Case No. 924/419/24 dated June 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract due to improper performance of the terms of delivery of goods.
2. The court dismissed the claim without consideration, as there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the International Commercial Arbitration in Paris, which complies with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the defendant timely filed an objection against the consideration of the case in the commercial court, and the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the invalidity or impossibility of performance of the arbitration agreement. The court also took into account that the printouts of correspondence in the WhatsApp messenger provided by the plaintiff do not confirm the fact of concluding an additional agreement on changing jurisdiction, as they do not properly identify the participants in the correspondence and do not prove their authority. The court applied the standard of proof of “probability of evidence,” according to which the conclusion about the existence of the asserted circumstance must be more probable than the opposite, and recognized the defendant’s evidence as more convincing. The court of cassation emphasized that its function is to verify the correct application of legal norms, and not to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 910/2868/24 dated June 19, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under the main and counterclaim between Trade Granit Invest LLC and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine against the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds for cassation appeal, provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, presumably due to the lack of proper justification for the violation of procedural law, which led to an incorrect resolution of the case. Regarding another ground for cassation appeal, provided for in paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as no incorrect application of substantive law or violation of procedural law was found, which led to the adoption of illegal court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that the annulment of decisions of the courts of previous instances requires the presence of clear and convincing evidence of their illegality, which was not provided in this case.
The court left the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine without satisfaction, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову (ruling/resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal were left without changes.
**Case No. 904/6269/23 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of 3% annual interest and inflationary losses from LLC “Dniprovski Energetychni Posluhy” in favor of SE NNEGC “Energoatom”.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on the complaint of LLC “Dniprovski Energetychni Posluhy” regarding the ground for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 3 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and on the complaint of SE NNEGC “Energoatom” regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the court did not find grounds to review the decisions of the courts of previous instances within the arguments stated by the appellants with reference to violations of procedural law or incorrect application of substantive law, which led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute. In the other part, the cassation appeal of LLC “Dniprovski Energetychni Posluhy” was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, but did not specify the specific arguments why it did so, as it made the decision without the full text.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk region and the resolution of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal, that is, it upheld the decision to satisfy the claim of SE NNEGC “Energoatom”.
**Case No. 910/10434/24 dated 06/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% annual interest from the bank in connection with non-execution of previous court decisions.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of “Tavrida Electric Ukraine” enterprise LLC to JSC CB “Privatbank” for the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% annual interest. The court proceeded from the fact that there is no evidence of the application of sanctions to the plaintiff, and the moratorium established by CMU Resolution No. 187 does not prohibit the adoption of court decisions on the recovery of funds, but only their execution. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where it had already been established that there were no grounds for applying any sanction restrictions and/or a moratorium on the recovery of debt in favor of the plaintiff. In addition, the court of cassation instance reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered from the bank in favor of the company, taking into account the criteria of proportionality, commensurability and reasonableness of such expenses.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, closing the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 3 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
**Case №160/21748/24 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region to the “Dniprovsky” Greenhouse Complex LLC regarding income tax and VAT.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the procedure for the spin-off of “Diktis-K” LLC was completed and complied with the law, and the spin-off transactions do not lead to an increase in equity, therefore, there are no grounds for taxation. The court also noted that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm violations on the part of the plaintiff, and its conclusions are based on information that is informative in nature. The court indicated that the use of average yield indicators for the region to assess the activities of a specific enterprise is incorrect, as it does not take into account the unique growing conditions. In addition, the court emphasized that the reality of business transactions with counterparties is confirmed by proper primary documents.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №480/9155/23 dated 19/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman who was undergoing treatment and on sick leave after being wounded.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not investigate whether the certificate of the military medical commission (MMC) regarding the need for sick leave is a conclusion of the MMC regarding the need for treatment, which is the basis for continuing the payment of monetary allowance after four months of treatment. The courts did not clarify by what document the payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff was terminated and what motivated this decision, and whether the conclusion of the MMC was taken into account when making the decision to terminate the payment. The court emphasized that if there is a conclusion of the MMC regarding the need to extend sick leave, the commander of the military unit is obliged to issue an order to continue the payment of monetary allowance. Considering that the courts of previous instances did not assess all the available evidence related to the subject of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the court decisions and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №520/32217/23 dated 19/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court refusing to correct an arithmetic error in the previous ruling of the same court regarding the amount of penalties charged by the tax
by that body.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the ruling of the appellate court was not signed by one of the judges who is a member of the panel, which is a gross violation of procedural law, provided for in paragraph 5 of part three of Article 353 of the CAS of Ukraine. This violation is an unconditional ground for the cancellation of a court decision with the referral of the case for a new trial. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it reviews court decisions within the limits of the arguments of the cassation appeal, but is obliged to take into account violations of the norms of procedural law, which entail the mandatory cancellation of the court decision. The absence of a judge’s signature on a court decision casts doubt on its legitimacy and validity, which makes its legal force impossible.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 560/10571/23 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman for participating in hostilities during martial law.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing to the need for a comprehensive examination of the evidence, in particular, certificates of participation in hostilities, reports and extracts from journals that may confirm the plaintiff’s right to receive additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not establish legal grounds for issuing a certificate of participation in hostilities and did not verify whether the plaintiff’s participation in the activities indicated in this certificate is confirmed in conjunction with other evidence in the case. Also, the court emphasized that violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot be the basis for refusing to pay remuneration, if actual participation in hostilities is confirmed by other evidence. The court emphasized the defendant’s obligation to prove the legality of his inaction and indicated that the list of supporting documents allows for alternatives and is not limited exclusively to their totality.
3. The court ruled to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 914/1663/23 dated 06/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the debtor’s share of the property that he owns jointly with another person, based on the submission of a private enforcement officer within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which granted the submission of the private enforcement officer regarding the determination of the debtor’s share in the property, since the courts did not ensure the proper procedural participation of another co-owner of the property as an interested party in the consideration of the submission, which made it impossible to establish the existence of
or the absence of a dispute about the right. The court of cassation emphasized that to ascertain the existence or absence of a dispute about the right in such cases, it is crucial to establish the position of the other co-owner regarding the determination of the debtor’s share in the joint property, and a formal disagreement, not supported by evidence or legal justification, cannot be regarded as the presence of a dispute about the right. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not take sufficient measures to involve the other co-owner in the case and did not give him the opportunity to express his position, which is a violation of procedural rights. The court of cassation pointed out the need to investigate the position of the other co-owner of the real estate as a key element for clarifying the existence of a dispute about the right when considering the executor’s submission regarding the determination of the debtor’s share in the joint property.
2. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance to ensure proper procedural participation of the other co-owner of the property and to clarify the existence of a dispute about the right.
**Case №921/333/22(607/20645/20) dated 03/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of private notaries’ decisions on state registration of ownership and termination of ownership of real estate that was the subject of a mortgage.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that since the disputed real estate was the subject of a mortgage based on a valid contract, and the bank as the mortgagee did not consent to its alienation, the subsequent purchase and sale agreements for this property are void. The court noted that the court’s decision on the recovery of debt from the debtor and foreclosure on the mortgaged property are binding. The bank’s lack of ownership of the real estate and the court-determined procedure for debt repayment through the sale of the property disprove the possibility of applying Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine on a bona fide purchaser. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments about the impossibility of checking the existence of encumbrances in the register, since the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” do not make the fact of termination of the mortgage dependent on the bona fides of the purchaser. The court pointed out that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is appropriate, as it is aimed at restoring the possibility of foreclosing on the property that is under mortgage, for the execution of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №920/1501/23 dated 04/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of excessively paid funds under the contract for medical care for the population and the recovery of debt for the provided medical services.
i.
2. The court refused to satisfy the initial claim of the NHSU, because the NHSU is trying to shift to the court the responsibilities of the body responsible for overseeing compliance with the use of ionizing radiation sources; establishing violations of safety requirements or license terms is the responsibility of the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate, not the NHSU or the court. The court granted the counterclaim of the Cardiology Center, because the NHSU did not pay for the provided medical services in full, and the Cardiology Center provided proper evidence of the provision of these services. The court of cassation instance is limited by the arguments of the cassation appeal, and the NHSU did not provide sufficient arguments regarding the incorrect application of substantive law by the courts of previous instances in the part of the counterclaim. The court does not have the authority to resolve those legal issues that are not raised in this case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal of the NHSU.
Case No. 128/1405/24 dated 19/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the court of appeal to exempt from paying court fees and the return of the appeal to a person who challenged the decision of the court of first instance regarding compensation for material and moral damage.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court, emphasizing the importance of ensuring access to justice and a thorough examination of the person’s financial situation when deciding on the issue of exemption from paying court fees. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not fully examine the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the absence of income for the previous calendar year, which could be the basis for exemption from paying court fees. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the absence of a clear list of documents to confirm the financial situation does not relieve the court of the obligation to assess the available evidence in its entirety, taking into account the constitutional right to an appellate review of the case and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the avoidance of excessive formalism. The court noted that the return of the appeal without proper examination of the applicant’s financial situation actually deprives him of access to justice. The court took into account that the income certificate from the tax register is proper evidence of the absence of income.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 400/3535/23 dated 19/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to provide a certificate of the plaintiff’s direct participation in hostilities and the obligation to issue such a certificate for the period from February 24 to June 10, 2022.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, referring to the fact that in
Military Unit NUMBER_1 had no legal grounds to issue a certificate, as the plaintiff was not part of it during the disputed period. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not eliminate the contradictions between the certificate of Military Unit NUMBER_1 stating that the plaintiff was not on its assignment, and the order of the commander of Military Unit NUMBER_2, where the basis for the payment of additional remuneration was the certificate of Military Unit NUMBER_1 regarding the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations. The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court did not investigate the issue of the plaintiff’s belonging to a structural unit of Military Unit NUMBER_1 that participated in combat operations and did not check the location of this unit. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff, instead of obliging the defendant to prove the unreasonableness of the claims.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 160/18691/23 dated 06/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of Metinvest B.V. for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the appeal of a tax assessment notice.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The court heard the arguments of the parties’ representatives, in particular, regarding the existence or absence of circumstances that could serve as a basis for reviewing the previous decision. The court took into account that the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances is an exceptional procedure that applies only in cases clearly defined by procedural law. The court also assessed the applicant’s arguments regarding the materiality of the circumstances they relied on and their impact on the legality and validity of the previous decision. As a result of examining the case materials and hearing the positions of the parties to the proceedings, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no grounds for granting the application for review.
The court refused to grant Metinvest B.V.’s application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling and upheld the previous decision.
Case No. 420/35627/23 dated 06/19/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of decisions of tax authorities regarding the accrual of monetary obligations.
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions. In substantiating its position, the Supreme Court presumably proceeded from the fact that the tax authorities acted within their powers and in accordance with the requirements of current legislation, and the plaintiff’s arguments do not refute the legality of the appealed decisions. The court presumably took into account the evidence provided by the tax authorities, which confirms the validity of the accruals. Also, possibly,
the court took into account previous court decisions in similar cases and the practice of applying the relevant norms of tax legislation. The absence of violations of the decision-making procedure by the tax authorities could also have influenced the court’s decision.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and to uphold the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 910/13722/22 dated 05/27/2025
1. The Deposit Guarantee Fund of Individuals (DGF) filed a lawsuit seeking damages in the amount of UAH 1,176,795,008.46 from former officials of the bank, whom the DGF considers guilty of bringing the bank to insolvency.
2. The court dismissed the claim because it found that although the defendants’ actions led to losses for the bank, the DGF missed the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. The court proceeded from the fact that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment when the DGF learned or should have learned about the violation, namely from the date of approval of the register of creditors’ claims or the act of formation of the liquidation estate. Since these documents were approved in 2016, and the lawsuit was filed in 2022, the statute of limitations had expired. The court also noted that amendments to the legislation regarding the extension of the statute of limitations do not have retroactive effect and cannot be applied to legal relations that arose before they entered into force. The court took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of statutes of limitations in similar cases.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the DGF.
Case No. 916/3187/24 dated 05/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded.
2. The court dismissed the claim because it found that the defendant (lessor) notified the plaintiff (lessee) within the period established by law that there were no grounds for concluding a lease agreement for a new term, justifying this with the intention to lease the land on a competitive basis (through land auctions). The court emphasized that, according to current legislation, the lessor has the right to decide how to use the land most effectively, and may refuse to renew the agreement if it intends to conduct auctions to obtain better lease terms. The court also noted that the number of appeals by the lessee to the lessor with a proposal to renew the agreement is not decisive, since the important thing is the fact that the lessee received a reasoned response from the lessor. The court indicated that the lessee may participate in land auctions and offer the best lease terms. The court also took into account that at the time of the disputed legal relations, the new version of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lthat regulates the procedure for renewal of lease agreements.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 910/19066/21 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the company’s obligation to buy back shares from a shareholder and recover the value of these shares, inflation losses, and 3% annual interest.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims, obliging the company “Evinz Limited” to buy back the plaintiff’s shares. The courts proceeded from the fact that the company, as the owner of a controlling stake, is obliged to buy back shares from shareholders who have accepted the offer to sell them, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Joint Stock Companies”. The courts found that mutual obligations arose between the plaintiff and the company regarding the purchase and sale of shares, which were duly оформлені. In dismissing the claims against IFC Profinvest LLC, the courts noted that the company acted only as an intermediary in this transaction, and not as a party to the share purchase and sale agreement. The court of cassation also agreed with the decisions of the previous instances regarding the distribution of court costs, taking into account the reasonableness and proportionality of these costs. The court noted that there are no grounds for applying part nine of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since no incorrect actions were established on the part of IFC Profinvest LLC, as a result of which the dispute arose.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 922/2424/21 dated 19/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the seizure of the debtor’s funds that are credited to the account for the payment of a pension.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that at the time of imposing the seizure on the debtor’s funds, the private enforcement officer did not have information that the account was used for receiving pension payments, and the law does not impose an obligation on him to preliminarily investigate the intended purpose of each of the debtor’s bank accounts. This obligation is assigned to the bank, which must inform the enforcement officer about the intended purpose of the funds in the account and return the order without execution. In addition, the very fact of imposing the seizure is not the same as foreclosing on the funds, and the debtor did not provide the enforcement officer with documents on the intended purpose of the account. The court also noted that the obligation of the enforcement officer to lift the seizure on the basis of a bank notification does not exclude the removal of such seizure on the basis of a debtor’s notification and as a result of monitoring the correctness of the collection based on the provided reports on the collection.
3. The
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to satisfy the complaint against the actions of the private enforcement officer.
**Case No. 910/4461/23 dated 17/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the prior user’s right to a trademark and the invalidation of the certificate for this trademark.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the claim for recognition of the prior user’s right, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm significant and serious preparation for the use of the exact trademark that belongs to the defendant. The court noted that the right of the prior user arises under certain conditions defined by the Civil Code, and these conditions were not properly proven by the plaintiff. In addition, the court indicated that the claim for invalidation of the trademark certificate cannot be considered in the commercial court, since the owner of the certificate is an individual, not a private entrepreneur, and such a dispute must be resolved in a court of general jurisdiction. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly assessed the evidence and circumstances of the case, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a reassessment of this evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied regarding the claims for recognition of the prior user’s right, and regarding the invalidation of the certificate of Ukraine and the entry of information into the State Register of Certificates of Ukraine, it closed the proceedings in the case.
**Case No. 420/3813/19 dated 19/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual in favor of the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy of expenses related to the maintenance of this person during training.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the National Academy missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance. The appellate court established that the decision of the court of first instance was sent to the Academy’s electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS) and is considered received, and the Academy’s arguments about not receiving notification of delivery of a copy of the court decision to the official e-mail address are refuted by the case file. The Supreme Court emphasized that clearly defined deadlines for applying to the court are a guarantee of equality of the parties, and unjustified renewal of the missed deadline is unacceptable. The court also noted that the functioning of the “Electronic Cabinet” and sending documents in electronic form to it in cases in which the persons participating in them have undergone the registration procedure in the UJITS is connected precisely with the passage
of registration of the “Electronic Cabinet” using a qualified electronic signature, and entering the contact details of the person.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the National Academy of Land Forces named after Hetman Petro Sahaidachnyi, and the ruling of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128263281](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128263281)
**Case No. 520/33244/24 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of an individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer and the obligation to restore such registration.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to secure the claim by suspending the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of the single tax payer, since failure to take such measures may lead to a significant complication or impossibility of effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The court noted that the cancellation of the registration of a single tax payer will lead to a change in the taxation system, which will cause an additional tax burden and may negatively affect the business activities of the entrepreneur. The court also took into account that the adoption of measures to secure the claim does not resolve the dispute on its merits, but only preserves the existing state of affairs until the final resolution of the case. The court emphasized that the threat to the plaintiff’s rights is real and directly related to the object of the dispute, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that failure to take measures to secure the claim will lead to circumstances that will complicate the protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128275728](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128275728)
**Case No. 922/2226/24 dated 03/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the former director of LLC “International Medical Center Ophthalmica” to recognize the termination of labor relations and the obligation of the company to submit an application for state registration of changes to the information in the Unified State Register regarding the exclusion of the record of her position.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in part, proceeded from the fact that the director of a limited liability company who wishes to resign at his/her own will is obliged to initiate the convocation of a general meeting of participants of the company to resolve the issue of his/her dismissal. If the general meeting does not make a decision on dismissal, the director has the right to apply to the court to protect his/her rights. The court took into account that the plaintiff complied with the procedure for convening the meeting, but the decision on her dismissal was not made, which violates her right to work and free choice of place of work. At the same time, the court agreed with the previous instances in the part of the refusal to oblige the company to submit an application for state registration
ation of changes, since a court decision on the termination of employment relations is a sufficient basis for making relevant changes to the Unified State Register.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous courts in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim for recognition of termination of employment relations and rendered a new decision to satisfy this claim, and left the decisions of previous courts unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 911/1484/23 dated June 11, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in the courts of appeal and cassation instances.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for the distribution of court costs, taking into account the following arguments: firstly, the right of a party to compensation for expenses for professional legal assistance is provided by law; secondly, the amount of expenses must be reasonable and proportional to the subject of the dispute, taking into account the price of the claim and the importance of the case for the parties; thirdly, the court took into account the consistency of the plaintiff’s legal position and the lawyer’s awareness of the case, which did not require a significant amount of legal work in preparation for the cassation review; fourthly, the court concluded that the claimed amount of expenses does not meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness and necessity, and may also be a way of excessive enrichment of the party; fifthly, the court imposed the costs of professional legal assistance on the Terezyne Additional Liability Company in full, since the dispute arose as a result of its unlawful actions.
3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 80,000 from Terezyne Additional Liability Company in favor of the plaintiff for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal and cassation instances, refusing to satisfy the application in the other part.
Case No. 910/6333/24 dated June 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the protocol of the board of a public organization and the cancellation of the entry on state registration of changes to information about a legal entity.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances:
* Applied excessive formalism, indicating that the request to cancel the protocol of the board meeting is an improper method of protection, without taking into account that the plaintiff was challenging the decision of the board, drawn up in the protocol.
* Did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the standard of proof of “probability of evidence” when establishing a quorum at a meeting of the board, in particular, regarding the participation of members PERSON_3 and PERSON_4.
* Did not properly investigate the circumstances of notifying the plaintiff about the meeting of the board, referring to evidence that is not in the case, and did not assess the relevance, admissibility and reliability of the available evidence.
* Did not establish the existence of a permit from the investigator or prosecutor to disclose information of the pre-trial investinvestigation in criminal proceedings, which is a prerequisite for using such information as evidence.
* Unreasonably rejected the plaintiff’s motion to summon and question witness PERSON_5, whose testimony could be important for establishing the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/6822/24 dated 06/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in the court of cassation instance.
The court of cassation instance considered the application for an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance. The court noted that the costs of legal assistance must be documented, meet the criterion of reasonable necessity, and be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer. The court took into account that the legal position of the parties did not change during the consideration of the case in previous instances, there was no need for additional analysis of new circumstances, and the regulatory framework for legal relations is well-established. Considering this, the court found the amount of expenses for preparing a response to the cassation appeal to be overstated. The court, guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, partially granted the application, reducing the amount of reimbursement for professional legal assistance expenses.
The court partially granted PJSC Ukrtelecom’s application, recovering UAH 30,000 from LLC Lizard Soft for professional legal assistance expenses in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 380/25504/24 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of customs decisions on the adjustment of the customs value of goods.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which returned the company’s statement of claim, citing excessive formalism. The courts of previous instances did not take into account that the company had corrected technical errors in the numbers of the appealed decisions in the application to remedy the deficiencies, which essentially eliminated the grounds for leaving the claim without motion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should assess the procedural actions of the parties based on their substantive meaning, and not only on formal compliance with the requirements, in order to ensure the right to a fair trial. The court also noted that the requirement to file a claim in a new version should not outweigh the content of the claims, and that the courts should have taken into account that the corrections were made, and the defendant was notified of the changes. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that the courts of previous instances had violated the norms of procedural law, which led to the unjustified return of the statement of claim.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance forExtension of consideration.
**Case No. 580/11121/23 of 19/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to reduce the percentage of bonuses and the obligation to recalculate monetary allowance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings, since the defendant missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court noted that the introduction of martial law in itself is not an unconditional ground for restoring the term, and the defendant did not prove how martial law prevented the timely filing of an appeal. Also, the court indicated that problems in the organization of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service are not objective circumstances that made it impossible to appeal the decision of the court of first instance in a timely manner. The court emphasized the obligation of the parties to the case to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to fulfill their procedural obligations, in particular, to comply with the terms of appeal.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the court of appeal without changes.
**Case No. 911/1484/23 of 27/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of participants of the company regarding the exclusion of the plaintiff from the members, as well as determining the amount of the authorized capital and the shares of the company’s participants.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the court of appeal, was guided by the following arguments:
* An effective way to protect the violated right of a person illegally excluded from the members is to determine the amount of the authorized capital and the shares of the participants, taking into account the changes that occurred after the exclusion.
* The plaintiff rightfully took into account the changes in the composition of the participants and the amount of the authorized capital that occurred after her exclusion in order not to violate the rights of the new participants.
* Recognition of the decision on exclusion as invalid, although it does not automatically restore the plaintiff’s participation, is necessary to eliminate legal uncertainty and protect the plaintiff’s corporate rights in other aspects.
* The Court of Appeal did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 924/700/21 regarding the need to take into account changes in the composition of participants and the amount of the authorized capital when determining the method of protection.
* The court of first instance reasonably determined the method of restoring the plaintiff’s rights by increasing the current amount of the authorized capital by an amount corresponding to the plaintiff’s share, without violating the rights of other participants.
3. The court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 910/10855/24 of 19/06/2025**
The subject of the dispute is
the bank’s obligation to perform certain actions in favor of an individual entrepreneur.
The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify the nature of the legal relations between the parties, and did not properly assess the evidence relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need to examine the primary documents that confirm or refute the plaintiff’s claims. Also, the courts did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of substantive and procedural law in similar legal relations. In addition, the courts did not properly substantiate their decisions, which is a violation of the requirements of procedural law. Considering the mentioned violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new consideration to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/13093/23 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a construction contract, as well as compensation for damages caused by the alleged non-return of equipment.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the recovery of debt under the construction contract, as the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the actual performance of work, did not take into account the possibility of signing the act of completed work unilaterally, and did not evaluate the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the context of relations with a third party (PJSC “MMK named after Illich”). The court emphasized that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish the real nature of the disputed legal relations, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the evidence submitted in their entirety. At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover damages, as the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s illegal conduct and the causal connection between this conduct and the damages caused.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover the debt under the construction contract and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance, and upheld the court decisions regarding the refusal to recover damages.
Case No. 916/302/16 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PJSC “Odesaprodcontract” against the unlawful actions of the state executor regarding the valuation of property (integral property complex) within the framework of enforcement proceedings based on a court decision on foreclosure of this property in favor of the NBU.
2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decisions of previous instances,sanctions without changes, agreed that the property valuation was carried out in violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Property Valuation, Property Rights and Professional Valuation Activity in Ukraine” and National Standard No. 1, since the appraiser did not conduct a personal inspection of the valuation object, which is mandatory. The court rejected the arguments of the NBU and the Ministry of Justice, noting that the review provided by them did not refute the expert’s conclusions, which indicated that the valuation report did not comply with the requirements of the legislation. Also, the court emphasized that the debtor lawfully challenged the property valuation within the complaint against the actions of the state enforcement officer, which is a proper way to protect rights. The court took into account that an inaccurate property valuation may lead to damages for both the claimant and the debtor. Regarding the appeal periods, the court applied the special rule of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” which regulates the appeal periods for property valuation, and took into account that the appeal period was interrupted due to martial law.
4. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and the decision of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the NBU, the Ministry of Justice, and PJSC “Odesaprodcontract.”
Case No. 910/2868/24 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unreasonably paid penalties and debt for goods supplied under the contract between Trade Granit Invest LLC and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, as well as the recovery of penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses under the counterclaim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that Trade Granit Invest LLC (the Company) lawfully demands the return of unreasonably paid penalties, as the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (the Ministry) violated the deadlines for submitting applications for the supply of products, which, according to the terms of the contract, releases the Company from liability for late delivery. The court also rejected the Ministry’s arguments regarding the improper quality of the products, since these violations were recorded in violation of the terms of the contract, namely, the mandatory conditions of the quality control mechanism were not met, the violations were not recorded at the time of acceptance and transfer of goods, not reflected in the act of acceptance and transfer of services, and the food products were not returned to the contractor. In addition, the court considered the contract condition “first payment of fines – then payment for accepted services” unacceptable, as it contradicts the principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness of civil relations. The court also rejected the cassation appeal of the Ministry, as no evidence was provided that the conclusions of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the appellant relate to similar legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to grant the cassation appeal.
