Case No. 922/875/23 dated June 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “RIAL SERVICE” LLC of the cost of unmetered electricity, calculated by “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC as a result of the detected unauthorized connection, and the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the commission of “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC on the calculation of this cost.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC, since the unauthorized connection scheme provided by the plaintiff indicated an open circuit, which makes the flow of electric current impossible, and also when calculating the current strength, the consumption volumes of other current receivers and a third-party consumer were taken into account, which led to an unreasonable increase in the volume of unmetered electricity; the courts also took into account that “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC did not ascertain the data on the permissible currents of all elements of the unauthorized connection scheme, which is a violation of the REUE and makes it impossible to correctly determine the volume of unmetered consumed energy. The court rejected the arguments of “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC regarding the inadmissibility of the expert opinion, since the experts provided answers to most of the questions asked, and the impossibility of answering some of them does not make the opinion inadmissible; the court also rejected the arguments about the unreasonable refusal to order a repeated expert examination, since contradictions between the conclusions of previous expert examinations were not established, and the conclusion provided by “RIAL SERVICE” LLC did not investigate the unauthorized consumption scheme for its compliance with established requirements. The court of cassation also emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kharkivoblenergo” JSC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 921/319/24 dated June 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for natural gas supplied by the “supplier of last resort” (“Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC) to “Ternopilmiskgaz” PJSC, as well as the accrual of penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims of “Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC, reducing the amount of the penalty by 50% on the basis of Articles 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine. The court noted that reducing the amount of the penalty is the right of the court, which is implemented taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, the financial condition of the defendant, its social significance as the sole operator of the gas distribution system in the region, as well as the absence of evidence of losses to the plaintiff. The court also took into account that the defendant acknowledged the principal amount of the debt, 3% per annum, and inflation losses, which indicates its bona fide behavior. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations by the courtsThe arguments regarding the violation by the courts of previous instances of the norms of procedural law in admitting evidence at the stage of appellate review of the case were also rejected, as the court of appellate instance reasonably recognized the submission of evidence at this stage as an exceptional case.
3. The Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Naftogaz Ukraine” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 916/3766/24 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “TASTAI DEVELOPMENT” of a fine and penalty based on the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) for violation of legislation on protection of economic competition.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case. The Court pointed out that the previous instances focused only on the fact that the AMCU decision was sent to the defendant’s old address, without taking into account whether the defendant was properly notified about the progress of the antimonopoly case, in particular, whether decisions were sent to the current address, email, or posted on the AMCU website. Also, the courts did not investigate whether the Company had the opportunity to familiarize itself with the AMCU decision published in “Uryadovy Kurier”. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of improper delivery of the decision does not exempt from the obligation to pay the fine if the defendant was aware of the case. The Court also reminded that the current AMCU decision is binding, and courts do not have the right to review issues related to the possibility of its execution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and the постанову of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal and referred the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 907/613/24 dated 06/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 6,917,933.48 of unjust enrichment.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the постанову of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 1046, 1047 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, set out in the постанові of 02/28/2024 in case No. 922/3289/21, which states that indicating the purpose of payment when transferring funds cannot be qualified as compliance with the written form of a loan agreement. In addition, the appellate court did not substantiate why it disagreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance on the existence of grounds for a claim of unjust enrichment, and also mistakenly regarded the plaintiff’s references to contractual norms as contradictory and unfair behavior, since the court independently carries out the legal qualification of disputed legal relations regardless of the references of the parties. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the actual circumstances are important for resolving the dispute, not the legal qualification given by the parties.
3. The Supreme Court
He reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to grant the claim.
Case No. 204/9551/18 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding the provision of services for managing the building and the adjacent territory, appealing against the charter, staff, the amount of contributions, as well as the requirements for registration of labor relations and recovery of wages.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, since the courts of previous instances reasonably refused to satisfy most of the claims, pointing to the choice of an ineffective method of protection, the impossibility of the court interfering in the competence of the general meeting of the HOA, the lack of evidence of violation of the plaintiff’s labor rights, and also to the fact that part of the claims are subject to consideration in the order of civil procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that it is not a court of fact and does not re-evaluate evidence, and is also limited by the arguments of the cassation appeal. The court of cassation noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is not a basis for cassation appeal. The court of cassation also pointed out that no proper evidence was provided to confirm the violation of the plaintiff’s labor rights, and it was not proven that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/633/23 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Tviy Gazzbut” against LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading” to oblige to eliminate free of charge the shortcomings of the supplied natural gas of inadequate quality by adjusting the volumes of gas in commercial acts.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the fact that the defendant violated the terms of the contract regarding the quality of gas, and the commercial acts of acceptance and transfer of gas were signed without comments. The court also noted that there are no regulations that would oblige the gas seller to recalculate the volume of gas in case of non-compliance with its quality. The court of cassation emphasized that the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the consequences of transferring goods of inadequate quality are not applicable to legal relations in the field of natural gas transportation, since there are special regulatory acts that regulate these relations. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, since the cases are not similar in the subject of the dispute and circumstances. The court refused to transfer the case to the joint chamber for consideration, since no weighty arguments were given for deviating from the previous legal position of the Supreme Court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Tviy Gazzbut”, and the decisions of the previous courts remained in force.
amendments.
Case No. 914/1171/24 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for storage services between a farm enterprise (the bailee) and a state enterprise (the bailor).
2. The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s ruling, stating that the appellate court did not fully and comprehensively ascertain the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the arguments of the defendant and the third party regarding the transfer of ownership of the goods to the third party (Private Enterprise “Transvit”) and, accordingly, the obligation of this person to pay for storage services after a certain point. The appellate court did not take into account that the defendant partially fulfilled the terms of the agreement regarding the re-registration of the goods to a third party, in particular, drew up a tripartite act, and also did not clarify the issue of the existence of grounds for the defendant to pay the debt as of the date of re-registration, taking into account the terms of invoicing by the plaintiff. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out the need to take into account the fact of the conclusion of a storage agreement between the plaintiff and the third party, the recognition by the third party of obligations to pay for storage services, as well as the content of the tripartite act on the re-registration of the goods. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of applying the standard of proof of “probability of evidence” when assessing the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 991/4549/25 dated 06/18/2025
The subject of the dispute in the decision is the approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in the seizure of military property by fraud and intentional failure to submit a declaration.
The court, approving the plea agreement, was guided by the fact that the agreement was concluded voluntarily, does not contradict the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the law on criminal liability, and also meets the interests of society. The court took into account that the accused contributed to the establishment of important circumstances of the case, sincerely repented and undertook to compensate for the damage caused, as well as provide financial support to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also verified that the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons, and that the accused has the ability to fulfill the obligations undertaken. The court noted that the punishment agreed upon by the parties is sufficient to achieve its purpose, in particular, to punish the accused and prevent the commission of similar criminal offenses by other persons.
The court approved the plea agreement and found the person guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Article 410 and Article 366-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions and release from serving the sentence on probation.
**Case No. 912/2247/23 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the land lease agreement concluded between the Onufriivka Settlement Council and Uspensky Fish Farm LLC, initiated by Pridniprovska Station LLC, which believes that the conclusion of this agreement violates its right to obtain this land for lease.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Pridniprovska Station LLC, upholding the decisions of the previous instances. The Court noted that Pridniprovska Station LLC failed to prove how the disputed lease agreement violates its rights or legitimate interests, since the company simultaneously claimed to obtain land for lease without a competition, which contradicts its arguments about being deprived of the opportunity to participate in land auctions. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to recognize a transaction as invalid, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a specific property interest that has been violated. The Court also pointed out that the cassation appeal essentially boils down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance. In addition, the Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part referring to the failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations, since it did not establish such similarity.
3. The Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of Pridniprovska Station LLC.
**Case No. 910/4997/24 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of funds from a person who has a debt to the debtor.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the first instance court’s ruling on the foreclosure of funds, since Neron & Partners LLC did not notify the first instance court of the assignment of the right of claim under the agreement of 05.10.2024, and at the time of the first instance court’s consideration of the application, this agreement was not taken into account. In addition, at the time of the first instance court’s decision, the procedural succession in case No. 910/2214/24 had not yet taken place, since the ruling on the replacement of the claimant had not entered into legal force. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of commercial justice is the effective protection of violated rights, which includes the timely execution of a court decision, and the local commercial court lawfully foreclosed funds. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that until a court decision is made on the replacement of a party by its legal successor, procedural succession does not occur.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s ruling granting the application for foreclosure of funds.
**Case No. 904/554/24 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is…
is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the commission of PJSC “PEEM “Central Energy Company” regarding the calculation of the cost of unaccounted electricity to PJSC “Kyivstar” due to unauthorized connection to the power grid.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that PJSC “Kyivstar” made an unauthorized connection to the power grid, which is not owned by the system operator, in violation of the accounting scheme and without concluding a corresponding agreement, which is a violation of the REMRC. The court noted that the current legislation does not establish the obligation to notify about the inspection of compliance with the REMRC. Also, the court indicated that the calculation of the cost of unaccounted electricity was carried out by the defendant on the basis of an act of violation, drawn up in accordance with the procedure defined by the REMRC, and is correct and justified. The court of cassation instance also noted that it did not find confirmation of the appellant’s arguments about the absence of conclusions of the Supreme Court on the issues raised in the cassation appeal, since they amount to disagreement with the assessment of the case’s circumstances and prompting the court to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond its powers. The court also took into account the principle of res judicata, according to which the review of a final court decision cannot be carried out solely for the purpose of obtaining a retrial.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “Kyivstar” and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 910/6804/23 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the additional decision and additional ruling of the previous courts regarding the distribution of court costs, namely the costs of professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the courts of first and appellate instances.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that the costs of legal assistance were documented, and their amount, although reduced by the courts, met the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality to the complexity of the case. The court noted that the absence of a detailed description of the services provided is not an unconditional basis for refusing reimbursement of expenses, especially when the attorney’s fee is set at a fixed amount. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant did not refute the proper and reliable evidence provided by the defendant, and its arguments amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. The court took into account that the previous courts had already reduced the amounts of expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided, and did not find grounds to interfere with their conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 910/6041/19 dated 06/17/2025**
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition as invalid of the order of the State Property Fund in part and the recognition as invalid
of the sales contract.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appeal on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the prosecutor did not prove the existence of an exceptional legal issue necessary to open cassation proceedings on this basis. In the other part, where the cassation appeal was based on paragraph 4 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (incorrect application of substantive law or violation of procedural law), the Supreme Court found no grounds for its satisfaction, as no significant violations were found that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the dispute. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no violations of substantive or procedural law that could be grounds for overturning the appealed court decisions. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the commercial court of appeal.
The court upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/19210/15 dated 17/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Kherson Regional Council of damages incurred by “Avicom Britania Limited” and “Kherson International Airport” as a result of the seizure of property from the ownership of the latter.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, but changed their reasoning part. The court noted that the damages are a consequence of the actions of “STAYRON TRADING INCORPORATION”, from which the plaintiffs acquired the rights to the property, and therefore this company should be the defendant in the dispute. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not involve “STAYRON TRADING INCORPORATION” in the case as a defendant, and the Kherson Regional Council is not a proper defendant, as it is not the entity responsible for the damages. The court also took into account that filing a claim against an improper defendant is an independent ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court changed the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, upholding the decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 922/4716/24 dated 18/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Kharkiv Apartment-Operational Department of the city of Kharkiv in favor of LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading” of debt under the natural gas supply agreement, namely the amount of the principal debt, inflation losses, 3% per annum, and penalties.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims of LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading”, agreeing with the reduction of the penalty amount by 50%. The court proceeded from the fact that, according to Article 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine and Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the court has the right to reduce the amount of the penalty if it is excessively large compared to the lossecreditor, or in the presence of other circumstances that are of significant importance. The court took into account that the defendant is a budgetary institution that provides housing for military units, and funds from the state budget are directed to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove circumstances that would indicate its difficult financial situation. The court of cassation emphasized that the issue of reducing the amount of penalty is a discretionary right of the court of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged regarding the refusal to recover the penalty.
Case No. 922/2824/24 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of arrears in rent for the use of a communal land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of the Kharkiv City Council, recovering the debt for rent from LLC “AVANTAZH-PROPERTY”, since the change in the normative monetary valuation of land is the basis for reviewing the amount of rent, and from the moment the new valuation is applied, the rights and obligations of the parties to the lease agreement change, even without making changes to the agreement itself. The court noted that LLC “AVANTAZH-PROPERTY” did not contact the Kharkiv City Council regarding the recalculation of rent, as stipulated in the agreement. The court also took into account the land tax paid by LLC “AVANTAZH-PROPERTY” and the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine regarding exemption from land tax for a certain period. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were not confirmed, since the legal relations in those cases are not similar to this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “AVANTAZH-PROPERTY” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/354/24 dated 19/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the supply of food packages.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, regarding the proper fulfillment by the plaintiff of its obligations under the supply contract, the volume of products supplied, and its compliance with the terms of the contract. Also, the courts did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the existence of objections to the quantity and quality of the delivered goods. In addition, the issue of the existence or absence of grounds for applying the provisions on liability for breach of contractual obligations was not investigated. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a comprehensive and objective examination of all evidence in the case, as well as providing them with properof legal assessment.
The court decided to partially grant the cassation appeal, overturn the decisions of the previous instances, and remand the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/3567/24 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of intellectual property rights, and the company MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC demanded that the joint-stock company “Kyiv Vitamin Plant” and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine perform certain actions.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that the cassation court relied on from the provided part of the resolution, as the reasoning part of the decision is missing. Usually, the cassation court verifies the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of the first and appellate instances, based on the arguments of the cassation appeal. The absence of the reasoning part does not allow establishing whether the cassation court took into account all the circumstances of the case and whether the decision was properly justified.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the joint-stock company “Kyiv Vitamin Plant” and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/6041/19 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the order of the State Property Fund of Ukraine regarding the inclusion of the former house of culture in the list of objects to be privatized, and the recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreement of this object.
2. The cassation court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the prosecutor’s claim, as the prosecutor appealed in the interests of the territorial community, but the courts found that at the time of privatization, the disputed property was in state, not communal ownership, therefore the rights of the territorial community were not violated. The cassation court noted that proper evidence was not provided that the disputed property was transferred to communal ownership, and therefore the territorial community acquired rights to this property, for the protection of which the prosecutor appealed to the court. The court also took into account that the appellate court did not apply the norms of law, the conclusions regarding which are contained in the resolutions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to. The cassation court emphasized that it is not enough to simply cite the conclusions of the Supreme Court for cassation review, but it is necessary to prove that the appellate court applied the norm of law without taking into account these conclusions in similar legal relations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 910/14138/22 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” as unlawful regarding the assignment to SEZED “Ukrinterenergo” of the volumes of electricity consumed by KP “Kharkiv Heat Networks” (KP “KhTM”).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court because the appellate court, when considering the appeal of KP “KhTM,” which was not a party to the original dispute, did not properly establish how the decision of the court of first instance directly affects the rights and obligations of KP “KhTM.” The court of cassation emphasized that in order to satisfy the appeal of a person who was not involved in the case, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly concerns the rights, interests, and obligations of this person, and not just has a potential interest. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court groundlessly involved KP “KhTM” in the case as a third party, since the decision of the court of first instance did not contain conclusions about the rights and obligations of KP “KhTM,” and the disputed legal relations concerned exclusively the contractual relations between SEZED “Ukrinterenergo” and PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo.” Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in this case.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and the ruling on the involvement of a third party, sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 902/1529/23 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Vinnytsia Oblast for imposing subsidiary liability on the former managers of PrJSC “Infrakon” for bringing the enterprise to bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the evidence provided by the tax authority, which confirms the possible causal link between the actions of the former managers and the bankruptcy of the enterprise; the courts did not verify the tax authority’s assertions regarding the financial condition of the enterprise during the period of management by the relevant persons, as well as regarding the consequences of the alienation of property; the courts did not take into account that the presumption of subsidiary liability is rebuttable, and the person being held liable has the right to prove their good faith; the courts did not properly assess the arguments of the tax authority regarding the presence of land plots at the enterprise and their subsequent alienation. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to impose subsidiary liability, it is necessary to establish the presence of all elements of the offense, namely: the object, the subject, the objective and subjective aspects. The court also noted that the report on the financial and economic condition of the debtor is not unconditional evidence of bringing to bankruptcy, but is only one of the means of proof.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Oblast.
<a hr**Case No. 910/19573/21 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, as guarantor, in favor of PJSC “Delta Bank” of the debt of the State Mortgage Institution for payment of the nominal value of bonds.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, since the State Mortgage Institution, being the debtor under the bonds, is simultaneously the creditor of PJSC “Delta Bank”, which is being liquidated, and its claims are included in the seventh priority of creditors. The court took into account the provisions of the State Guarantee, which excludes claims against the guarantor if they can be satisfied by offsetting counterclaims against the issuer. The court noted that at the time of the case’s consideration, there is a legal possibility of offsetting mutual homogeneous claims in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals”, although the procedure for exercising this right may be limited by the priority of satisfying creditors’ claims. The court also rejected the arguments of the National Bank of Ukraine regarding the violation of its rights as a pledgeholder, since the dispute concerns the recovery of the nominal value of bonds, and not the realization of the pledged property. The court emphasized that the rights of the NBU as a pledgeholder are protected by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” and can be exercised in the established procedure.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court without changes.
**Case No. 906/786/24 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of the HOA regarding amendments to the charter and the recognition as invalid of the charter in the new edition.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that in order to recognize the decision of the general meeting of the HOA as invalid, it is necessary to establish the fact of violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the co-owners, as well as to assess the nature of the violation, taking into account the balance of interests of all parties. The court indicated that minor procedural errors in the organization and holding of meetings should not automatically lead to the cancellation of decisions, especially if they are supported by the majority of co-owners and do not violate the rights of individuals. The court also took into account that the HOA, unlike business associations, often does not have qualified legal assistance when holding meetings. In addition, the court noted that the courts of previous instances established the presence of a quorum at the meeting and the compliance of the charter with the requirements of the law. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Associations of Co-Owners of Apartment Buildings”, since the courts established that the charter contains the necessary provisions on the competence of statutory bodies.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts
of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 910/2607/25 dated 18/06/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – appealing the ruling on securing the claim in the form of seizure of the defendant’s funds before filing the claim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the application for securing the claim, imposed seizure on the defendant’s funds within the amount of the claimed claims. The court proceeded from the fact that failure to take such measures may complicate the execution of a future court decision, taking into account the defendant’s existing debt and information on the sanctions applied to him. The court noted that the seizure of funds will not lead to an unjustified restriction of the defendant’s property rights, but will only ensure the preservation of funds for the possible execution of the court decision. It was also taken into account that the proposed measure to secure the claim will not result in interference with the defendant’s economic activity. The court of cassation agreed that the courts of previous instances reasonably applied the principle of proportionality, adequacy and balance when resolving the issue of securing the claim.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 908/556/24 dated 17/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the obligation of the Condominium Association to provide the apartment owner with documents for review and copying.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to recover legal aid costs from the Condominium Association in favor of the plaintiff. The court of cassation indicated that the closure of proceedings in the case due to the absence of the subject of the dispute (provision of documents by the Condominium Association after the opening of proceedings) is not an unconditional basis for imposing legal aid costs on the defendant. The court noted that for this it is necessary to establish the wrongful actions of the defendant that led to the dispute, which was not done by the court of first instance. The appellate court did not establish bad faith conduct of the defendant, intentional obstruction of the quick resolution of the dispute, or the purpose of violating the plaintiff’s rights, delaying the consideration of the case. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the provision by the defendant of documents that were actually the subject of the dispute was not carried out as a result of his admission of guilt in the occurrence of the dispute, but at the request and on the initiative of the court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/17754/23 dated 17/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the registration action regarding amendments to information about a legal entity in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.
