**Case No. 607/12186/22 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for the illegal acquisition and possession of ammunition (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out the following:
* The appellate court failed to properly assess the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during the search, in particular, whether permission was obtained to search the specific premises where the ammunition was found.
* The appellate court did not question the witnesses who were present during the inspection of the item regarding the circumstances of the detection of papillary patterns, limiting itself only to questioning the expert, which is insufficient to refute the information specified in the inspection report.
* The appellate court did not provide reasoned answers to all the arguments of the appeal, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* The Supreme Court did not agree with the defense’s arguments regarding violations during the search, since the ruling of the investigating judge does not show any restrictions regarding specific rooms or floors where the search is permitted.
* The Supreme Court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding violations during the taking of papillary pattern samples, since a previously completed fingerprint card was used, and new samples were not taken.
* The Supreme Court did not find any violations regarding the terms of the pre-trial investigation, since the indictment was sent to court within the established terms.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 607/15800/21 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of official negligence that caused serious consequences (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new appellate review. At the same time, the specific arguments that the Supreme Court relied on are not specified in the operative part of the resolution. Usually, this may be due to incomplete investigation of evidence by the appellate court, incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, or significant violations of the criminal procedural law that affected the legality and validity of the court decision. For a complete understanding of the grounds for cancellation, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case №0814/13257/2012 dated 06/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of PERSON_2 against the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the court of appeal in the criminal case.
The judge of the Supreme Court, having received the cassation appeal, requested the criminal case from the district court for verification in cassation proceedings. No grounds preventing the assignment of the case for consideration were found. The judge was guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, taking into account the transitional provisions of the new CPC. The date and time of the cassation hearing of the case have been set, which the prosecutor and the parties to the case must be notified of. The right to file objections to the cassation appeal before the start of the cassation hearing was also explained.
The court scheduled the criminal case for consideration in cassation proceedings.
Case №685/54/21 dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of decisions of the village council on the transfer of land plots into ownership and the termination of the right of ownership to these plots.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, noting that in order to protect a civil right in court, it is necessary to prove the existence of a violated right or interest of the plaintiff, which was not done in this case, since the plaintiff did not prove that her rights were violated by the transfer of land plots into the ownership of the defendants, and also did not previously apply with applications for the allocation of these plots to her. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff did not involve the farm, which leases a significant part of the disputed land plots, as a co-defendant in the case, which is a necessary condition for resolving the dispute. The court emphasized that the absence of a violated right is an independent basis for dismissing the claim, and also emphasized the principle of dispositivity of civil procedure, according to which the court considers the case only within the limits of the requirements stated by the plaintiff. The court of cassation also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case №161/4116/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue of the fate of material evidence (alcoholic beverages and tobacco products) seized in criminal proceedings that were closed.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not provide proper justification for classifying the seized property as withdrawn from circulation and did not take into account important circumstances, in particular, the absence of intent to sell by the owner.
of property, as well as the appointment of an expert examination after the closure of criminal proceedings. The courts did not analyze whether the tobacco products met the quality indicators for their consumption before deciding to transfer them to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Furthermore, the courts did not substantiate on the basis of which legal norms they decided to transfer the property to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court of cassation pointed out the need to take into account the provisions of the Instruction on the procedure for seizure, accounting, storage and transfer of material evidence in criminal cases, valuables and other property by bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigation and court.
4. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 487/1428/21 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm).
2. The operative part of the judgment does not state the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as the full text of the judgment will be announced later. The court only indicated that the convicted person’s cassation appeal was dismissed and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged. Accordingly, it is currently impossible to analyze the motives that guided the Supreme Court in upholding the judgment and ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted person, and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 910/9235/24 dated 04/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling on the opening of proceedings in a bankruptcy case and the creditor’s claims.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the creditor’s cassation appeal, stating that the previous courts formally approached the establishment of a dispute over the right to the creditor’s claims, referring only to the debtor’s objections without providing relevant evidence that would indicate that the claims were disputed, and also left unconsidered the stated claims of the initiating creditor regarding court costs. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts did not examine the evidence collected in the case to establish the circumstances of the validity or invalidity of the indicated creditor’s claims, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the existence of grounds for opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, taking into account the existence of debt confirmed by a court decision.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to recognize the moneof the creditor’s monetary claims and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial in this part, and left the decision unchanged in other parts.
**Case No. 922/1675/24 dated 06/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the monetary claims of an individual against a limited liability company within the framework of a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recognition of the monetary claims of an individual against the bankrupt, since a preliminary agreement for the sale and purchase of an apartment was concluded between the parties, under which the individual paid a security payment to the company, which in essence is an advance payment, as it is credited towards the future payment for the apartment. Since the main sale and purchase agreement was never concluded, the court recognized the individual’s claims for the return of the advance payment as justified. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the security payment is a deposit, since the agreement does not contain conditions under which the deposit remains with the seller if the main agreement is not concluded. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to the fact that the individual did not demand the conclusion of the main agreement, since from the moment of the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, the term for the fulfillment of all the debtor’s obligations is considered to have arrived. The court also noted that quoting individual conclusions of the Supreme Court without proper legal justification is not a basis for overturning court decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 644/7545/23 dated 06/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the Kharkiv City Council against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the establishment of the fact that the applicant lived as one family with the testator.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, based on the fact that the appeal was filed after the expiration of the one-year period from the date of the full text of the court decision, established by Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which is the basis for refusing to open appellate proceedings regardless of the reasons for missing the deadline. The court noted that the Kharkiv City Council was duly notified of the consideration of the case, and did not provide evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances that would have made it impossible to appeal to the court in a timely manner. The court also indicated that leaving the appeal without movement is applied in cases where the complaint has other procedural shortcomings, but is filed within the established deadlines, and not in the case of missing a preclusive
of one-year term. The cassation court emphasized that ensuring the right to appeal review of a case must be based on fair judicial procedures, and participants in the judicial process are obliged to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and strictly fulfill their procedural obligations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv City Council and upheld the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal.
Case №522/23238/17 dated 21/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on offsetting counter homogeneous claims between LLC “Avers-City” and an individual, PERSON_1.
The cassation court found that the power of attorney issued by LLC “Avers-City” to the representative Yesaulova I.M. indicates the existence of representative relations between them, and, accordingly, the disputed agreement on offsetting counter claims was concluded and signed on behalf of the Company by an authorized person. The appellate court did not take into account that the application of the ground of inefficiency of the chosen method of protection is possible only after establishing the fact of violation of the plaintiff’s rights, which in this case was not proven. The court also noted that each party determines its own defense strategy, and the court considers the case exclusively within the limits of the stated claims and provided evidence, without having the right to independently choose the legal basis and subject of the claim. The cassation court did not agree with the motives of the appellate court, but agreed with the result.
The cassation court ruled to amend the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, leaving unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
Case №495/9/21 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on amendments to the mortgage agreement and the cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership to the immovable property that was the subject of the mortgage.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the bank complied with the procedure for foreclosure on the mortgage property in an out-of-court procedure, since it twice sent the plaintiff a demand to remedy violations of the main obligation, which was returned due to the expiration of the storage period, which according to current legislation is considered proper notification. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not rebut the presumption of proper notification. In addition, the appellate court noted that the bank provided a report on the valuation of the mortgage property, which was valid at the time of the transfer of ownership, and the plaintiff did not prove that the value of the property is greater than indicated in the report. The appellate court also indicated that
the existence of registered encumbrances is not an obstacle to the registration of ownership by the mortgagee. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her rights, and shortcomings in the work of the post office cannot cast doubt on the proper fulfillment of the bank’s obligations.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
Case No. 922/987/16 dated 06/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate economic court’s ruling on the refusal to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the decision to remove the arbitration manager from performing the duties of a liquidator in a bankruptcy case.
The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, based on the fact that the arbitration manager did not prove the existence of newly discovered circumstances that would significantly affect the legality and validity of the decision on her removal. The court noted that the circumstances referred to by the appellant are not newly discovered, since they were either already known to the courts of previous instances, or relate to the assessment of evidence, which goes beyond the scope of review based on newly discovered circumstances. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances does not provide for a re-evaluation of all the arguments of the parties, but aims to take into account those circumstances that objectively could not have been known to the court when making the decision and that could have influenced its result. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellant’s arguments actually boil down to disagreement with the justification of the appellate court, which is not a basis for review based on newly discovered circumstances.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 752/22262/18 dated 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of an apartment, which was carried out on the basis of a mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the existence of registered encumbrances on the property is not an unconditional obstacle to the registration of ownership by the mortgagee, especially if these encumbrances are established in the interests of the mortgagee himself. The court took into account that the plaintiff in the counterclaim did not dispute the validity of the mortgage agreement and the existence of unfulfilled obligations under it. The court also noted that the general orientation of the legislation on state registration of rights is to ensure the reliability and consistency of information in the State Register of Rights. The court took into account that at the time of registration of the disputed apartment
regarding LLC “FC “Invest-Credo”, another residential building was owned by PERSON_1. The court of cassation also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the moratorium on the recovery of property of citizens of Ukraine provided as collateral for loans in foreign currency” is not applicable to the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 314/5924/19 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on state registration of ownership of the garage and canopies.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protecting their right, since appealing the decision of the state registrar does not resolve the issue of the legality of unauthorized construction, which is the root cause of the dispute. The court emphasized that, according to the established practice of the Supreme Court, the proper way to protect in such cases is to demand the demolition of the illegally constructed property or recognition of ownership of it. In addition, the court noted that the state registrar is not a proper defendant in disputes regarding the appeal of his decisions. The court also referred to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the violation of the rights of the owner of the land plot arises as a result of the fact of unauthorized construction, and not the state registration of ownership of it.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claim.
Case No. 824/161/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the State Enterprise “Lom PRAHA s.p.” (Czech Republic) in connection with the review of the case in the court of appeal.
2. The Supreme Court granted the application of the representative of SE “Lom PRAHA s.p.” for the adoption of an additional court decision, taking into account the following arguments:
* According to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the party in whose favor the decision is made has the right to reimbursement of court costs.
* The amount of expenses for legal assistance is determined by the court on the basis of evidence submitted by the parties, in particular the contract for the provision of legal assistance and documents confirming payment for services.
* The court took into account the scope of legal services provided, namely the submission of a response to the appeal, the participation of a representative in the court session.
* The court took into account the petition of SE SFTEA “Ukrіnmash” to reduce the costs of legal assistance, referring to the disproportion of costs with the complexity of the work, its volume and time spent by the advocattom.
* The court, having assessed all the circumstances of the case, concluded that the costs of professional legal assistance in the amount of EUR 750.00 should be recovered from SE SFEDI “UkrInmash” in favor of SE “Lom PRAHA s.p.”, considering this amount proportionate to the scope of services provided and the complexity of the case.
* The court noted that it has the right to indicate the recovery of a sum of money in foreign currency, in which case it is subject to execution.
3. The court ruled to recover from the Subsidiary Enterprise of the State Company “Ukrspetsexport” – “State Self-Supporting Foreign Trade and Investment Firm “UkrInmash” (Ukraine) in favor of the State Enterprise “Lom PRAHA s.p.” (Czech Republic) the costs of professional legal assistance in the court of appeal in the amount of EUR 750.00.
Case No. 924/972/23 dated 06/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the donation agreement of non-residential premises, concluded between the “Revival of Khmelnytskyi Region” Charitable Foundation and the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the cancellation of the state registration of rights to this property.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, drew attention to the fact that the courts of previous instances incorrectly qualified the disputed donation agreement as fictitious (i.e., invalid on the basis of Article 234 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), while, taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in a similar case, this agreement is void on the basis of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since it violates public order, as it was concluded in order to avoid the transfer of the property of the Communist Party of Ukraine, banned by the court, to the ownership of the state. The court also emphasized that since the state was not a party to the agreement, the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment the state learned of the violation of its rights, namely after the entry into force of the decision to ban the Communist Party and the discovery of the fact of alienation of the property. Regarding the interference with the property rights of the Charitable Foundation, it is lawful, since it is related to the illegal activities of the Communist Party and the commission of a transaction that contradicts public order.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of recognizing the donation agreement as invalid, refusing to satisfy this claim, but upheld the decision to cancel the state registration of rights to the property.
Case No. 904/6269/23 dated 06/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Dnipro Energy Services” in favor of JSC “NAEK “Energoatom” of 3% per annum and inflation losses due to the defendant’s violation of the terms of payment under the electricity purchase and sale agreement.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence
regarding the respondent’s delay in payment for electricity as stipulated in the contract, and the legitimacy of charging 3% annual interest and inflation losses. The court of cassation dismissed the respondent’s arguments that the orders of the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine altered the terms of fulfilling contractual obligations, as these orders only defined the procedure for settlements between market participants but did not change the contractual payment terms. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that постановa (Resolution) of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 483 does not specify that, in fulfilling contractual obligations, parties are to use only funds received from their previous payer in the chain of mutual settlements. The Supreme Court emphasized that reducing the amount of interest charged under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is a right, not an obligation, of the court, and it may be exercised in each specific case, following an assessment of the circumstances of the case and the evidence provided by the parties to the case.
4. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had partially granted the claims of National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” and ordered “Dnipro Energy Services” LLC to pay 3% annual interest and inflation losses, reducing the amount of 3% annual interest by 20%.
Case No. 920/1481/23 dated 17/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of court costs incurred by the “Lan” Peasant (Farm) Enterprise in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal by the Buryn City Council.
2. The Supreme Court, in considering the application for the allocation of court costs, was guided by the following arguments: legal assistance expenses must be documented, justified, and proportionate to the subject of the dispute; the court may reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance if they are disproportionate to the complexity of the case, the volume of work, and the time spent, but only at the request of the other party; the court may refuse to reimburse legal assistance expenses in full or in part, guided by the criteria defined in Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, whether these expenses are related to the consideration of the case, whether their amount is justified and proportionate to the subject of the dispute, and the conduct of the party during the consideration of the case; in this case, the court recognized as justified the expenses for reviewing the cassation appeal, drafting an objection, preparing a response, and participating in the court session, as their amount was determined in a fixed amount and met the criteria of fairness and proportionality, but refused to reimburse the expenses for travel to Kyiv for the court session, as the plaintiff’s representative had the opportunity to participate in the court session via video conference.
3. The court partially granted the application of the “Lan” Peasant (Farm) Enterprise and ordered the Buryn City Couof the city council UAH 20,000 for professional legal assistance, refusing to reimburse the remaining amount.
Case No. 463/7126/23 dated 06/03/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the eviction of a person from illegally occupied residential premises.
The court justified its decision by the fact that the defendant illegally occupied an apartment that is in communal ownership, without any legal grounds, such as a decision to provide housing or a warrant. The court noted that, according to the Housing Code of Ukraine, persons who illegally occupy housing are subject to eviction without being provided with other housing. It is important that the appellate court took into account the fact that the defendant owns other housing, which makes the eviction a proportionate measure that does not violate her right to housing, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff did not take any action to issue a warrant, as this does not disprove the fact of illegal occupation of the housing. In addition, the court recognized as proper evidence the inspection reports confirming the fact of illegal occupation of the premises.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 824/27/24 dated 05/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for correction of a clerical error in the writs of execution issued in pursuance of the ruling on recognition and granting permission for the enforcement of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, based on the fact that the content of the writ of execution corresponds to the operative part of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court, and the applicant did not prove the existence of objective errors that would prevent the presentation of the writ of execution for enforcement. The court noted that only significant clerical errors that affect the possibility of implementing the court decision are subject to correction, and that the court does not have the right to change the content of the court decision, but only eliminates inaccuracies. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the claimant prematurely filed an application for correction of the error, since the writ of execution had not yet been submitted for compulsory enforcement and the executor had not decided on the issue of its acceptance. The court referred to the fact that the applicant’s claim that enforcement is impossible is unfounded, since there is no evidence of the executive service’s refusal to accept the writ of execution for enforcement. The court also noted that the arguments of the appeal are reduced to a revaluation of evidence and do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court.
3. The court dismissed the appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
<a href=”https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Rev
