is considered on the merits.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts on securing the claim and refused to satisfy the application of Limited Liability Company “BINP LTD” to secure the claim.
Case No. 160/16943/24 dated 06/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the failure to index the pension using the coefficient of increase in the average salary for
