**Case No. 389/3293/21 dated June 11, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, who is accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (rape).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. The court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part but indicates the need for a new trial by the appellate court. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court imposed a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days. This may indicate that the cassation court sees certain risks that need to be taken into account during the new trial by the appellate court. The reasons for overturning the appellate court’s ruling will be known after reviewing the full text of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, imposing a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention.
**Case No. 389/3293/21 dated June 11, 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 rape of a minor.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, indicating that the appellate court did not properly refute the arguments of the defense attorney’s appeal, in particular, regarding the court of first instance exceeding the scope of the charges brought, as the judgment stated a different time of the crime than in the indictment. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that the expert opinion, made on the basis of a video recording of the interrogation of the victim during the pre-trial investigation, is inadmissible evidence under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. In addition, the Supreme Court believes that the appellate court did not properly assess the testimony of witnesses who claimed that the victim did not remember the events of that night and asked about them. Given the gravity of the crime, the Supreme Court imposed a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, imposing a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention.
**Case No. 742/5367/23 dated June 23, 2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation
the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged. The full text of the decision will be announced later, and then it will be possible to find out the arguments of the court.
The Supreme Court decided to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 202/19697/23 dated 06/18/2025
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 evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court significantly violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely the right of the convicted person to defense. The appellate court failed to properly notify the accused of the date, time and place of the appellate hearing, which deprived him of the opportunity to personally participate in the court session and defend his position. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere presence of an SMS message without the accused’s application to receive summonses in electronic form does not constitute proper notification. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the defense counsel’s arguments that the accused wanted to personally participate in the court session but was not properly notified. Given these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court failed to ensure a fair trial, which is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 912/2449/23 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the transfer of non-residential premises (gym) from the joint ownership of the territorial communities of the district to the communal ownership of the city council.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that in order to transfer property from the joint ownership of territorial communities to the communal ownership of one of the communities, the consent of all co-owners is required, as well as evidence that the object exclusively satisfies the needs of that community. The court indicated that since the Ketrisanivka Village Council did not consent to the transfer of the gym, and the Bobrynets City Council did not prove that the gym exclusively meets its needs, the decision to transfer is illegal. The court also took into account that the norm of paragraph 3 of clause 10 of section V of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine” is of an imperative nature, establishing exceptional grounds for the mandatory alienation of property. The court rejected the applicant’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned other factual circumstances and do not contradict the conclusions in this case. The court also noted
that the determination of the legal fate of communal property objects should be carried out directly by territorial communities or their representative bodies.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 640/14051/20 dated 06/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of a clause of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which instructed the State Property Fund to take measures to conclude a lease agreement for a building to accommodate the units of the Poltava Regional Council of Trade Unions.
The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine did not have the authority to oblige the Office of the Prosecutor General, as the authorized body for managing state property, to conclude a lease agreement with a specific entity without its consent, as this violates the rights of the plaintiff and contradicts the legislation on the lease of state property. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that initiating the conclusion of a lease agreement does not violate the freedom of contract, as the appealed resolution was of an incentive and binding nature. The court also noted that it had already assessed similar arguments in a previous case and sees no reason to depart from this conclusion. In addition, the court pointed to the binding nature of court decisions that have entered into legal force and the need to ensure access to justice.
The court of cassation instance closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeal in the other part, and the court decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/3865/24 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC VKP “Vostok-N” initiated by PJSC “Sakhnovshchynske named after M.O. Klyuchka”.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the case, noted that the absence of a dispute over the law, which can be expressed in procedural form (the existence of a claim to challenge by the debtor the circumstances on which the creditor’s claims are based) or in substantive legal form (the impossibility of establishing the actual state of the creditor’s subjective right), is important for opening proceedings in a bankruptcy case. The court found that although the debtor had applied to the court with claims to invalidate the contracts on which the creditor’s claims are based, after the initiation of the bankruptcy case, the initiating creditor did not provide evidence that the debtor was aware of the content of the disputed contracts before filing the application to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case. Also, the court of cassation instance did not agree with the conclusions of the court of appellate instance, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance.
regarding the recognition of the initiating creditor’s claims in the amount of UAH 3,277,087.41 of the principal debt, as the court of first instance reasonably established the existence of the debt based on the study of primary documents, namely, expense invoices. The court of cassation emphasized that the bankruptcy procedure has a special procedural order and does not provide for the establishment of new circumstances or the re-evaluation of evidence, and therefore the conclusions of the court of first instance were lawful.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the commercial court of first instance to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC VCP “Vostok-N”.
Case No. 400/27/24 dated June 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Archiland” against the decisions of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Mykolaiv City Council regarding the imposition of fines and an order to eliminate violations in the field of urban development.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which rejected the claim of LLC “Archiland”, based on the fact that the Company was duly notified of the unscheduled inspection but did not ensure the admission of officials of the supervisory authority to the construction site, which is a violation of the law. In addition, the courts agreed with the Department’s conclusion that the design documentation developed by LLC “Archiland” does not meet fire safety requirements, as it does not contain a proper justification for reducing fire distances between buildings and detailed design solutions for the construction of fire walls. The court noted that the design organization is obliged to properly substantiate architectural and construction solutions that ensure compliance with fire safety conditions, especially in cases of reducing fire distances. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the fact that the project passed the examination excludes the possibility of establishing violations, since the examination and state architectural and construction control are different ways to ensure the compliance of design documentation with the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Archiland” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 240/14574/24 dated June 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-application of the provisions of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine when calculating the monetary allowance of the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appealing. The court noted that valid reasons for missing the deadline can only be circumstances that are objectively insurmountable and do not depend on the will of the person. Financial difficulties
congestion, a large number of court cases in the military unit, internal personnel reshuffles, or the presence of personnel on a combat mission are not valid reasons for renewing the term, as the proper organization of work is the responsibility of the subject of power. The court also took into account that the military unit was aware of the court proceedings and received the full text of the first instance court decision in electronic form, but missed the deadline for appeal. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the reasons given by the defendant for missing the deadline are not valid, as they were not of an objective and insurmountable nature.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 5015/118/11 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the first instance court’s decision to close the proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Management Company “Lvivsky Avtonвантажувач” due to the full repayment of creditors’ claims and the restoration of the debtor’s solvency.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision, emphasized that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP) grants the right to repay creditors’ claims not only to the debtor, but also to other interested parties at any stage of the proceedings, even after the debtor has been declared bankrupt. The court indicated that the appellate court mistakenly made the possibility of closing the bankruptcy case dependent on the availability of a liquidator’s report, without taking into account that, according to the current version of the CUoBP, closing the proceedings is possible after full satisfaction of creditors’ claims and the debtor’s sufficient assets to continue economic activity. The court also noted that continuing the bankruptcy case, which has been ongoing for more than 13 years, is impractical, as it will lead to additional costs for the debtor, while the main goal of bankruptcy – satisfying creditors’ claims – has already been achieved. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of part seven of Article 41, paragraph 5 of part one of Article 90 of the CUoBP are imperative norms that are subject to application by the court regardless of the presence of other factors.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s decision to close the bankruptcy proceedings of LLC “Management Company “Lvivsky Avtonвантажувач”.
**Case No. 914/56/22 dated 18/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Joint Stock Company “DTEK Zakhidenergo” in favor of Private Joint Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” of debt for electricity transmission services, a fine, penalty, three percent per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts.
of instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering only a small amount of penalty and three percent per annum. The courts proceeded from the fact that the defendant paid the cost of electricity transmission services for its own consumption. Regarding the claims for recovery of debt for electricity transmission for export, the courts noted that the agreement between the parties does not provide for the provision of electricity transmission services in the volumes of exported electricity. The court also took into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the fee for electricity transmission for export can be regarded as a measure similar to a customs duty, which contradicts the Treaty establishing the Energy Community. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the need to deviate from the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as it did not see proper grounds for this.
2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 913/567/19(913/73/23) dated 06/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of electricity transmission services and the recognition of the contract as terminated due to the impossibility of its execution due to force majeure circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that the defendant’s impossibility to perform the contract due to the occupation of the territory was not proven, citing the lack of references to official sources confirming this fact, and also did not take into account the arguments of the appeal regarding the failure of the court of first instance to establish the circumstances referred to by the defendant in the counterclaim, and did not verify them with evidence. The court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence and did not properly review the decision of the local commercial court to dismiss the counterclaim, and also reached contradictory conclusions regarding the non-compliance of the counterclaim with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, but did not apply the consequences provided for such non-compliance. The court of cassation emphasized the obligation of the court, when considering the case, to comply with the requirements for comprehensiveness, completeness and objectivity of clarifying the circumstances of the case and evaluating the evidence, and also noted that when rejecting any arguments of the parties or refuting the submitted evidence, the commercial courts must provide legal justification for such rejection or refutation in the reasoning part of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court in the part of dismissing the counterclaim and to send the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/13153/23 dated 06/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in the case.
regarding the application of the consequences of invalidity of transactions, recognition of the right of the creditor and mortgagee, and foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage, namely the replacement of PJSC “ZNVKIF “Investohills Helianthus” with LLC “FC “Talkfin” as the legal successor.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court prematurely refused to grant the motion to replace the party, as it did not properly examine the terms of the assignment agreement, in particular, did not establish the moment of transfer of the rights of claim to the new creditor (LLC “FC “Talkfin”). The court of cassation instance noted that the mere absence of evidence of payment under the assignment agreements does not indicate the absence of the transfer of the rights of claim if the terms of the agreement do not stipulate that the right of claim is transferred after payment. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the evidence provided by the parties, and the obligation of the court to assess all arguments of the parties. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the court’s decision must be lawful and justified, that is, comply with the norms of substantive and procedural law and the actual circumstances of the case, established on the basis of reliable evidence.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to clarify all circumstances.
Case No. 918/822/23(918/797/24) dated 06/24/2025
The subject of the dispute is the applications of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 for the adoption of an additional decision on the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance in the case of recognizing a clause of the charter of LLC “Tradeks” as invalid.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendants in connection with the cassation review of the case. The court emphasized that only reasonable and proportionate expenses are subject to reimbursement, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent by the lawyer, and the significance of the case for the party. The court noted that services for analyzing case materials and consultations are already covered by services for preparing a response to the cassation appeal, and the claimed amount of expenses is excessive, considering that the lawyers participated in the consideration of the case in the courts of previous instances and were familiar with the circumstances of the case. Also, the court took into account the duration of the court session in the Supreme Court, which was only 15 minutes.
The court partially satisfied the applications of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2, recovering UAH 15,000 from PERSON_3 in favor of each of them as reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/2384/24 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recovery ofPrivate Joint-Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “SiPiDzhy Energy” UAH 40,000.00 for professional legal assistance expenses incurred in the court of first instance. The court proceeded from the fact that the expenses for professional legal assistance are documented (agreement, act of acceptance and transfer of services, attorney’s warrant), are reasonable, meet the criterion of “reality of attorney’s expenses” and the criterion of reasonableness of their amount, and are also commensurate with the services provided in the court of first instance. The court of cassation instance noted that the appellant’s disagreement with the decisions of the courts of previous instances is not evidence of their incorrect application of the law. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence collected in the case by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation instance noted that the appealed court decisions do not contradict the conclusions of the Supreme Court, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Private Joint-Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” and left the decision of the appellate court and the additional decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 910/9570/23 dated 06/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from SE “Ukrinterenergo” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” of debt under the contract for the provision of electric energy transmission services.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the suspension of proceedings in the case, since the appellate court reasonably suspended the proceedings, considering that the resolution of the issue of the extension/non-extension of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” to the disputed legal relations that arose in the temporarily occupied territories is essential for this case. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court that the case being considered by the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court concerns the application of the provisions of legislation regarding temporarily occupied territories, which may affect the legal qualification of the disputed legal relations in this case, since part of the debt period coincides with the period being investigated in another case. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the suspension of proceedings is justified when the review of the case by the Supreme Court may affect the consideration of the dispute on the merits. The court also noted that the appellant did not refute the existence of circumstances that became the basis for the suspension of proceedings.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 922/1675/24 dated 06/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the creditor’s monetary claims in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance left
without changes the decisions of previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of the creditor, since it established that a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment was concluded between the debtor and the creditor, under which the creditor paid an advance. The debtor did not fulfill the obligation to put the building into operation within the specified period, which gave the creditor the right to demand the return of the advance. The court noted that from the moment of the official publication of the announcement of bankruptcy, the term for fulfilling all obligations of the debtor is considered to have arrived, and creditors have the right to assert their claims. The court also emphasized that the advance is subject to return in case of non-fulfillment of the obligation, regardless of whose fault it was, and that the courts of previous instances correctly qualified the paid amount as an advance, not a deposit.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of previous instances.
Case №922/1933/22 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the actions of a private executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of funds from JSC “Kharkivgaz” in favor of LLC “Operator GTS of Ukraine”.
2. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivgaz”, supporting the decisions of previous instances. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights to ARMA for management does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, the restrictions established by paragraph 2 of part 2 of Article 5 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” regarding legal entities, the share of the state in the authorized capital of which exceeds 25%, do not apply in this case. In addition, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the actions of the private executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property, namely at the location of the bank accounts of JSC “Kharkivgaz” in Kyiv, as the claimant provided relevant evidence. The court also noted that it departed from the previous conclusion regarding the identity of asset management and ownership, set out in the Supreme Court’s ruling of December 19, 2024 in case No. 903/62/23, taking into account the ruling of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court of May 16, 2025 in case No. 903/421/24.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivgaz” and upheld the decisions of previous instances.
Case №910/2384/24 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “CPG Energy” of UAH 772,306.89 as unjust enrichment in connection with the accrual of payment for electricity transmission services during export to the countries participating in the Energy Community.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of LLC “CPG Energy”, based on the fact that the accrual of payment for electricity transmission services during exthat the fee for electricity transmission during export to the Republic of Moldova (a member country of the Energy Community Treaty) contradicts Ukraine’s international obligations. The court emphasized that, according to Article 41 of the Energy Community Treaty, customs duties and quantitative restrictions on imports and exports of energy products, as well as any measures having a similar effect, are prohibited between the parties. The court also took into account the law enforcement practice of the Energy Community and the European Union, including decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the practice of the European Commission, and the Energy Community Secretariat. The court noted that the established fee for electricity transmission during export is a measure similar to a customs duty and is therefore unlawful. The court also considered the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/9627/20, which stated the inadmissibility of charging a fee for electricity transmission during export to the Energy Community member countries.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Ukrenergo”.
Case No. 916/2739/20 of 06/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of creditor claims of JSC “Oschadbank” and individual PERSON_1 against LLC “Ukrkava” within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claims of JSC “Oschadbank”, recognizing part of the claims as secured and part as unsecured, while rejecting claims for unlawfully accrued interest and penalties, and also completely denied the satisfaction of the claims of PERSON_1, as sufficient evidence of the reality of the economic transaction on the assignment of the right of claim was not provided, and the circumstances of signing the contract on the assignment of rights of claim by a person who was simultaneously the development director of LLC “Ukrkava” were also taken into account. The court of cassation emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, in the event of reasonable doubts regarding the validity of creditor claims, the applicant has a duty of a higher standard of proof. The court also noted that the absence of evidence of pre-trial settlement work is not the sole basis for recognizing the unreality of the assignment of the right of claim agreement, but is taken into account in conjunction with other circumstances of the case.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals of PERSON_2 and PERSON_1, and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 914/702/20 of 06/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to review a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in a case on the recovery of funds.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that LLC “Glagol-Servis”
“Hlahol-Servis” LLC did not substantiate the existence of newly discovered circumstances that could affect the revision of the appellate court’s decision of January 17, 2022. The court noted that the circumstances referred to by the applicant are not newly discovered, as they were known and proven by the defendant during the trial, and their re-evaluation is not a basis for reviewing the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. Furthermore, the court indicated that the applicant is actually trying to challenge the shortcomings of the court proceedings, rather than citing circumstances that were not known to the court at the time of the decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the review of a case based on newly discovered circumstances is not intended to correct judicial errors, but only to take into account circumstances that became known after the court decision was made.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Hlahol-Servis” LLC, and upheld the ruling of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal of April 9, 2025.
Case No. 922/1933/22 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt from “Kharkivhaz” JSC in favor of “Operator GTS of Ukraine” LLC.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kharkivhaz” JSC, supporting the decisions of the lower courts. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights of the company to ARMA for management does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, restrictions on the execution of decisions by private enforcement officers regarding companies where the state owns more than 25% of the authorized capital do not apply. The court also rejected arguments regarding violations of territorial jurisdiction, as a private enforcement officer has the right to open enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property, including funds in bank accounts. The court took into account that the claimant provided evidence of the debtor’s accounts in banks located in Kyiv, which is a sufficient basis for opening enforcement proceedings by a private enforcement officer registered in Kyiv. The Court noted that it departed from the conclusions stated in the Supreme Court’s decision of December 19, 2024, in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of ownership rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kharkivhaz” JSC, and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 917/2108/23 dated 06/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under a contract for the provision of agricultural production services.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts, which refused to satisfy the claim for debt recovery, because the courts did not investigate the circumstances regarding the conclusion of an additional agreement that changed the payment term under the contract. The lower courts did not ascertain whether it was
that the main contract was a significant transaction, whether the powers were exceeded when concluding the additional agreement, and also did not investigate the issue of a conflict of interest in the plaintiff’s director, who was simultaneously associated with the defendant. The court noted that it is necessary to establish whether the other party knew about the restrictions on the powers of the representative of the counterparty, whether the transaction was approved, and also to investigate the circumstances regarding the possible disadvantage of the terms of the additional agreement for the plaintiff. The court also pointed out the need to take into account the previous periods of cooperation between the parties and the amount of work in order to establish whether the parties could be aware of the approximate amount of payments under the contract.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 914/2337/22 dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of the land plot to the ownership of the servicing cooperative and the cancellation of the state registration of the ownership right to this plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right. The court noted that in the case when the ownership right to the disputed land plot is already registered to the cooperative, the proper way to protect it is a vindication claim, that is, a claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court emphasized that the cancellation of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of the land plot without simultaneously filing a claim for the recovery of this plot will not lead to an effective restoration of the rights of the territorial community. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that in similar cases, a vindication claim must be filed. The court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law, as well as the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of certain norms of law, since the dispute was resolved on the basis of choosing an ineffective method of protection.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 920/632/24(920/1377/24) dated 06/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the appeal of Business Trend LLC against the ruling of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation left the ruling of the appellate court without changes, motivating this by the fact that the right to appeal the rulings of the court of first instance is limited to cases expressly provided for by the procedural law, namely Article 255 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the ruling of the court of first instance
of appeal, is not subject to the list of rulings that can be appealed separately from the court’s decision. The court of cassation emphasized that procedural succession involves the transfer of procedural rights and obligations from one person to another, which must be confirmed by the transfer of material rights. In this case, the asset manager filed a claim in the interests of the debtor, and not in the order of procedural succession. The court also took into account that from the moment of opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, the debtor is in a special legal regime, and the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures has priority in regulating bankruptcy relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Business Trend” LLC, and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 5015/118/11 dated 06/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the results of the auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property as invalid and the application of the consequences of invalidity in the form of recognizing the agreements concluded with the winners of the auction as invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the presence of violations in the preparation and conduct of the auction, namely: the establishment by the auction organizer of an unreasonable deadline for submitting applications for participation, which led to a narrowing of the circle of potential participants; an ineffective method of selling property by combining real estate and corporate rights, which have different liquidity, into one lot; and the illegal determination of the initial sale price of the property not by the liquidator, but by an appraisal entity commissioned by the creditor. The court noted that these violations, in aggregate, caused negative consequences in the form of narrowing the circle of potential auction participants and not achieving the main goal of selling the bankrupt’s property at the highest price. The court also emphasized that the appellate court corrected a procedural violation committed by the court of first instance, namely, holding a court hearing without court debates and retiring to the deliberation room. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, as they concerned other legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court on recognizing the results of the auction and the purchase and sale agreements concluded with the winner of the auction as invalid remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/3840/21 dated 06/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the state executor’s suspension of enforcement actions in enforcement proceedings where the debtor is an enterprise included in the list of large-scale privatization objects.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that JSC “Ukrainian Energy Machines” was
included in the list of large-scale privatization objects, and therefore, based on Clause 12, Part 1, Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” the state enforcement officer rightfully suspended the enforcement actions. The court noted that the suspension of enforcement proceedings in connection with privatization does not violate the creditor’s right to the execution of a court decision, as the creditor is not deprived of the opportunity to obtain execution after the completion of privatization. The court also took into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the provisions of Clause 12, Part 1, Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” are clear and unambiguous. The appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of constitutional rights and the need to take into account the practice of the ECHR were rejected, as restrictions on enforcement actions during the privatization period are lawful and aimed at ensuring public interest. The court also indicated that the conclusions referred to by the appellant, set out in other cases, are not relevant to this case, as they relate to other legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/1933/22 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings, given the restrictions established by law for private enforcement officers, in particular regarding the execution of decisions concerning legal entities in whose authorized capital the state share exceeds 25%, as well as regarding compliance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights to the management of ARMA does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, the restrictions provided for in Clause 2, Part 2, Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” do not apply to private enforcement officers in such cases. The court departed from the previous conclusion that asset management is equivalent to ownership. Also, the court emphasized that a private enforcement officer has the right to open enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property, in particular funds in bank accounts, and the presence of such accounts in Kyiv is a sufficient basis for opening enforcement proceedings in this city. The court took into account that the creditor provided evidence of the debtor’s open accounts in banking institutions located in Kyiv.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/18969/23 (910/1907/24) dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of closing appellate proceedings on the appeal of the asset manager, whose powers ceased after the filing of this appeal.
2. The court of cassation instance found that at the time of filing the a
