Case No. 826/3850/15 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal against the orders for the dismissal of PERSON_1 from the internal affairs bodies and the demands for reinstatement to the position.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the application of PERSON_1 for review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances in force. The court of cassation instance had already considered this case and found no grounds for overturning the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances. Review based on exceptional circumstances is possible only in cases clearly defined by procedural law, such as the establishment by a court verdict of the illegality of a court decision that is relevant to the case, or the discovery of significant circumstances that were not and could not have been known to the applicant at the time of the case consideration. Since the applicant did not provide sufficient grounds, stipulated by procedural law, for reviewing the case based on exceptional circumstances, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the previous court decisions. The judges of the Grand Chamber examined the case materials and the applicant’s arguments, but did not establish any circumstances that could indicate the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law by the courts of previous instances.
The court upheld the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court, the постанову [ruling/resolution] of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, and the rulings of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court.
Case No. 990/292/24 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Council of Justice. The court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, finding no grounds to overturn its decision. In substantiating the decision, the court proceeded from the analysis of the norms regulating the powers and procedure of the High Council of Justice. The court took into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the actions and decisions of the High Council of Justice, which were appealed by the plaintiff. The court also took into account the arguments of the parties presented during the trial and assessed them from the point of view of compliance with the law. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of violations on the part of the High Council of Justice, which would be the basis for satisfying the claim.
3. The court ruled to leave the appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance – without changes.
Case No. 175/3049/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement, initiated by the heir of the land owner due to systematic, in his opinion, non-payment.
rental payment in full and in connection with the introduction of martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, stating that for the termination of a land lease agreement due to systematic non-payment of rent, it is necessary to prove precisely full non-payment, and not partial underpayment. In the case of partial underpayment, the court must assess whether the violation was significant, and whether it deprived the lessor to a large extent of what he expected when concluding the agreement. The court also noted that the introduction of martial law in itself is not an unconditional basis for terminating the agreement, unless it is proven that it made it impossible to fulfill the obligations under the agreement. In addition, the court recognized as lawful the return of the motion for recusal of a judge due to the applicant’s use of offensive expressions, which is an abuse of procedural rights. The court of cassation also rejected the applicant’s reference to the failure of the previous courts to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstances in those cases and in the case under review are different.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 953/1356/23 dated 06/25/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of collaborationist activity, namely, for voluntarily holding a position in an illegal law enforcement agency in the temporarily occupied territory.
The court, leaving the verdict unchanged, noted that the person’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on a set of evidence, including witness testimonies, identification protocols, as well as documents confirming the fact that the convicted person worked in an illegal law enforcement agency. The court took into account the testimonies of witnesses who identified the convicted person as a person who worked in the “people’s militia” and carried out security, interrogations, as well as data from registration logs, time sheets, and other documents confirming his cooperation with the occupying authorities. The court also noted that the absence of requisites on some documents does not make them inadmissible evidence, since they contain important factual data. The court of appeal duly verified the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and found them unfounded, providing detailed reasons for the decision.
The court decided to leave the verdicts of the previous courts unchanged, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 404/7474/23 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for theft, committed repeatedly, by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, under martial law, and for misappropriation of an official document for mercenary pumotives.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the court decisions, as it found that the lower courts reasonably found the person guilty of committing the crimes imputed to him, having duly examined and assessed the evidence in their entirety. The court noted that the local court verified and refuted the defense’s arguments about the accused’s lack of awareness of the criminal intentions of another person, taking into account their joint actions, division of roles, and the circumstances of entering the victim’s home under the guise of social workers. The appellate court, in turn, thoroughly reviewed the arguments of the defense’s appeal and provided a comprehensive response to them, confirming the legality and validity of the first instance court’s verdict. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the accused’s admission of guilt in committing a criminal offense under the same factual circumstances as the theft indicates an ideal concurrence of crimes.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 592/7744/18 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. Unfortunately, this ruling does not provide any arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the decision was announced. Typically, when deciding on the transfer of a case from one court to another, the court takes into account circumstances such as ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the consideration of the case, the existence of circumstances that complicate the consideration of the case in the given court (e.g., a large number of defendants, the complexity of the case, the court’s workload), as well as the opinion of the participants in the proceedings. The decision to transfer a case is made in cases where there are reasonable doubts about the possibility of ensuring a fair and impartial consideration of the case in the current court, or when the consideration of the case in another court would contribute to a more effective and expeditious administration of justice. The full text of the ruling, which will be announced later, will provide information on the specific motives that guided the court in making its decision.
3. The Court ruled to dismiss the prosecutor’s motion to transfer the materials of the criminal proceedings from one court to another.
Case No. 953/1356/23 dated 25/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the judgments of the first and appellate instance courts regarding a person convicted of collaborative activity.
The operative part of the decision does not contain any arguments of the court. Therefore, it is impossible to provide information about the court’s arguments.
The Court ruled: the judgments of the first instance court and the appellate
to leave the decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel unsatisfied.
**Case No. 398/1113/24 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the securing of a claim by imposing an arrest on land plots within the framework of a case on the division of property of spouses.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, noting that the arrest can be imposed only on that part of the property to which the plaintiff claims within the framework of the claim for the division of property of spouses, and not on all the property. The court took into account that the plaintiff requested to recognize her ownership of only 1/2 part of each land plot, and therefore, the imposition of an arrest on the entire plot is unreasonable. The court also noted that the arrest of the disputed property does not stop the execution of a court decision on the recovery of debt from the defendant, but only makes it impossible to alienate the disputed property. The court emphasized that when resolving the issue of securing a claim, the court does not investigate the validity of the claim, but only determines whether potential difficulties may exist in the event of the execution of the decision. The court also took into account that “Financial Company “Dniprofinansgroup” LLC did not provide reasonable arguments and evidence that the claim is not aimed at protecting the rights of the plaintiff.
3. The court partially overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, allowing the imposition of an arrest only on 1/2 part of the disputed land plots to which the plaintiff claims.
**Case No. 335/5988/22 dated 06/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the qualification of the actions of PERSON_6 under articles related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, since the court of appeal did not properly verify the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, in particular regarding the presence of PERSON_6’s intent to sell narcotic drugs, taking into account the large sizes of the seized substances, the method of their packaging and other circumstances. The court noted that the court of appeal formally considered the appeal, did not analyze the evidence in the context of the prosecutor’s arguments, and did not state the reasons why it considered the arguments unfounded. The Supreme Court emphasized that the distinction between the crimes provided for in Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code occurs on the subjective side, namely the presence or absence of intent to sell, and the court of appeal should have carefully checked this aspect. Also, the court of appeal did not provide a proper assessment of the totality of the collected evidence, which the prosecution indicated in the appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 760/102**
78/24 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment for a person convicted of robbery committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, emphasizing that the punishment must be necessary and sufficient for the correction of the person and the prevention of new crimes, and must also correspond to the severity of the crime and the circumstances of its commission. The court noted that the court’s discretionary powers must be proportionate and justified, and the imposed punishment must be fair, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and information about the identity of the perpetrator. The court took into account the prior conviction of the convict, his lack of permanent employment, the presence of a minor child, which did not become a deterrent, as well as the fact that the admission of guilt was not an active assistance in solving the crime. The court agreed with the appellate court that there are no grounds for applying Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since there is no significant reduction in the degree of severity of the crime and it is impossible to correct the convict without actual imprisonment.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 147/642/21 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s judgment regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim, as well as the resolution of civil claims for compensation for moral and material damages.
2. The court of cassation overturned the judgment of the appellate court, citing the following main arguments:
* The appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the prosecutor and the victim regarding the unfounded application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation), in particular, it did not take into account the lack of compensation for moral damages to the victim, which indicates the negative post-criminal behavior of the convict.
* The court of appeal did not justify the refusal to impose an additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles, despite a gross violation of traffic rules, which led to serious consequences. The court did not motivate how the convict’s professional activity is related to the need to drive a vehicle.
* The court of cassation considers that the amount of compensation for moral damages to the victim determined by the courts of previous instances is insufficient and does not correspond to the depth of his mental suffering.
* The appellate court did not pay due attention to the issue of resolving the fate of the material evidence – the car, which was recognized as physically destroyed, without taking into account the need to transfer the remains of the vehicle to the person responsible for the damage.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case №196/1464/19 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land lease agreement concluded between PERSON_2 and FG “Gruzhynskasa” as invalid, and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights and encumbrances.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement between PERSON_2 and FG “Gruzhynskasa,” there was already a valid emphyteusis agreement for the same land plot between PERSON_3 (whose successor is PERSON_2) and PERSON_1, which was not terminated in the manner prescribed by law. The court noted that the conclusion of a lease agreement during the term of another emphyteusis agreement for the same object prevents the primary user from exercising their right of use. The court also took into account that the emphyteusis agreement was registered in the manner prescribed at that time, although it was not transferred to the State Register of Real Property Rights after 2013. The court indicated that FG “Gruzhynskasa,” as the lessee, should have verified the existence of valid lease agreements before concluding a new agreement. In addition, the court referred to the legal opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the right of the primary lessee to protect their right if, at the time of the court decision, they have a valid lease right and can register it.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №487/2802/22 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for disseminating information about the location of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, stating that the notification from the military commandant of the defense of Mykolaiv was received by the investigator in the manner prescribed by law, as the investigator acted within their powers, and the commandant provided a response specifically regarding the date and place requested by the investigator, referring to the normative acts that define the commandant’s powers. The court also noted that the fact of copying information and its dissemination through reposting does not disprove the fact of disseminating information about the location of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the defense’s arguments regarding the impossibility of referring to the expert’s opinion as evidence of guilt, since the expert’s opinion is not a source of evidence in criminal proceedings regarding crimes; however, it indicated that this does not affect the validity of the judgment, as the court can independently assess the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the courts took into account the mitigating circumstances.
punishments, and imposed the punishment necessary for the convicted person’s correction.
3. The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the lower courts, excluding the reference to the expert’s opinion as evidence of guilt, but otherwise left the verdict unchanged.
**Case No. 814/545/17 dated 06/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices by which Olviya LLC was assessed land tax and land lease payments.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which granted the claim of Olviya LLC, based on the fact that the Ochakiv City Council terminated the plaintiff’s right to use a land plot of 11.1975 hectares back in 2011, and the tax authority did not take this fact into account when calculating tax liabilities. The courts found that Olviya LLC rightfully paid taxes only for the plot it used under a valid lease agreement. The arguments of the tax authority regarding the underestimation of the amount of land tax and lease payments were rejected, as they were based on an incorrect calculation of the area of the land plot for which the enterprise must pay taxes. The court of cassation noted that the tax authority was actually asking to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond its powers.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
**Case No. 754/9546/15-ц dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a non-residential premises lease agreement and the recovery of rent arrears.
2. The court dismissed the bank’s claim, as a forensic handwriting examination established that the lease agreement was not signed by the defendant, but by another person, which indicates that the agreement was not concluded, since there was no expression of will by the defendant to conclude it. The court noted that sufficient and reliable samples of the defendant’s signature for various years were provided for the examination, and the bank’s references to violations of the Instruction on Conducting Examinations are unfounded. The court also rejected the bank’s motion for a re-examination, as no convincing evidence was provided that would cast doubt on the validity of the initial expert opinion. The court emphasized that the expert’s opinion does not have pre-established force and is evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, but in this case, it is key to establishing the fact of the agreement’s conclusion. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that, in the event of denial of the fact of the agreement’s conclusion, such fact may be refuted during the resolution of a dispute on the protection of a right that the party considers violated.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal.
