Case №205/1878/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the case on the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim regarding the requirements to the individual, since the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of forgery of documents, on the basis of which this person acquired ownership of the disputed land plot, considering that there are two copies of the order of the State Geocadastre with different content, but no originals were provided. At the same time, the court of cassation instance established violations of the rules of jurisdiction regarding the consideration of claims against a legal entity (DP “Illich-Agro Donbas”), since the dispute between the local self-government body and the legal entity regarding the land plot is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the dispute regarding the requirements to DP “Illich-Agro Donbas” is a land dispute between the territorial community and the legal entity, which excludes its consideration in the order of civil procedure. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that there are no legal grounds for recovering court costs in favor of DP “Illich-Agro Donbas” in connection with the closure of proceedings regarding the requirements to this legal entity.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the claims against the Subsidiary Company “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closed the proceedings in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case №756/1749/22 dated June 4, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegality of the order to suspend from work due to the lack of vaccination against COVID-19 and the recovery of average earnings for the period of suspension.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized the need for an individual assessment of the circumstances of each case of suspension from work due to the lack of vaccination against COVID-19, taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that a simple formal reference to the mandatory vaccination for employees of certain institutions without taking into account the specifics of the duties performed and the potential threat that a non-vaccinated employee may pose is insufficient. It is important to assess the number of social contacts of the employee in the workplace, the possibility of organizing remote work, working conditions and other factors that affect the likelihood of COVID-19 infection. In this case, the appellate court did not take into account that the defendant did not substantiate the need to suspend the plaintiff, who worked as a leading legal advisor, and did not prove that her actions created threats that required such a strict measure as suspension from work without preservation of wages. Taking into account,
that the defendant had not proven the proportionality of the measures taken to the legitimate aim of protecting health, the Supreme Court признал dismissed the plaintiff as unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the claims.
Case No. 463/9072/20 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of an apartment and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the same apartment.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the third party (PERSON_4) did not prove how the appealed court decisions violate her rights and interests, since the claims were satisfied against the defendant (PERSON_2), who did not appeal these decisions. The court also noted that the existence of criminal proceedings against a third party is not a sufficient basis for canceling court decisions in a civil case, unless a violation of her rights and interests by these decisions is proven. In addition, the court took into account that the third party was duly notified of the case hearing, as correspondence was sent to her registered address, although it was returned with a note about the absence of the addressee. The court emphasized the principle of dispositiveness of civil procedure, according to which the parties to the case independently decide whether to appeal the court decision, and to what extent.
3. The cassation appeal of PERSON_4 was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 756/3297/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of the plaintiff, who considered the information spread about him in an article on the defendant’s website to be untrue.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the courts did not take into account that the defendant is the owner of the website on which the disputed article was posted, and did not pay attention to the fact that the disputed information is the subjective opinion of the author, and not factual data that can be verified for accuracy. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff, as a public figure (former mayor), should be more tolerant of criticism, and the limit of acceptable criticism regarding him is much wider than regarding a private person. The court noted that the statements in the article are evaluative judgments that cannot be the subject of judicial protection, since they do not contain allegations of the plaintiff’s violation of legislation or moral principles. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression and the distinction between facts and evaluative judgments.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims and refused to satisfy the claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation.
Case No. 754/10350/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 regarding the inaction of the Desnianskyi Department of the State Executive Service regarding the failure to remove the arrest from her property within the framework of the enforcement proceedings that were completed.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, which satisfied the complaint of PERSON_1, based on the following considerations:
* The previous instance courts did not establish the specific circumstances and grounds for the termination of the enforcement proceedings, which determine the possibility of lifting the arrest.
* The Desnianskyi Department of the SES should have taken measures to restore the materials of the enforcement proceedings, as they were destroyed due to the expiration of the storage period, and to establish the grounds for the termination of the proceedings.
* The courts did not examine the materials of the restored enforcement proceedings and did not establish the circumstances and grounds for its termination, which is important for the validity of the complaint.
* An erroneous indication of the basis for the return of writs of execution cannot be the basis for satisfying the requirements of the complaint.
* The norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” connect the lifting of the arrest with the completion of enforcement proceedings, and not with the return of the writ of execution to the claimant.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the decisions of the previous instance courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 760/7813/25 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to send the case materials from the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv to the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding a motion for temporary access to items and documents in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court, when considering the submission of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, was guided by Articles 32, 34, Part 2 of Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the issue of jurisdiction in the criminal proceedings was raised by the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which filed a corresponding submission to the Supreme Court. The panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court examined the case materials and concluded that there were no grounds to grant the appellate court’s submission. The court also noted that the full text of the ruling will be announced later, and the ruling is not subject to appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the submission of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to send the case materials from the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv to the High Anti-Corruption Court.
Case No. 130/3822/13-ц dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state executor regarding the failure to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property in enforcement proceedings that were returned to the claimant.
2. The court of cassation noted that the previous instance courts reasonably refused to satisfy the debtor’s complaint, but were mistaken in the reasons for the refusal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the return of the
execution document to the recovery claimant is not an unconditional basis for the seizure of the debtor’s property, except in cases expressly provided for by law. The court also took into account that the debtor had not proven the existence of other grounds for the removal of the seizure, provided for by Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” At the same time, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts had not investigated all the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether there were grounds for recognizing the inaction of the state enforcement officer as illegal in the context of the specific circumstances of the case and the provisions of Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” Therefore, although the final outcome of the case was left unchanged, the reasoning part of the court decisions was changed to reflect the correct application of the norms of substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left unchanged the decision to refuse satisfaction of the debtor’s complaint.
Case No. 197/1268/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal as illegal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they did not take into account that the guarantees provided for in Article 184 of the Labor Code of Ukraine regarding the prohibition of dismissal of certain categories of employees apply to one of the adoptive parents, regardless of the existence of the status of a single father/mother, and that the employer’s fulfillment of the obligation to provide employment is irrelevant if the employee enjoys special guarantees against dismissal. The courts did not clarify whether the plaintiff provided the employer with documents confirming his status as an adoptive father, and whether his wife enjoyed similar guarantees. Also, the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments that the proposed positions did not correspond to his qualifications and health condition, taking into account his disability. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances did not establish important circumstances of the case, which led to a premature conclusion about the refusal to satisfy the claim.
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. 523/9237/22 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the upbringing and free communication of the father with the child and the determination of the method of the father’s participation in the upbringing of the child.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy most of the claims, proceeded from the following:
* It took into account the principle of equal rights of parents in raising a child and the need to ensure the best interests of the child, which prevail over the interests of the parents.
* The court took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, the father’s residence abroad and at a considerable distance from the child, and decided that the established schedule
communication is in the best interests of the child, allowing the father to communicate sufficiently, pay attention, and participate in their development and upbringing.
* The court held that the determined days and hours of the father’s communication with the child should take place by agreement of the parties, which does not violate the rights and interests of the child and the plaintiff, given the remote location of their residences from each other.
* The court noted that no evidence was presented that the father’s communication with the child violates the child’s interests or negatively affects their psychological and physical health.
* The court emphasized that the establishment of relationships and emotional contact between a minor child and their father should prevail over the desire of other persons to restrict the child from meeting with the father.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 719/523/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order on changing the terms of payment of average earnings, renewal of accrual and recovery of average earnings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. The court noted that a copy of the decision of the court of first instance was received by the plaintiff’s lawyer in the electronic cabinet in the “Electronic Court” system, which, in accordance with procedural law, is considered proper notification of the plaintiff themselves. The plaintiff’s arguments about being in military service and the inability to appeal the court’s decision in a timely manner were not recognized by the court as valid, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence confirming the impossibility of communication with the lawyer and the performance of procedural actions. The court also took into account that the participation of a lawyer in the case implies that the procedural actions of the representative create legal consequences for the person they represent.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 205/2139/23 dated 28/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation, having reviewed the case, agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the prosecutor had not proven with sufficient evidence the forgery of documents on the basis of which an individual acquired ownership of the disputed land plot, taking into account the existence of two copies of the State Geocadastre order with different content, but with the same details. The court noted that the submission of an electronic proof in paper copy does not make it inadmissible, but in case of doubts about the conformity of the copy to the original, the court may request the original electronicof proof. At the same time, the court of cassation found a violation of the rules of jurisdiction, since the dispute between the local self-government body and a legal entity (State Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas”) regarding the land plot is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court. Also, the court of cassation indicated that there are no grounds for recovering the amount of legal costs for professional legal assistance in favor of State Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas”.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the claims against State Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and also overturned additional decisions on the recovery of court costs, leaving the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 766/9397/24 dated 06/04/2025
The subject of the dispute was the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work and wages from the Education Department of the Kherson City Council in favor of the plaintiff, an employee of a preschool institution.
The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that the illegal suspension of the employment contract, established by a court decision, entitles the employee to receive average earnings for the period of forced absence from work. It is important that the court took into account the actual circumstances of the case, in particular that the Education Department of the Kherson City Council paid the plaintiff’s salary. The court also noted that a mandatory condition for suspending the employment contract is the simultaneous impossibility of the employer providing work and the employee performing it. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that the restoration of the employee’s violated right to work should include not only the cancellation of the order on the illegal suspension of the employment contract, but also the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, and also recovered legal aid costs in the court of cassation from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 161/15225/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal inaction of local self-government bodies and the obligation to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to the ownership of the plaintiff in the order of privatization.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account a number of important circumstances. In particular, the courts did not properly assess the fact that the plaintiff legally moved into the disputed apartment and has lived there for a long time. It was also not taken into account that the defendants did not dispute the legality of the plaintiff’s residence and did not make demands to eliminate obstacles in the use of housing. The court of cassation emphasized that the list of grounds for refusal
the list of grounds for refusal in privatization is exhaustive and cannot be interpreted broadly. An important argument was that the refusal of privatization is essentially due to improper accounting of the housing stock, which cannot be imposed as a burden on citizens who have the right to privatization. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the claim to declare the inaction of the defendants as privatization bodies regarding the failure to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to the plaintiff’s ownership is not a proper way of protection. **** The court took into account the conclusions on the application of legal norms set forth in the постанові [resolution] of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated May 05, 2025 in case No. 759/1426/22 (proceedings No. 61-15198сво23).
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the claim to oblige to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to ownership, and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of first instance, and in the other part – changed in the reasoning part.
Case No. 469/1312/17 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in the case of recognizing as illegal the order on the transfer of a land plot to private ownership, cancellation of the state registration of land ownership and reclamation of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances to replace the Mykolaiv Regional State Administration with the Koblivka Village Council as the legal successor in the case, since there was an administrative (public) legal succession. The court noted that due to changes in land legislation, namely the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Improving the Management System and Deregulation in the Field of Land Relations”, the powers to dispose of the disputed land plot were transferred from the regional state administration to the Koblivka Village Council. The court took into account that the territory on which the disputed plot is located became part of the Koblivka territorial community, and according to the new legislation, it is the village councils that have the right to dispose of land outside settlements. The court emphasized that administrative legal succession provides for the transfer of rights and obligations of one subject of law to another, and the obligation to restore violated rights is assigned to the competent authority.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 369/11029/17 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the state registrar’s actions as illegal and the cancellation of his decision on the state registration of ownership of real estate on the basis of a mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, because it established that the appellatethe court of appeal reviewed the case in the absence of the plaintiff and their representative, who were not duly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing, which is a violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that sending court summonses to electronic addresses that are not official does not constitute proper notification of the date and time of the case hearing. The court also took into account that the court’s obligation to notify the parties of the case of the place, date, and time of the court hearing is the realization of one of the fundamental principles of civil procedure – the openness of the judicial process. Failure by the court to fulfill this obligation leads to a violation not only of the right of the party to be informed of the place, date, and time of the court hearing but also of the fundamental principles of civil procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff must be duly and in the established procedure notified of the date, time, and place of both the first and second court hearings, at which they did not appear.
3. The court quashed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 522/7233/16-ц dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the investment agreement and the additional agreement to it, concluded between SE “Directorate of Machine Tool Construction” and other persons, since the plaintiff believes that their rights as the first investor were violated.
2. The Supreme Court quashed the appellate court’s ruling, pointing to violations of procedural law. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the director of a legal entity, acting on its behalf when concluding an agreement, acts as an organ of this legal entity, and not as a separate individual, therefore, the decision in the case cannot resolve issues regarding the rights and obligations of the director. In addition, the appellate court did not establish how the decision of the court of first instance affects the rights and obligations of a person who did not participate in the case, which is a necessary condition for reviewing the case on the merits based on the appeal of this person. The court also emphasized that a person who did not participate in the case has the right to refute the established circumstances in the general procedure, and the decision in this case does not have preclusive effect for the criminal proceedings regarding this person. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new hearing in the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, quashed the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case for a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 522/9654/19 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from another’s illegal possession of non-residential premises, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, illegally left state ownership.
2. The court of cassation quashed the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
of authority, as they did not take into account important circumstances. Firstly, the courts did not properly verify the prosecutor’s authority to represent the interests of the state in court, in particular, whether sufficient time was given to the competent authorities (the State Property Fund and the Ministry of Culture) to independently protect their interests. Secondly, the courts did not investigate the issue of the good faith of the last acquirer of the property (PERSON_1) and the possibility of applying the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine Regarding Strengthening the Protection of the Rights of a Bona Fide Acquirer,” which came into force after the decisions of the courts of previous instances and has retrospective effect in time. Also, the courts did not take into account that the requirement to cancel the decision of the state registrar is not an effective way to protect the right of the state, since the proper way to protect it is a vindication claim.
3. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128421090](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128421090) **Case No. 185/4328/23 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a land plot in the order of inheritance by law, the cancellation of state registration of ownership and lease, as well as the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement to the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law when it renewed the term for appeal by the prosecutor’s office, without providing proper justification for the validity of the reasons for missing this term. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s office’s reference to the fact that it became aware of the decision of the court of first instance only after examining the case file is not a sufficient basis for renewing the term, especially when the authorized body (village council) did not appeal the decision on its own. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the need to motivate the decision to renew the term for appeal, and also did not properly assess the reasons for missing the term, cited by the prosecutor’s office. Taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court noted that the unfounded renewal of the term for appealing a court decision violates the principle of legal certainty and the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and the ruling on the renewal of the term for appeal, sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128422443](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128422443) **Case No. 606/2340/23 dated 06/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict 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 child.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively examined all the evidence, giving it dueto assess it. In particular, the court took into account the testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, as well as the results of covert investigative actions, namely, audio surveillance of the person. The court noted that the audio surveillance was conducted on legal grounds, and the recorded conversations of the convicted person with other individuals were voluntary, without coercion or deception. The court also noted that the absence of bodily injuries in the victim does not disprove the fact of rape, since, for qualification under Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is sufficient to establish the commission of sexual acts involving penetration into the body of another person. The appellate court, reviewing the case, provided reasoned answers to all the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 755/14534/21 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 for the recognition of her ownership of 59/100 shares of the apartment, for which she has already obtained the right on the basis of a previous court decision on reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that there is no subject of dispute between the parties, since the dispute over the ownership of the specified share of the apartment has already been resolved in favor of the plaintiff in the previous case, where a decision was made to reclaim property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court noted that the decision to reclaim property is sufficient grounds for registering the plaintiff’s ownership right, and a repeated appeal to the court with a demand for recognition of ownership is impractical. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which, in cases where the requirement to reclaim property from someone else’s illegal possession should be applied, the owner’s demand for recognition of ownership is ineffective. The court took into account the changes to the Procedure for State Registration of Rights to Real Estate, which simplified the procedure for registering ownership rights on the basis of a court decision to reclaim property. The court indicated that the inability to register ownership rights on the basis of a previous court decision does not indicate a continuation of the dispute between the parties.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims for recognition of ownership rights and closed the proceedings in the case due to the absence of the subject of the dispute.
Case No. 727/6380/17 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the legal status of basement premises in an apartment building: whether they are auxiliary premises belonging to the co-owners of the building, or non-residential premises that can be alienated into private ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, pointed out the need
to establish the legal regime of the disputed premises, to clarify whether they are auxiliary in their technical and legal characteristics, whether they were built as such, the use of which had a purpose other than auxiliary premises, whether they contained technical equipment of the building, without access to which the operation of the residential building is impossible. The appellate court, having examined the evidence, established that the disputed premises were built as a boiler room for heating the building, and therefore are auxiliary premises belonging to the co-owners of the building. The court also noted that the termination of the use of the premises for their original purpose does not change their legal status as auxiliary. The cassation court also pointed out that the claims for invalidation of sale and purchase agreements and cancellation of their registration are a proper way to protect in the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for invalidation of sale and purchase agreements and cancellation of their state registration, recognition as illegal and cancellation of paragraph 1.2 of the executive committee’s decision, the List of communal property objects of Chernivtsi, and issued a new decision on partial satisfaction of the claim in this part.
Case №399/496/22 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the local government regarding the transfer of land from state to communal ownership as invalid, the recognition of a land lease agreement as invalid, the cancellation of state registration of ownership and lease rights, as well as the obligation to return the land to the state.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular the principle of dispositivity, by going beyond the scope of the claims, independently choosing a method of protection that was not claimed by the plaintiff, and also did not assess the appropriateness of the methods of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of decisions as invalid, cancellation of registration, recognition of the lease agreement as invalid). The court also indicated that the appellate court did not take into account the rules of jurisdiction, since a dispute between legal entities regarding decisions of the local government regarding the transfer of land and the obligation to return the land could fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial court. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have checked whether the case in the part of the stated claims is not referred to the jurisdiction of commercial courts, which excludes its consideration in these parts in the order of civil procedure.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case №472/241/23 dated 06/04/2025
The subject of the dispute was the recovery of court fees paid
prosecution for filing a cassation appeal in the case of cancellation of state registration and recovery of a land plot.
The court of cassation instance granted the prosecutor’s office’s motion for an additional decision, since the previous ruling did not resolve the issue of the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the review of the case in cassation proceedings. The court noted that court costs consist of court fees and expenses related to the consideration of the case, and the procedural code provides for the indication of the distribution of court costs in the operative part of the cassation court’s ruling. Considering that the prosecutor’s office’s cassation appeal was granted and the appellate court’s decision was overturned, the court concluded that the court fee paid by the prosecutor’s office for filing the cassation appeal is subject to recovery from the defendant.
The court ruled to recover UAH 15,975.17 of court fees from PERSON_1 in favor of the Mykolaiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
Case No. 524/1832/22 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open appellate proceedings on PERSON_1’s appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of debt for heat supply services.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that PERSON_1 had missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance without valid reasons, since the defendant received a copy of the court decision on January 29, 2024, and the appeal was filed only on November 24, 2024. The court noted that the right to access to court is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, in particular regarding appeal deadlines, in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and legal certainty. Also, the court indicated that the applicant is obliged to exercise the procedural rights granted in good faith and take measures to reduce the period of court proceedings. The court took into account that the defendant’s representative familiarized himself with the case file back in March 2024, which did not prevent the timely filing of an appeal. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the reasons for missing the deadline stated in PERSON_1’s petition are not objective circumstances that would prevent him from exercising his right to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed PERSON_1’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 592/3510/19 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between the plaintiff’s deceased husband and the defendant.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which granted the claim for debt recovery, since the plaintiff’s possession of the original receipt confirms the existence of contractual relations between her deceased husband and the defendant. The court took into account that the fact of the loan agreement had already been established in a previous court case,
which considered the issue of invalidating this agreement. The court also agreed with the conclusion on the validity of the reasons for missing the statute of limitations, considering the severe illness and death of the plaintiff’s child, which complicated timely access to the court. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the fictitious nature of the agreement and the lender’s lack of necessary funds, as they were not supported by proper evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 199/3204/23 dated 28/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, noted that the prosecutor had not proven with proper evidence the forgery of documents based on which the individual acquired ownership of the disputed land plot, since the case file contains two copies of the order of the State Geocadastre with different content, but the originals were not provided for examination. The court took into account that an electronic document has the legal force of the original, provided it meets the requirements of the law, and a paper copy of an electronic proof is not written evidence if its compliance with the original is questioned. At the same time, the court found violations of the rules of jurisdiction, since the dispute between the local government body and the legal entity (tenant) regarding the land plot is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court. The court emphasized that state authorities must act transparently and clearly, and the risk of errors lies with the state, not with citizens.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims against the Subsidiary Company “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closed the proceedings in this part, and regarding the claims against the individual, it left the decisions unchanged, also canceling the additional decisions on the recovery of court costs.
Case No. 176/429/23 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings on the recovery from the enterprise in favor of an individual of compensation for moral damages caused by health impairment.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the case is not subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings, since the enforcement proceedings are part of the consolidated enforcement proceedings, which relate to decisions of courts of different jurisdictions. In such cases, according to the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, disputes regarding the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer are subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings. The court emphasized that the essence of the disputed actions is decisive for determining jurisdiction, and not the nature of the legal relations on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued. The court also took into account that the lower courtsdid not establish whether the enforcement proceeding had been removed from the consolidated enforcement proceeding at the time of the suspension of enforcement actions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, pointing to the need to resolve the dispute in the order of administrative proceedings.
Case No. 320/17645/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding the adoption of a law, which, according to the plaintiff, led to underpayment of pension benefits, and a claim for compensation for material damage.
2. The court of cassation refused to open proceedings, considering that the dispute is not subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings, since the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) does not exercise владних управлінських функцій [authoritative management functions] in the process of law-making, and therefore there is no public law dispute. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion in the part of the claim for damages, indicating that disputes regarding the recovery of damages caused by non-payment of pensions due to the effect of unconstitutional legal provisions are of a public law nature and are subject to consideration in administrative courts. The court noted that filing a claim against an improper defendant or choosing an ineffective method of protection is not a basis for refusing to open proceedings. The Grand Chamber emphasized that administrative courts should consider claims for damages if they arise from public law relations, and the jurisdiction of administrative courts extends to disputes where at least one party exercises public authority management functions. The court also took into account previous decisions in which similar disputes were considered in the order of administrative proceedings.
3. The court partially satisfied the appeal, changing the reasoning part of the ruling of the court of first instance, confirming the refusal to open proceedings in the Cassation Administrative Court, but on other grounds.
Case No. 481/1279/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation and compensation for moral damage caused, according to the plaintiff, by the dissemination of false information in complaints filed by the defendants to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff is a public figure, and the defendants’ complaints were aimed at realizing their constitutional right to appeal and were aimed at initiating inspections provided for by law. The courts considered that the content of the complaints contains value judgments and subjective opinions, and not specific objective facts that can be verified for compliance with reality. The appellate court also noted that the disseminated information, although it contains elements of a provocative nature, cannot be interpreted as containing factual data, but is an assessment of actions. The Supreme Court did not agree
with such conclusions, as the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the bias of the judge of the first instance, who had previously recused herself in a case related to the defendants due to friendly relations. The appellate court did not refute these arguments, but limited itself to a formal response that the recusal order did not contain circumstances that would raise doubts about the judge’s objectivity.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 348/897/21 dated 19/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damages (lost profits) caused by the infringement of copyright on the utility model “Security System “Areskont”.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s use of his utility model after the expiration of the service agreements. The court noted that the premises inspection reports only confirmed the presence of security equipment, but did not prove that it was used according to the principle of the plaintiff’s utility model. The court also took into account that the equipment purchase and sale agreement did not contain restrictions on its use only for the “Areskont” system. An important factor was that the plaintiff did not initiate an expert examination to establish the fact of the defendant’s use of his utility model. The court also took into account that “Investment Security Technologies” LLC, which had a license to use the utility model, did not make any claims against the defendant regarding its unlawful use. Taking into account the contractual relations between the plaintiff and “Investment Security Technologies” LLC, the court noted that it was the security organization that should prevent the unlawful use of the utility model by other persons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 199/9923/22 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the claims against the subsidiary “Illich-Agro Donbas”, since the dispute between the village council and the enterprise regarding the recovery of the land plot and the cancellation of the lease registration is subject to consideration in the order of economic jurisdiction, and not civil jurisdiction. Regarding the claims against the individual, the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the prosecutor had not proven the defendant’s unlawful acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plot, since the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of forgery of the StateGeoCadastre order, on the basis of which the ownership right was registered. The court also took into account that the development of project and technical docudocumentation and state registration of the land plot were carried out at the initiative of the defendant, and the available copy of the order of the State Geocadastre was provided to the state registrar for registration of ownership. Additional court decisions on the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in favor of DP “Illich-Agro Donbas” were also canceled, as the proceedings in the case were closed in this part.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover the land plot from an individual, canceling the decision regarding the legal entity and closing the proceedings in this part, and also canceling additional decisions on the recovery of expenses for legal assistance.
Case No. 199/9894/22 dated 05/28/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of agricultural land from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
The court of cassation instance, considering the case, established that the court of appeal, re-evaluating the evidence, did not indicate which specific norms of procedural or substantive law were violated by the court of first instance when establishing the circumstances of the case. Also, the court of cassation instance drew attention to the fact that the dispute between the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the local self-government body and the legal entity (DP “Illich-Agro Donbas”) is a land dispute that is subject to consideration in commercial court proceedings, and not in civil court proceedings. In addition, the court of cassation instance emphasized that the existence of a copy of the order provided to the state registrar for registration of ownership indicates that the prosecutor did not prove with proper evidence the forgery of documents on the basis of which the land plot was transferred to ownership. The court also took into account that at the time the dispute arose, the territory where the disputed land plot is located was occupied, which could complicate the receipt of original documents.
By the decision of the Supreme Court, the decisions of the courts of previous instances were canceled in the part of the claims against DP “Illich-Agro Donbas” and the proceedings in this part were closed, and in the part of the claims against individual PERSON_1, the decision of the court of appeal was canceled and the decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Case No. 909/1140/24 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the city council’s decision on the approval of land management technical documentation and the cancellation of state registration of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of LLC “BBM-Dolyna”, since the company did not prove the violation of its rights and interests by the appealed decision of the city council and state registration of the land plot. The court noted that the city council acted lawfully by approving the technical documentation for the land plot on which the real estate is located.
of the plaintiff, as it corresponds to the principle of paid land use. Also, the court took into account that the city council’s actions are aimed at receiving payment for the use of the land plot, and not at alienating this plot to third parties, which does not violate the plaintiff’s ownership rights. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to the violation of land management procedures, as the necessity of forming a conclusion on the application of legal norms in similar legal relations was not proven. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, and its task is only to verify the correctness of the application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “BBM-Dolina” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/2322/20 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition as invalid in part of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting the position of “Zhytomyrgaz zbut” LLC. The courts of previous instances, the decisions of which were upheld by the Supreme Court, presumably proceeded from the fact that the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) did not prove with proper evidence the violation of competition legislation by “Zhytomyrgaz zbut” LLC. Possibly, the courts also took into account the arguments of the plaintiff and the third party regarding the absence in the actions of “Zhytomyrgaz zbut” LLC of signs of abuse of monopoly position or other violations that could be the basis for the AMCU’s decision. Also, the courts could take into account the specifics of the regulation of the natural gas market and the peculiarities of the interaction between “Zhytomyrgaz zbut” LLC and “Operator gas distribution system “Zhytomyrgaz” JSC. It is important that the AMCU failed to convince the courts of the legitimacy of its decision, which led to the dismissal of the cassation appeal.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 521/15433/23 dated 06/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the communication of the grandfather and grandmother with their grandson and the determination of the method of their participation in the upbringing of their grandson.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the following:
* It took into account the interests of the child, his age, usual daily routine, attachment to the parties, behavior and emotional state of the plaintiffs, as well as their ability to provide the grandson with proper conditions of stay.
* The court took into account the conclusion of the guardianship authority regarding the expediency of establishing a schedule for the plaintiffs to communicate with the child, but partially deviated from it in order to best ensure the interests of the child.
* The court noted that communication should take place with the consent of the child, taking into account his daily routine and health status.
* The court proceeded from the need to ensure a balance
between the interests of the parents and the child, emphasizing that the interests of the child should prevail.
* The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring family ties between grandparents and grandchildren.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance and the постановa of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 369/11934/20 dated 06/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of the land plot and the obligation to perform certain actions related to the installation of a fence and access to the territorial-administrative boundary of the city of Kyiv.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that he owns the land plot, the use of which is obstructed by the actions of the defendants, in particular, the installation of a fence. The court noted that the plaintiff is trying to resolve issues that concern the rights and obligations of other persons, and not the protection of his personal right. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was duly notified of court hearings, filed petitions, which indicates his interest in the case, but did not file a petition to postpone the hearing or to leave the claim without consideration. The court indicated that the plaintiff’s failure to appear did not prevent the consideration of the case on its merits. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, noting that the court had no grounds to leave the claim without consideration, since a fair trial was ensured.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 742/485/23 dated 06/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership of a public building with хозяйственны buildings and сооружениями (cafeteria).
2. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, agreeing with their conclusions on leaving the claim без розгляду on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court indicated that the plaintiff, being duly informed of the time and place of the hearing, repeatedly failed to appear in court sessions, did not provide evidence of valid reasons for неявки and did not file a statement on consideration of the case in his absence. The court noted that according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, proper notification of the representative of the participant of the case is proper notification of the participant himself. The court also emphasized that participants in the trial must добросовестно use their procedural rights, and the repeated неявка of a duly notified plaintiff is the basis for leaving the claim без розгляду, regardless of the reasons for неявки. The court took into account that the plaintiff exercised his right to representation, and therefore, notification of his representative is proper notification for him as well.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
**Case No. 922/1675/24 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of the creditor against the bankrupt. The court proceeded from the fact that the creditor provided sufficient evidence to support its claims, namely a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment and a payment order for the payment of funds. The court noted that the courts of previous instances correctly established that the paid amount is an advance, not a deposit, since the contract does not contain provisions that the funds remain with the seller if the main contract is not concluded. Also, the court emphasized that from the moment of opening the proceedings in the bankruptcy case, it is considered that the term for fulfillment of all the debtor’s obligations has come, therefore the creditor had the right to demand the return of the advance payment. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the creditor did not send a request to conclude the main contract, since in bankruptcy cases, special rules apply regarding the terms for submitting creditors’ claims.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 918/1354/23(918/1108/24) dated 06/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of transactions as invalid and the recovery of property, as well as securing the claim by imposing an arrest on shares in the authorized capital of companies and prohibiting registration actions.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance to secure the claim, since there was a real threat of complicating the execution of the court decision due to the actions of the defendant, who had previously alienated property to avoid execution of the court decision. The court of first instance established that the defendant re-registered ownership of shares in the authorized capital of companies after filing an application for securing the claim, which indicates his intention to avoid execution of a future court decision. The court took into account that the defendant remains the director of all companies and has the opportunity to alienate the property again. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the defendant’s previous actions and his current control over the companies, which makes the assumption about the possibility of repeated alienation of property reasonable. The court also referred to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court that the defendant’s ability to alienate property is indisputable and may complicate the execution of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on taking measures to secure the claim.
**Case No. 922/1675/24 dated 06/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision
of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of an individual against the bankrupt, since a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment was concluded between the individual and the LLC, under which the individual paid a security deposit, which in essence is an advance payment, since the contract of sale was never concluded, and the preliminary contract contained a condition that the funds would be credited towards the cost of the apartment. The court noted that from the moment of official publication of the announcement of bankruptcy, the term for fulfillment of all obligations of the debtor is considered to have arrived, and creditors are obliged to declare their claims. The court also indicated that the advance payment is subject to return regardless of whose fault the obligation was not fulfilled. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances properly assessed the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties, and the cassation appeal does not contain convincing arguments for the cancellation of the appealed decisions.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/21/20 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Department of Communal Property for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the compensation of court costs, namely the court fee paid for filing a cassation appeal.
2. The court of cassation instance granted the application of the Department of Communal Property, guided by the fact that according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in case of cancellation of the decision by the court of cassation instance and adoption of a new decision, the court must make a new distribution of court costs. Since, as a result of the cassation review of the case, the claim of the Lviv City Public Organization “Studio of Active Leisure” was rejected, and the issue of compensation for the court fee paid by the Department for filing a cassation appeal was not resolved by the previous additional ruling, the court concluded that it was necessary to recover the corresponding amount of court fee from the “Studio of Active Leisure” in favor of the Department of Communal Property. The court took into account that the Department paid the court fee for filing a cassation appeal, and also additionally paid the amount of the court fee in fulfillment of the decision of the Supreme Court to leave the cassation appeal without movement.
3. The court ruled to grant the application of the Department of Communal Property and to recover from the Lviv City Public Organization “Studio of Active Leisure” in favor of the Department of Communal Property UAH 3,842 as reimbursement of the court fee.
Case No. 564/2932/24 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint against the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to issue a court order for the recovery of compensation for the provision of social services.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that a
The appellate court reasonably applied paragraph 4 of part one of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the ruling on leaving the appeal without motion within the time limit set by the court. The court noted that the ruling on extending the deadline for correcting deficiencies in the appeal was sent to the plaintiff at the address indicated by him, but was returned with a note about the absence of the addressee, and the applicant did not notify the court of the change of address. Taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the court emphasized that the parties should take measures to obtain information about the state of the court proceedings, and access to the court is not absolute and may be limited to comply with the rules of court procedure. The court also noted that the applicant had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the ruling of the appellate court in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 465/9254/13-ц dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement jointly and severally from the borrower and guarantors.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of JSC “Tascombank” for the joint and several recovery from PERSON_1, PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 of the debt under the loan agreement. The courts of previous instances established that PERSON_1 improperly fulfilled his obligations under the loan agreement, which led to the formation of debt. At the same time, the amount of debt had already been established by the decision of the Halych District Court of Lviv dated April 22, 2014. The courts also took into account the impossibility of accruing interest for the use of the loan after July 28, 2013. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they correctly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations, fully and comprehensively investigated the evidence in the case and gave them a proper assessment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову [ruling] of the appellate court.
Case No. 712/12726/19 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of wage arrears, average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal, recognition of the dismissal order as illegal, change of the date and wording of the reason for dismissal, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence and delay in issuing the work record book, as well as compensation for moral damage.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not appear on the day of dismissal to receive the work record book and settlement, did not make demands for the payment of due amounts, and the employer sent a notification about the need to receive the settlement and deposited the funds, which indicates readiness to pay them at the first request of the plaintiff. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was informed
formed about the dismissal long before applying to the court, which allowed her to contact the employer. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove that she had informed the employer of the bank account number for transferring payments. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the delay in payment was not the employer’s fault, and therefore there are no grounds for recovering the average salary for the period of delay in payment upon dismissal.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 344/17185/23 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “Ivano-Frankivskgaz” in favor of PERSON_1 of wage arrears and average earnings for the time of delay in payment upon dismissal.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the bonus, which the plaintiff asked to take into account when calculating severance pay and compensation for unused vacation, was one-time and not systematic, which was established on the basis of an analysis of the plaintiff’s contract and its appendices. The court noted that the terms of the contract clearly defined the amount of the salary, which already included material incentives, as well as the amount of the annual bonus, while the possibility of paying other bonuses (incentives) by the decision of the Supervisory Board of the company did not make such payments mandatory and systematic. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the refusal to satisfy the motion to appoint a judicial economic expertise, since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the impossibility of submitting the relevant evidence to the court of first instance.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 320/24020/23 dated 26/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff for a certain period.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that indexation of monetary allowance is a state guarantee of wages, mandatory for all employers, including military personnel. The court noted that the base month for calculating indexation is January 2008, when the salaries of military personnel were increased in accordance with Resolution No. 1294 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court of appeal supported this position, referring to the previous practice of the Supreme Court. The defendant, appealing the decision, argued about violations of procedural rights, in particular, non-receipt of a copy of the statement of claim and the ruling on the opening of proceedings, which deprived him of the opportunity to file a response. The Supreme Court found no grounds to overturn the decisions of previous instances, since the defendant had the opportunity to express his position in the appellate
and the violation of procedural rules did not lead to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 280/6894/24 dated June 26, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the military unit against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings regarding the decision of the court of first instance on the payment of additional remuneration to a serviceman.
2. The appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings because the military unit missed the deadline for appeal, and the reasons given for the omission were not considered valid. The court took into account that the first appeal was filed in violation of the requirements for the payment of court fees, and the re-submission occurred with a significant delay. The court critically assessed the military unit’s reference to the conduct of hostilities, as the evidence provided did not confirm the impact of these circumstances on the timeliness of the appeal. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that circumstances related to funding from the budget are not valid reasons for missing the deadline, and also that the defendant did not prove that it was the hostilities that prevented him from appealing the decision in a timely manner.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
**Case No. 320/35634/23 dated June 26, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to renew the term for filing a statement clarifying the claims and leaving this statement without consideration.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating that in accordance with the CAS of Ukraine, in particular paragraphs 7 and 12 of part one of Article 294, a ruling of the court of first instance refusing to renew the missed procedural deadline and leaving the application without consideration may be appealed separately from the court decision. The court also noted that previous decisions of the Supreme Court (resolutions of October 2, 2019, No. 808/6650/14, July 24, 2020, in case No. 2040/5300/18, August 14, 2020, in case No. 520/11672/19, dated June 30, 2022, in case No. 808/944/17) confirm the possibility of appealing rulings on leaving without consideration and returning the application for clarification of claims, referring to Article 47 of the CAS of Ukraine and part six of Article 7 of the CAS of Ukraine. Considering that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, which prevents further proceedings in the case, the Supreme Court sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part regarding the return of the appeal, and sent the case to the court of appeal for continued consideration.
Case №440/10611/21 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the demand of the Western Office of the State Audit Service to eliminate violations discovered during the audit of the financial and economic activities of the Poltava Regional State Administration.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, regarding the terms of the planned audit, as it did not take into account the periods when the audit was suspended, which are not included in the total term of its conduct; also, the appellate court went beyond the scope of the appeal, canceling the decision of the court of first instance in the part that was not appealed, and did not assess the arguments of the appeal and did not verify the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding each disputed point of the defendant’s demand. The court of cassation emphasized that the audit was conducted in compliance with the established deadlines, and the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the violation of the procedure are erroneous, since the appellate court mistakenly included May 24, 2021, in the audit period, although from May 24, 2021, to June 8, 2021, the audit was suspended, and June 21, 2021, which was a non-working day, but a day off. Considering that the appellate court did not review the decision of the court of first instance within the scope of the arguments and claims of the appeal, did not assess the circumstances of the case in conjunction with the norms of substantive law that are subject to application to the disputed legal relations, the cassation appeal is subject to partial satisfaction, and the appealed decision of the appellate court is subject to cancellation with the referral of the case for a new trial to the Second Administrative Court of Appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case №420/26712/24 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the refusal to conduct pension indexation using certain coefficients of increase in the average salary.
The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account that pension indexation in 2021-2024 should be carried out by increasing the indicator of the average salary, which was directly taken into account for calculating the pension, using the appropriate coefficients. The court emphasized that the Procedure for Recalculating Pensions, approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, should be applied only in the part that does not contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance”, namely Article 42. The court noted that the Pension Fund, having established monthly surcharges to the pension instead of applying the coefficients of increase to the average salary indicator, acted not in accordance with the requirements of current legislation. The court also referred to previous decisions of the Supremeof the Supreme Court, in which similar issues had already been considered, and supported the conclusions stated therein.
The court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision, satisfying the claims by recognizing the actions of the Pension Fund as illegal and obliging it to conduct pension indexation taking into account the relevant coefficients.
Case No. 732/706/24 dated June 26, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement concluded between the plaintiff’s grandmother and APC “Starosilskyi”, and the termination of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, since APC “Starosilskyi” was declared bankrupt, and liquidation proceedings were initiated, and according to the current legislation, all property disputes in which the debtor in the bankruptcy case is a party must be considered by the commercial court within the bankruptcy case. The court took into account the changes in the legislation, which expanded the lessee’s rights to dispose of the lease right, allowing it to be alienated without the consent of the owner, which makes the lease right an asset of the liquidation estate. The court also noted that the dispute over the termination of the lease agreement is a property dispute, as it affects the debtor’s liquidation estate, and therefore is subject to consideration by the commercial court. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, stating that the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the applicant referred to, relate to other factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming that the dispute is subject to consideration within the bankruptcy case in the commercial court.
Case No. 824/168/24 dated June 26, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) on the recovery from the company A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. in favor of LLC “Trading House “Novaahro” of debt, penalties, and 3% per annum.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the decision of the appellate court, based on the following: A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. in the past denied the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Region over the dispute, asserting the competence of the ICAC, and then changed its position, trying to challenge the ICAC decision, referring to the jurisdiction of the commercial court, which is bad faith behavior. The company did not provide the original additional agreement to the contract, which would confirm the change of jurisdiction. The ICAC duly notified A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. about the arbitration proceedings, but the company did not provide its explanations, voluntarily waiving this right. The court emphasized the limited powers of the national court when reviewing decisions of international commercial arbitration, which has no right to re-evaluate the decision on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the appeal of A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. and uphold the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
udu – without changes.
**Case No. 922/4460/21 dated June 25, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128440932](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128440932)
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of suspending appellate proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual due to the debtor’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and acquiring the status of a person missing under special circumstances.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to suspend the proceedings, as the debtor went missing while performing military duty, and at the time of the case consideration, there was no information about the termination of his service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court emphasized that, according to the procedural law, the status of a person missing under special circumstances and the fact of service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine are mandatory grounds for suspending proceedings, regardless of the existence of a motion from a party, especially considering the impossibility of its submission in this situation. The court also noted that unjustified suspension of proceedings may lead to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, but in this case, suspension is necessary to ensure the rights of the missing debtor. The court took into account that the provision of paragraph 3 of part one of Article 227 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine is imperative and imposes on the court the obligation to suspend proceedings in the case on this basis.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case remained unchanged.
**Case No. 675/1502/24 dated June 26, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128457460](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128457460)
The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s appeal against the first instance court’s verdict.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which refused to open appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s appeal against the district court’s verdict. The court of cassation, leaving the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the appellate court acted within its powers provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. During the cassation review, no significant violations of the criminal procedural law were identified that could lead to the cancellation of the appealed court decision. The court took into account that the appellate court, in refusing to open proceedings, properly justified its decision, referring to the relevant norms of procedural law. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
The court ruled: To leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 910/9104/24 dated June 17, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128440929](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128440929)
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of “Schwerin” LLC from the leased non-residential premises and the recognition of the invalidity of a unilateral transaction regarding the non-renewal of the lease agreement.
2. The court ca
The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for eviction and refused to satisfy the counterclaim, based on the fact that the lease agreement terminated due to the expiration of its term, and the property holder reasonably notified the need to use the premises for its own needs, which corresponds to its statutory activities, in particular, for expanding the scope of recreational services. The court noted that the notice of refusal to extend the agreement contained references to specific goals of using the leased object, which is consistent with the principles of good faith and reasonableness. The court also took into account the balance of interests of the parties, noting that the lessor has the right to refuse to extend the agreement, provided that the need for the premises for its own needs is properly justified, and the courts of previous instances found that such need was justified. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not see any signs of abuse of rights on the part of the lessor, since the reasons for the refusal make it possible to establish for which needs the property holder intends to use the premises, and the corresponding notice does not contain signs of obvious groundlessness.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Shverin LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 910/9134/24 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Shakhtoupravlinnia Donbas LLC against the former director to compel the transfer of documents and property of the company.
2. The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of Shakhtoupravlinnia Donbas LLC, supporting the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim. The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court reasonably took into account that the plaintiff requested to compel the defendant to provide management documents of the company without their specification, which makes the court decision unenforceable if the claim is satisfied. Also, the appellate court took into account that at the time of the defendant’s dismissal, the company was registered in the frontline zone, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence of taking actions to obtain documents from the company’s office. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove that after the defendant’s dismissal, the requested documents are with him, and did not provide evidence of the company’s organizational and administrative actions to record the state of affairs and the availability of documents. The court also noted that the plaintiff should have had a list of files for compiling an act of acceptance and transfer of documents, but did not provide relevant evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Shakhtoupravlinnia Donbas LLC without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 902/1106/24 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on the provision of financial guarantee services.
2. The court of cassation
instance, agreeing with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, noted that to recognize a contract as invalid on the basis of Article 230 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (misrepresentation), it is necessary to prove the intent in the defendant’s actions, the materiality of the circumstances regarding which the person was misled, the existence of the fact of deception itself, and the causal relationship between the misrepresentation and the conclusion of the transaction. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove that at the time of concluding the financial guarantee agreement, the defendant intentionally misled him regarding the value of the goods, since the dispute arose after the conclusion of the agreement, and the agreement itself does not contain conditions regarding the specific amount of financial guarantees. The court also indicated that the absence of the plaintiff’s violated right is an independent basis for dismissing the claim, regardless of other circumstances, and that the assessment of the financial guarantees themselves may be the subject of another dispute.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left their operative parts unchanged, i.e., the claim was dismissed.
**Case No. 380/845/21 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions by which LLC “Agro LV Limited” (later renamed LLC “Continental Farmers Lviv”) had the amount of budget VAT refund reduced, was denied budget refund, and the amount of the negative value of VAT was reduced.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of LLC “Continental Farmers Lviv”, based on the fact that the company provided sufficient primary documents confirming the reality of economic operations for the purchase of eggs and their export, and shortcomings in the execution of individual documents do not cast doubt on the reality of these operations. The court took into account that the company bought eggs not for its own consumption, but for resale and export to Saudi Arabia, which is confirmed by relevant customs declarations and bills of lading. The court also noted that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove the reality of these economic operations. It is important that the courts of previous instances investigated the circumstances of the economic operations in their entirety, taking into account the specifics of the purchased goods (eggs) and their quantity, as well as the physical, technical and technological capabilities of the plaintiff and its counterparties. The court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is beyond the scope of cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 280/6881/24 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration to a serviceman for participation in hostilities and the obligation to make
payment.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating that the appellate court did not properly assess all the arguments of the military unit regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal. In particular, the appellate court did not consider the arguments about problems with internet access and communication in the combat zone, as well as the direct participation of the military unit in battles, which complicated the timely fulfillment of procedural obligations. The court of cassation emphasized that circumstances related to funding from the state budget are not a valid reason for missing the deadline, but emphasized the need for a thorough verification of other arguments of the appellant. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court should have verified whether the provided evidence confirms the circumstances referred to by the appellant and expressed its opinion on the validity of these grounds if they are proven.
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. 623/4768/21 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to suspend the educator from work due to the lack of vaccination against COVID-19 and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The court of cassation, agreeing with the appellate court, noted that the suspension of the employee from work due to the lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was lawful, since the mandatory nature of vaccinations is provided for by the legislation on the protection of the population from infectious diseases. The court took into account that the work of an educator involves close contact with children and other employees, which increases the risk of spreading the infection. It was also taken into account that the employee retained their job during the suspension, and therefore, their right to work was not violated. The court emphasized that in this case, the protection of public health is a priority, and the temporary restriction of the rights of an unvaccinated employee is a proportionate measure. The court applied the standard of proof of “probability of evidence,” emphasizing the need to compare the evidence of both parties. The court of cassation referred to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 130/3548/21, emphasizing the legality of mandatory preventive vaccination against COVID-19 and the lawfulness of suspending unvaccinated employees.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decision was left unchanged.
Case No. 465/2084/22 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage and the recognition of the right of joint shared ownership of the apartment.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances indicating the existence of a stable relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased, inherent in spouses, in particular, did not investigate the evidence of joint
