**Case No. 822/1789/18 dated 06/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a natural person-entrepreneur against tax assessment notices regarding the determination of monetary obligation for real estate tax, other than land, concerning non-residential premises, which, according to the plaintiff, are industrial buildings and are not subject to taxation.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the issue of the functional purpose of the disputed real estate objects, namely, whether they were used for industrial production in the relevant periods. The Supreme Court emphasized that for the application of the real estate tax benefit provided for industrial buildings, it is necessary to establish not only the fact that the object belongs to the category of industrial buildings, but also the fact of its use for its functional purpose, i.e., for industrial production. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute and did not take into account the legal opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish the fact of the object’s use for its functional purpose for the application of the tax benefit. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not clarify all the circumstances of the case and did not assess the evidence in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 306/44/22 dated 06/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under a bank deposit agreement and penalties from the joint-stock company “Commercial Investment Bank”.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, based on the fact that a bank deposit agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the bank, confirmed by a receipt from the head of the bank branch for receiving funds, and the deficiencies in the execution of the agreement are the responsibility of the bank. The appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance, considering that the plaintiff did not prove the conclusion of the bank deposit agreement and the deposit of the money into his account with proper evidence, since the copy of the agreement provided by the plaintiff in form does not correspond to the templates of agreements established in the bank. The Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that the bank deposit agreement is real and is considered concluded from the moment the bank accepts the amount of money, and deficiencies in the execution of the agreement, in particular, the lack of registration in the bank’s system, cannot indicate non-compliance with the written form of the agreement, since this is the responsibility of the bank. The court also took into account that the existence of criminal proceedings regarding the bank employee who accepted the funds does not disprove the fact of the conclusion of the agreement and the bank’s obligation to return the deposit.
The Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of Articles 1058, 1059, 1064, 1065 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as stated in other resolutions.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s decision to grant the claim in part, regarding the recovery of the deposit amount and accrued interest.
Case No. 638/17112/21 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from illegal possession, cancellation of state registration, and restoration of state registration of ownership of immovable property.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the courts did not take into account the so-called “vindication immunity,” which protects a bona fide acquirer who acquired property forcibly sold in the course of enforcing a court decision. The court noted that in such a case, it does not matter whether the property left the owner’s possession with or without his will, since the transferor is not the owner, but the executor. The court also indicated that the request to cancel the state registration of ownership is not necessary for the effective protection of the right, since the decision to recover the property is the basis for entering the corresponding record in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court also emphasized that the courts must verify the bona fides of the acquirer of the property, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and assessing the burden placed on the acquirer by the interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claims.
Case No. 711/7308/21 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, cancellation of the protocol of their conduct, the act of realization of the subject of the mortgage, the certificate of acquisition of immovable property from public auctions, cancellation of registration of ownership, and application of restitution.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that at the time of the electronic auctions, the plaintiff and her minor daughter were not registered in the apartment, which excluded the obligation of the private enforcement officer to obtain permission from the guardianship authority to sell the property. The court also took into account that the plaintiff is a co-owner of other residential real estate, which excludes the application of the Law of Ukraine “On the moratorium on the recovery of property of citizens of Ukraine provided as security for loans in foreign currency.” The court noted that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding violations by the private enforcement officer had already been the subject of consideration in another case, where the court did not find any violations. The court of cassation emphasized that its competence is limited to verifying the correctness of the application of legal norms, and not to establishing facts, and that the courts of previous instances provided an exhaustive answer to all essential questions in the case. The court also took into account the practice of the ECHR regarding the need
of providing sufficient reasons in the decision, but not necessarily a detailed answer to every argument.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 753/6615/23 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation and refutation of inaccurate information disseminated in an article on the website “Censor.NET”.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the following arguments:
* The plaintiff filed a claim with the court exclusively against the author of the article, without involving the owner of the website “Censor.NET” on which the disputed article was posted, in the case.
* According to the established practice of the Supreme Court, in cases of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, both the author of the informational material and the owner of the website on which this information was disseminated are proper defendants.
* The plaintiff did not file a motion to replace the defendant or involve a co-defendant (the owner of the website), which is a necessary condition for considering the case on the merits.
* The previous instances did not take into account that in the event of the dissemination of information on the Internet, not only the author but also the owner of the resource who provided the technical possibility for the dissemination of information is liable.
* The absence of the website owner among the defendants is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
* The court of cassation emphasized that it is the plaintiff who determines the circle of defendants, but the court is obliged to verify the appropriateness of these defendants.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and amended the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim for protection of honor, dignity and business reputation.
Case No. 463/11252/19 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of a land easement to ensure passage and access to land plots owned by the plaintiff, through a plot owned by the condominium association.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the normal use of his property is impossible without establishing an easement on someone else’s land plot, and that the satisfaction of his needs cannot be achieved in another way. The court took into account that there is already an unhindered passage and access from a public street to the plaintiff’s residential building. Also, the court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the necessity of establishing an easement for carrying out repair work on the facade of the building or for other purposes related to the maintenance of the residential building. The court took into account the expert’s opinion, but emphasized that the technical possibility of establishing an easement is not a sufficient basis for satisfying the claim if the impossibility of other use of the property is not proven. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove that he cannot satisfy his needs in any way.
or in any other way except through the establishment of an easement.
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 990/92/25 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on renaming the settlement in which they reside.
2. The court of cassation refused to open proceedings, citing the fact that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) does not perform public-authority management functions in the law-making process, and the dispute concerns the inconsistency of the resolution with the Constitution of Ukraine and the violation of the procedure for its adoption, which is not a public-law dispute within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that only those acts of the VRU adopted in legal relations where the parliament exercises power (management) functions can be appealed in administrative proceedings. The constitutional process of organizing the territorial structure, in particular the renaming of settlements, is not the exercise of management functions of the VRU and does not fall under the control of administrative jurisdiction. Verification of such a resolution for compliance with the procedure for its adoption cannot be carried out in the order of administrative proceedings, and the issue of the constitutionality of an act of the VRU is decided by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
**Case No. 204/8858/23 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an “Infiniti” car from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for the recovery of property, since the electronic auctions in which the car was sold were not invalidated in court. The court noted that in order to recover property sold at auction, it is first necessary to invalidate these auctions. The court’s decision to recognize the notary’s writ of execution as unenforceable was made after the auction, therefore it does not affect their legality. The court also took into account that the appellate court properly examined all the circumstances of the case and gave them due consideration. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court, but amount to a reassessment of the evidence. The court also partially granted the defendant’s motion for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing their amount to UAH 5,000, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 910/22269/15 dated 07/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal to seize funds that are held by the Main
of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine should have returned to the debtor from the State Budget.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that although the state acts as a participant in civil relations on an equal footing with other subjects, and the Treasury authorities act on its behalf, there is a special procedure for returning funds from the State Budget. The court emphasized that the Main Directorate of the Treasury in this case acts as a manager of funds, not a debtor, and forced recovery of funds from it may lead to the impossibility of fulfilling its functions and imbalance of state power. The court also took into account that there are legally established procedures for returning court fees from the budget, which provide for the submission of relevant documents to the Treasury authorities. The court rejected the arguments of the appellant, noting that they amount to a free interpretation of court decisions, and emphasized that the courts are not obliged to provide a detailed answer to each argument of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 641/10389/20 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a transaction regarding the transfer of non-residential premises to the authorized capital of Art Capital Systems LLC, carried out by one of the spouses without the consent of the other.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that property acquired by the spouses during the marriage is their joint common property, unless otherwise established by agreement or law. For one of the spouses to conclude an agreement regarding the disposal of joint property, especially if it requires notarization, the consent of the other spouse is required. The presumption of the consent of one of the spouses to dispose of joint property is valid only in favor of a bona fide purchaser. In this case, the alienation of property took place without the notarized consent of the plaintiff, which is a violation of her rights as a co-owner. In addition, the court took into account that Art Capital Systems LLC did not exercise due diligence, as it could have learned about the lack of consent of the wife to transfer the property to the authorized capital. The arguments of the cassation appeals about the failure to involve the new owner of the disputed real estate – ASD GROUP LLC – in the case were rejected, since in this case the claims are only about recognizing the invalidity of the act of acceptance and transfer to the authorized capital of Art Capital Systems LLC of real estate dated July 22, 2020, which was signed between PERSON_2 and Art Capital Systems LLC.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged, confirming the invalidity of the transaction.
Case No. 567/794/22 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the land plot to the owner and the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on state
registration of the lease right to this plot.
2. The court dismissed the claim because it found that a land lease agreement had been concluded between the plaintiff and LLC “Zakhid Agro,” which was actually performed by the parties, namely: the plaintiff received rent from the defendant for a certain period, which indicates her expression of will to conclude and perform the lease agreement. The court took into account that, despite the expert’s conclusion that the signature on the lease agreement was not made by the plaintiff, she did not deny the fact of receiving rent and the actual existence of lease relations. The court noted that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating the evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. The court also considered the principle of good faith, noting that the plaintiff’s behavior, who received rent and did not express any claims regarding the use of the land, and then filed a lawsuit for the return of the plot, is unscrupulous. The court also referred to the fact that the agreement between the plaintiff and LLC “Zakhid Agro,” LLC “Western Agricultural Production Company” was registered in the State Register of Real Property Rights.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 490/10590/19 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of paternity, making changes to the birth certificate record, and recovery of alimony.
2. The court granted the claim, relying on the expert’s conclusion about the 99.99999% probability of the defendant’s paternity, as well as the fact that the defendant did not provide evidence that would refute this conclusion or indicate a violation of the procedure for conducting the examination. The court rejected the motion for a re-examination, as there were not enough grounds to doubt the correctness of the initial conclusion. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the DNA test is the most accurate method of establishing paternity, but reduced the amount of alimony, considering the defendant’s other children. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts, noting that they correctly assessed the evidence and did not violate the norms of procedural law, and also took into account the ECHR’s practice regarding the importance of DNA tests in paternity cases.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 756/2606/23 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the legality of applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a sentence below the lowest limit) to a person convicted of crimes in the field of drug trafficking and illegal possession of weapons.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that the appellate court, leaving
and the first instance court’s sentence is in force, did not take into account the severity of the committed crimes, in particular, a particularly serious crime related to drug trafficking in large quantities, as well as the person’s previous conviction for a similar crime. The court of cassation emphasized that the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is possible only if there are several circumstances that mitigate the punishment and significantly reduce the degree of severity of the crime, which was not established in this case. The court also noted that the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the exclusion of cannabis from the list of narcotic drugs is not a law on criminal liability and does not have retroactive effect. In addition, the court took into account that the appellate court did not provide proper justification for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is a violation of the requirements of Articles 370, 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case No. 302/681/22 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of ownership of a residential building, the cancellation of the entry of ownership in the State Register of Real Property Rights and the recognition of ownership of real property by inheritance.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, because the appellate court went beyond the scope of the claims, violating the principle of dispositivity, and did not investigate important circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the plaintiff accepted the inheritance after the death of her father in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR, and also did not establish the share of the inheritance to which she is entitled. The court also did not take into account that the disputed household could belong to a collective farm household, which affects the determination of the circle of heirs and their shares. For the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish who was a member of the collective farm household as of April 15, 1991, and what part of the property of the collective farm household was inherited after the death of the plaintiff’s father. Until the above issues are resolved, it is impossible to protect the plaintiff’s inheritance rights stated in the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court regarding the resolution of the claims for the cancellation of ownership of a residential building and outbuildings, the entry of ownership in the State Register of Real Property Rights, and transferred the case in this part for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 522/1514/21 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds on the basis of a corporate agreement between the participants and creditors of LLC.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, because it believes that the dispute arose in connection with the improper performance of the terms of the corporate agreement between the participants and creditors of LLC, and therefore should be considered by the commercial court.
jurisdiction. The court took into account that the corporate agreement regulates relations not only between the participants of the LLC but also contains provisions that provide creditors with certain rights similar to corporate ones. The court also noted that the existence of a ruling of the Commercial Court of the Odesa Region, which has entered into legal force, is not an obstacle to referring the case to the jurisdiction established by the cassation court. The court emphasized that the violation of the rules of jurisdiction of general courts is a mandatory ground for the cancellation of the decision, regardless of the arguments of the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiffs the right to apply to the Supreme Court with a request to refer the case to the court of commercial jurisdiction.
Case No. 922/2785/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract for the provision of services in the field of informatization and the recovery of the amount of prepayment due to the alleged failure of the defendant to fulfill its obligations.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the fact of the defendant’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the contract, in particular, did not provide convincing evidence that the defendant did not provide services for the implementation of the software package, as stipulated by the contract. The court took into account the evidence provided by the defendant, such as correspondence, video recordings of meetings, as well as a statement from a third party, which confirmed the performance of work. The court noted that the plaintiff did not substantiate in what specific way the courts violated the provisions of Article 77 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the law that was violated when the court obtained the evaluated evidence, and / or the confirmation of circumstances by other means of evidence, and not those that, according to the legislation, should confirm the actual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also indicated that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances. The court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to the conclusion of the Supreme Court in another case, as the legal relations in this case are not similar to those referred to by the appellant.
3. The court left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 761/18851/22 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of the defendant from the right to inherit by law after the death of her parents based on evading providing them with assistance in a helpless state.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the combination of circumstances necessary for removal from inheritance, namely: the helpless state of the testator, the need of the testator for assistance specifically from the defendant, and the defendant’s evasion of providing such assistance when she had the opportunity. The court took into account that the provided medical documents do not confirm the helpless state of the parents, as well as the fact that the defendant was registered and lived with her father.
live in the same apartment. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the testator had requested assistance from the defendant, which she evaded. The court of cassation also noted that the notice to the plaintiff’s representative regarding the date, time, and place of the hearing was proper notification to the party.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 990SСGС/10/25 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to hold a judge disciplinary responsible in the form of a motion for dismissal.
2. The HCJ agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber to hold the judge responsible for unilaterally hearing a criminal case involving her cohabitant, despite the existence of grounds for recusal, which resulted in an administrative penalty for a corruption offense. The judge appealed the HCJ’s decision, claiming improper notification of the meeting and a lack of reasoning in the HCJ’s decision. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSC) found that the judge had been duly notified of the HCJ meeting. The GCSC noted that the judge’s actions were qualified as violations of the rules regarding recusal/self-recusal, conduct discrediting the title of judge, and being found guilty of committing a corruption offense. The GCSC indicated that the judge’s actions, which were qualified as violations of the rules of self-recusal and unethical behavior, are fully covered by the elements of a corruption-related offense and do not require additional qualification. The GCSC also noted that the HCJ had not provided sufficient justification for the proportionality of the sanction imposed.
3. The decision of the High Council of Justice is overturned.
Case No. 918/932/24 dated 07/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court to close appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case but believes that the court decision violates their rights.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court had erroneously concluded that the ruling of the local commercial court approving the settlement agreement did not affect the rights, interests, and obligations of the appellant, who is a guarantor under a loan agreement secured by a mortgage, since the settlement agreement effectively decided the fate of the property that is the subject of the mortgage. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not take into account the previous court decision in case No. 569/22011/18, which had already established the circumstances of the violation of the appellant’s rights and interests in the disputed credit and mortgage legal relations, and also did not properly assess the appellant’s arguments that the transfer of property to Prod Meister LLC approved by the settlement agreement violates her rights as a guarantor. The court of cassation also emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the appellant’s legal status as a guarantor, who
according to the requirements of Article 554 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, is liable to the creditor to the same extent as the debtor. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular Articles 17, 75, 86, 236, 254 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which led to the issuance of an illegal ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the North-Western Commercial Court of Appeal and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 908/2153/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement and the return of the land plot, initiated by the Zaporizhzhia City Council due to improper performance by the lessees (Sole Proprietor Tsvielikh T.M. and Tsvielikh L.Ye.) of their obligations to pay rent.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, based on the following arguments: firstly, both defendants are registered as sole proprietors; secondly, according to the terms of the lease agreement, the land plot was transferred for commercial use (location of a cafe), which confirms the economic nature of the activity; thirdly, the defendants used this land plot for conducting business activities, which is consistent with the provisions of the Commercial Code of Ukraine on economic activities of business entities; fourthly, the very fact that the lease agreement was concluded with individuals does not exclude the commercial jurisdiction of the dispute if the activity is of a commercial nature; and fifthly, the courts took into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the jurisdiction of disputes related to the economic activity of sole proprietors.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of Sole Proprietor Tetiana Mykolaivna Tsvielikh and to leave the постанову (ruling) of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal of March 27, 2025, in case No. 908/2153/24 unchanged.
Case No. 916/1986/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of a public organization regarding the exclusion of the plaintiff from the members of this organization.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, agreeing with their conclusions that the decision to exclude the plaintiff from the members of the public organization violated the organization’s charter and the requirements of the law, in particular, there was no quorum at the meeting, the plaintiff was not properly notified of the meeting, and the reason for exclusion (non-payment of dues) was not true. The court of cassation emphasized that the recognition of the decision to exclude from the members of a public organization as invalid is not an interference in the internal activities of the organization, but is aimed at protecting the violated rights of the plaintiff. The court also noted that the consideration of the case in the procedure of commercial court proceedings is lawful, since the dispute concerns corporate rights, in particular, the right to participate in the management of a public organization.
The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the case is subject to consideration under civil procedure, since the dispute arose in connection with the internal activities of the public organization, citing the fact that in this case the violation of the plaintiff’s rights is being challenged, and not the internal procedures of the organization. The court also emphasized that the principle of self-government of a public organization is not absolute and allows interference in its activities in cases provided for by law to protect the rights of citizens.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 755/3248/24 dated 06/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the lawfulness of the decision to open enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous instance courts, which refused to satisfy the debtor’s complaint against the actions of the state executor. The court noted that the return of the writ of execution to the claimant without acceptance for execution on the grounds specified in Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” does not interrupt the term for presenting the writ of execution for execution. The court indicated that since the claimant missed the deadline for submitting the writ of execution for execution, and did not submit an application for renewal of the term, the decision to open enforcement proceedings is subject to cancellation. At the same time, the court of cassation agreed with the refusal of previous instance courts to oblige the state executor to return the writ of execution to the claimant, since this is a discretionary power of the state executor.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instance courts in the part of refusing to satisfy the complaint about recognizing as illegal and canceling the decision of the state executor to open enforcement proceedings, satisfied the complaint in this part, and changed the motivation part in the other part.
**Case No. 752/9009/19 dated 06/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the division of the joint property of the spouses, which includes apartments, parking spaces, land plots, cars and a share in the authorized capital of LLC.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which carried out a real division of property between the former spouses, allocating specific real estate objects to each in ownership, and not their ideal shares, since this was the most acceptable method of division, taking into account the composition and volume of property. The court noted that choosing a variant of property division different from the one proposed by the parties is not going beyond the limits of the claim, since the court resolves the dispute within the stated claim for property division. Also, the court of cassation agreed that the appellate court lawfully accepted evidence of the value of the property at the stage of appellate proceedings, since the court of first instance did not explain to the parties the consequences of failure to provide evidence to confirm the value.
