[Case №620/15733/24 dated 07/03/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128611252)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of the monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal erroneously determined the number of claims in the case, which led to an incorrect calculation of the amount of court fee required for filing an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the claim to declare unlawful the inaction of the subject of power is one non-property claim, if other claims are derivative from it. In this case, the claim to oblige to accrue and pay indexation in a certain order is derivative from the main claim to appeal the inaction regarding the accrual of indexation. The court of appeal should have taken into account that the claim to declare unlawful an act, action or inaction of a subject of power as a prerequisite for the application of other means of protecting the violated right is one claim. Since the court of appeal came to an erroneous conclusion about the existence of grounds for returning the appeal, the Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appeal.
[Case №520/18494/23 dated 07/03/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128611261)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the untimely settlement upon the plaintiff’s dismissal from military service and the obligation to pay the average monetary allowance for the time of delay.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the military unit missed the one-year deadline for appellate appeal established by the CAS of Ukraine. The court noted that although in general the subject of power loses the right to appeal after the expiration of one year, there is an exception if it was not notified of the consideration of the case or was not involved in it, and the court made a decision on its rights and/or obligations. In this case, the military unit was notified of the opening of proceedings in the case, having received the relevant court order, which excludes the possibility of renewing the missed deadline. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the circumstances established by the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
[Case №932/10417/23 dated 07/03/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128640947)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision on administrative penalty for violation of traffic rules, recorded in the semi-automatic fixation mode.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal on…
regarding the opening of appellate proceedings, since the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide valid reasons for its reinstatement. The court noted that appealing a ruling on the return of the initial appeal is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for filing a repeated appeal, as the right to cassation appeal did not restrict the right to appeal to the court after the return of the previous one. The court emphasized that adhering to appeal deadlines is important for ensuring the principle of legal certainty. The court indicated that reinstating the deadline is not an obligation of the court but is subject to its assessment. The court also noted that the imperative provisions of the CAS (Code of Administrative Justice) obligate the court to refuse to open appellate proceedings if a motion to reinstate the deadline has not been filed or the stated grounds are deemed invalid.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 303/3150/22 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of a local government body’s decision to transfer ownership of a land plot to the defendant, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot, and the elimination of obstacles to the use of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the village council’s decision to transfer the land plot to the defendant was illegal, as it violated the rights of the plaintiffs as owners of adjacent buildings and land users. The court took into account that in previous court decisions that had entered into legal force, the fact of violation of the plaintiffs’ rights due to the increase in the area of the defendant’s land plot at the expense of their land had already been established. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide evidence that would refute these circumstances established by previous court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force do not require proof in another case involving the same parties. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, as the circumstances of those cases were different.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 360/15/25 dated 07/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is challenging the order to remove a serviceman from provision and inaction regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, returned the statement of claim, considering that the plaintiff had missed the one-month deadline for appealing the order to remove him from provision, since he learned about it as early as September 3, 2024, and only applied to the court on December 26, 2024, and that the demand for payment of additiThe argument that the additional remuneration is derivative of the claim to cancel the order. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, stating that the court’s decision in another case had already established that the claim for additional remuneration does not depend on the legality of the order to remove from support, and therefore, the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the norms of procedural law regarding the statute of limitations for appealing to the court. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of courts adhering to the principle of res judicata, that is, taking into account the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into force. The court of cassation also emphasized that the courts should first resolve the issue of whether there are grounds for refusing to open proceedings in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of returning the claims regarding non-payment of additional remuneration and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration, and in the part of challenging the order, left the decision unchanged.
Case No. 505/3188/18 dated 04/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the employee’s dismissal as illegal and their reinstatement.
2. The court of cassation considered the issue of whether the employer must inform the employee about all vacancies up to the day of dismissal, and whether the average wage for the period of forced absence was correctly calculated. The court noted that the employer is obliged to offer the employee all available vacancies throughout the entire period from the moment of warning about dismissal until the termination of the employment contract. Since the defendant offered lists of vacancies only as of the month of warning, although shortly before the dismissal they had other positions that they could offer, they did not fulfill the requirements of the law. The court also indicated that the appellate court did not clarify the reasons for the discrepancies in the certificates of the plaintiff’s average daily wage and did not justify the choice of one of them.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, leaving unchanged the decision to recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstatement, and compensation for moral damages, but overturned the decision regarding the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, sending the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 360/152/24 dated 07/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of military units regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman without taking into account the legally established amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claims for recalculation of monetary allowance for the period from May 20, 2023 to November 18, 2023. The court noted that Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 481 came into force on May 20, 2023, which established that the amounts of official
Salaries and payments for military ranks are calculated based on a fixed amount of UAH 1,762, and not based on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons. The court emphasized that the military unit acted in accordance with the normative legal act in force at that time, and therefore its actions cannot be considered unlawful. The court also indicated that challenging a normative legal act should occur in separate proceedings, and not in an individual dispute regarding the lawfulness of the actions of a public authority.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 180/1057/23 dated 07/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of unjustifiably retained property in the form of unpaid rent for the use of a land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of commercial procedure, since it arose in connection with the defendant’s economic activity, namely the use of the land plot for commercial activity, despite the fact that the defendant is an individual. The court took into account that the defendant is registered as a private entrepreneur, and the land plot was used for servicing the bus station building, which is confirmed by the lease agreement and other documents. The court also noted that the resolution of the issue of jurisdiction of the dispute depends on whether the individual acts as a party in the relevant legal relations as a business entity, and on the definition of these legal relations as economic. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the fact of registration as a private entrepreneur does not indicate the use of property in economic activity, since the case materials confirm such use.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/16916/23 dated 07/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely non-residential buildings, which, according to the plaintiff, are illegally held by the defendant.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances granted the claim, relying on the established fact that the property was disposed of from the plaintiff’s possession against his will, which was established by previous court decisions. However, the Supreme Court indicated that in order to correctly resolve the dispute, it is necessary to establish whether the defendant was a bona fide purchaser of the property, whether he knew or could have known about the circumstances indicating the illegality of the alienation of the property by previous owners. The court emphasized that the courts should have investigated the circumstances of the transfer of ownership to the defendant, in particular, whether the acquisition of the property was paid or free of charge, and also take into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the need to assess the bona fides of the conduct.
of the registered owner of the real estate. Since these circumstances were not established, the Supreme Court considers that the courts of previous instances did not consider the dispute on the merits in the part of the claim for recovery of property.
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 to clarify the circumstances of the respondent’s good faith acquisition of the property.
Case No. 480/1045/23 dated 07/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the border detachment regarding the accrual and payment to a serviceman of additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 70,000 for the period from September 1 to December 31, 2022, provided for by Resolution No. 168 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing to incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case and incorrect application of substantive law. The court noted that the courts did not investigate what tasks the plaintiff performed and where in the disputed period, and did not properly assess the reports that could confirm his participation in hostilities or ensuring national security measures. The court emphasized that confirmation of the direct participation of servicemen in hostilities may be based on a set of information, and not only on a set of certain documents. Also, the court reminded that the burden of proving the legality of its inaction rests on the defendant, that is, on the border detachment. The court pointed out the need to check whether there are legislative norms that provide for the payment, and whether the person meets the conditions for receiving such payments.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 607/4188/21 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar, cancellation of the state registration of ownership and cancellation of the entry in the State Register of Real Property Rights regarding the attic of an apartment building, which the plaintiff considers to be the joint property of the co-owners of the building.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, since the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protection, namely, the requirements to cancel the decisions of the state registrar and records of state registration of ownership will not lead to the restoration of violated rights, since the ownership of the disputed property has already been registered to other persons. The court noted that the proper method of protection in this case is a claim for recovery of property to the last acquirer of the property, but the courts did not fully take into account the peculiarities of the disputed legal relations under the claim of a co-owner regarding the protection of the rights of joint ownership of the common property of an apartment building (common areas), confirmation
the ownership of which by the owners (co-owners) of apartments in this building does not require additional actions, therefore, they mistakenly referred to the fact that OSOBA_1 at the time of filing the claim did not recognize and register the ownership of the relevant property. Also, the court of cassation indicated an error of the courts of previous instances regarding the filing of a claim against improper defendants, since the claims for cancellation of the decisions of the state registrar were addressed only to the original acquirer of the property, and not to the current owners.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left them in force in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims.
Case No. 205/7725/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused by the death of a child as a result of improper performance by doctors of their professional duties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damage, since a causal relationship between the actions of doctors and the death of the child was established, and the depth of the mother’s moral suffering was also taken into account. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the absence of guilt, since the illegality of the doctors’ actions is confirmed by the materials of the criminal proceedings. The amount of compensation for moral damage in the amount of UAH 3,000,000.00 was recognized as justified, taking into account the severity of the loss and the mental suffering of the plaintiff. At the same time, the court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, since the issue of reimbursement of such expenses must be resolved within the framework of criminal proceedings, and not civil proceedings. In this regard, the proceedings in the case in this part were closed, and the issue of reversal of execution of the court decision in the canceled part was also resolved.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance and closing the proceedings in this part of the case, and leaving the decisions unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 534/660/22 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is recognition of the employee’s dismissal as illegal and reinstatement to work.
2. The court of cassation established that the employer violated the requirements of labor legislation when dismissing the plaintiff, since he did not provide a list of vacancies as of the date of dismissal and refused to accept him as an occupational safety engineer after the plaintiff agreed to it. The court noted that the employer is obliged to offer the employee all positions that correspond to his education, qualifications and experience, and cannot refuse to accept the position due to insufficient professional knowledge after consent
and the employee. Also, to calculate the average earnings for the period of forced absence, it is necessary to take into account the number of worked days in the last two months before dismissal, which was not done by the court of first instance. Considering these violations, the court of cassation partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s decision, upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding reinstatement, but sent the issue of recovering average earnings for the period of forced absence back to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 380/13292/24 dated 03/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the SSU Office regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff without taking into account the amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law as of January 1 of the corresponding calendar year.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, since the plaintiff appealed against the actions of the SSU Office, and not the regulatory legal act (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 481) on the basis of which these actions were committed; the court noted that state authorities must act in accordance with current legislation, and in case of disagreement with the regulatory legal act, the proper way to protect is to appeal against this act; the court emphasized that it cannot assume the law-making functions of the legislative and executive branches, ignore the principle of legality, and violate the system of checks and balances; the court also took into account that at the time of the case, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 481 was valid and had not been declared invalid in the established procedure; the court noted that the amendments introduced by Resolution No. 481 to paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704 do not allow the application of the previous version of paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704, as insisted by the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 127/38592/24 dated 03/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the court’s refusal to satisfy the private notary’s application for recovery from the plaintiff of expenses for professional legal assistance due to the fact that the plaintiff left the claim without consideration.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the plaintiff’s filing of an application to leave the claim without consideration does not in itself indicate abuse of procedural rights or unreasonable actions, since this is the plaintiff’s dispositive right. The court emphasized that in order to recover legal aid expenses from the plaintiff, it is necessary to prove that the plaintiff’s actions were dishonest, intentional and aimed at infringing the rights of the defendant, which was not established in this case. The court also indicated that applying to the court for protection of one’s rights cannot be considered an abuse of procedural rights, and the defendant did not prove which actions of the plaintiff were unreasonable.
The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances acted in accordance with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of procedural law in similar legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №553/2887/22 dated 25/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of a person from a residential premises, which, according to the plaintiff, was occupied illegally, and a counterclaim for recognition of the right to use this residential premises.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the initial claim for eviction and dismissed the counterclaim, since the defendant was not registered in the disputed apartment, did not prove the fact of acquiring the right to use it, in particular, did not provide evidence of entry into the apartment in the established procedure with the written consent of all family members of the tenant, permanent residence with the tenant, and keeping a joint household with him. In addition, the court took into account that the defendant is registered at another address and owns a residential building. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about the emergency condition of his house, noting that the burden of maintaining the property lies with the owner. The court emphasized that, according to the charter of the municipal enterprise, it has the right to apply to the court with claims for eviction from illegally occupied apartments, and the absence of state registration of ownership does not indicate the absence of such right in the territorial community.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, resuming the enforcement of the eviction decision.
**Case №202/3809/22 dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for compensation for destroyed housing as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation in the amount determined on the basis of indicators of the indirect cost of housing construction, and not in the limited amount established by government regulations.
2. The court dismissed the claim, based on the fact that the state fulfilled its obligations by paying the plaintiff compensation for destroyed housing in the maximum amount provided for by Procedure No. 947, which is a special regulatory legal act governing these issues. The court noted that the plaintiff did not challenge either the decision of the commission on the payment of compensation or the procedure itself, and therefore there are no grounds for satisfying her claims for additional compensation. Also, the court indicated that receiving compensation in a fixed amount is not discrimination, since the state has the right to establish different compensation mechanisms for different periods of destruction, and the development of new compensation mechanisms after February 24, 2022, does not indicate discrimination. The court referred to the fact that compensation for damage caused as a result of armed aggression shouldto be imposed on the Russian Federation.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 208/42/23 dated 06/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendants in favor of the bank of the debt, which consists of the inflationary increase of the debt and 3% per annum, accrued on the amount of debt that arose on the basis of an unexecuted court decision on the recovery of credit debt.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly refused to satisfy the bank’s claims for the recovery of 3% per annum on the basis of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since they did not take into account that the existence of a court decision on the recovery of debt under the loan agreement from the defendants, which was not executed, does not terminate the legal relations of the parties and does not deprive the creditor of the right to receive the amounts provided for in Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, for the entire period of delay. The court also noted that the courts did not take into account the legal conclusions set out in the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the consequences of delaying the fulfillment of a monetary obligation, and also did not properly assess the motion to apply the statute of limitations. The court also referred to the fact that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion regarding the termination of the guarantee with the adoption of a court decision on the recovery of debt.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
**Case No. 600/7642/23-a dated 07/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay to the serviceman additional remuneration for participation in hostilities in the amount of up to UAH 100,000 in proportion to the time of participation.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not investigate the legal grounds for issuing a certificate of the plaintiff’s participation in hostilities and did not check whether this participation is confirmed in conjunction with other evidence. The court also noted that the violation of the procedure for the transfer of documents between military units cannot be the basis for refusing to pay remuneration if actual participation in hostilities is confirmed by other evidence. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the information contained in the combat log and did not request additional information to clarify the circumstances of the plaintiff’s participation in hostilities. As a result, the court concluded that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of the plaintiff’s right to payment of increased remuneration are premature due to incomplete establishment of the actual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 128626998**
**Case No. 757/30813/20-ц dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the recognition of a certificate for a trademark for goods and services as invalid, the obligation to perform actions, and the recognition of intellectual property rights.
2. The court, in satisfying the claims, proceeded from the fact that the registration of the trademark for goods and services by the defendant was carried out in violation of the plaintiff’s rights, since the designation used by the defendant is similar to the point of confusion with the plaintiff’s registered trademark for goods and services, which could mislead the consumer. The court took into account the expert opinion, which confirmed the similarity of the marks and the possibility of misleading consumers, as well as the fact that the defendants did not provide another expert opinion or a motion for the court to appoint an expert examination. The court also noted that the UKRPATENT’s conclusion on the compliance of the designation with the conditions for granting legal protection is not decisive, since its consequences are being challenged in this case, and the possibility of invalidating the certificate does not depend on compliance with the procedures during the registration of the mark. At the same time, the court of cassation did not agree with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances that there were grounds for satisfying the claim for recognition of the intellectual property right to the commercial (trade) name for “TOPKARGO” LLC, since there are no grounds for additional recognition of the intellectual property right to the commercial (trade) name for “TOPKARGO” LLC.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part regarding the recognition of the plaintiff’s intellectual property right to the commercial name and in the part regarding the distribution of court costs, and left the decisions unchanged in the rest.
**Case No. 280/6870/24 dated 03/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration to the serviceman for participation in combat operations.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court took a formal approach to the issue of restoring the term for appeal, without properly assessing the military unit’s arguments about objective obstacles to the timely filing of the complaint, related to participation in combat operations and problems with access to communications and the Internet. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not verify the evidence provided by the military unit, which confirms these circumstances, and did not express its opinion on the validity of these grounds if they were proven. The Supreme Court emphasized that the restoration of the term for appeal is possible in the presence of circumstances of an objective and insurmountable nature, which significantly complicated or made it impossible to exercise the right to appeal in a timely manner, and these circumstances must be carefully verified by the court. The court also took into account the previous position of the Supreme Court regarding the conditions for restoring the term in the event of a repeated filing of an appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court andreferred the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 400/10202/24 dated 03/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCC) regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, in cases related to non-compliance with labor laws, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU), which defines the terms for applying to the court, should be applied; secondly, if the legal relations arose before July 19, 2022 (the date of entry into force of amendments to Article 233 of the LCU), then the version of the article that did not limit the term for applying to the court applies, and for legal relations that arose after this date, a three-month term applies; thirdly, the term for applying to the court in this case should be calculated from the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount and nature of the sums paid to him upon dismissal; fourthly, quarantine restrictions that were in effect until June 30, 2023, extended the terms for applying to the court established by Article 233 of the LCU, and the countdown of the three-month term began on July 1, 2023. Given that the plaintiff applied to the court on October 29, 2024, he did not miss the deadline for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and referred the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 903/521/24 dated 17/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court to close the proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which closed the proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual, since the debtor did not provide complete and reliable information about her property status and income, as well as about the property status and income of her family members, which indicates her bad faith behavior. In addition, the debt restructuring plan proposed by the debtor provided for a full write-off of the debt, which contradicts the purpose of the restructuring procedure, which implies partial or full satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court also took into account that within three months from the date of opening proceedings in the case, no agreed debt restructuring plan was submitted. The court emphasized that only bona fide debtors who conscientiously fulfill their obligations and do not conceal important information have the right to be released from debts.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/13153/23 dated 17/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of invalidity of void transactions, recognition of the right of the creditor, mortgagee and foreclosure on the subject of mortgage.
2. The cassation court reversed the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The cassation court emphasized that the assignment of claim agreements were void under the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” because payment for them was not properly made through the bank’s correspondent account, indicating a gratuitous transaction. The court also noted that the nullity of the assignment agreement precludes the legality of the acquisition of claims by the new creditor, and therefore, further disposal of these rights. In addition, the cassation court pointed out the appellate court’s erroneous application of the provisions on the prejudicial nature of court decisions and emphasized that the legal assessment of facts provided by the court in another case is not binding on the commercial court. The cassation court also noted that the mortgage remains valid regardless of the change of ownership of the property, unless there are grounds for its termination established by law.
3. The cassation court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 320/28535/23 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to dismiss a civil servant for violating the Oath.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim because the defendant failed to prove what specific misconduct was committed by the plaintiff that undermined confidence in the state body, and did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s improper performance of duties that led to the violation of the Oath. The courts also found that the dismissal order was issued while the plaintiff was on vacation, which is a violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service.” The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that dismissal for violation of the Oath should be applied for specific serious misconduct, and the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff’s actions undermined confidence in the state body. Although the courts of previous instances mistakenly stated that the order was issued during the plaintiff’s vacation, this did not affect the essence of the decision, since the main motive was the failure to prove the violation of the Oath.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 380/10157/24 dated 04/07/2025
The subject of the dispute was the obligation of the military unit to calculate and pay PERSON_1 average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.
The cassation court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings due to the expiration of the deadline for appealing, recognizing the reasons for missing the deadline provided by the military unit as disrespectful, namely the lack of budget financing. The court noted that the renewal of the term is not the duty of the court, but is a pre-
that the participants in the case must exercise their procedural rights in good faith and fulfill their duties. The court also emphasized that references to inadequate funding of a state institution are insufficient to confirm valid reasons for missing the deadline, and that the defendant should have taken all possible steps to exercise the right to appeal. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the principle of “good governance” and emphasized the equality of all participants in the trial before the law and the court. The court also noted that the lack of funds to pay court fees cannot be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline for appeal.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 601/1804/22 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of a residential building and outbuildings in common partial ownership.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, agreeing with their conclusion that the division of the house should be carried out according to the option proposed by the expert, which is the most appropriate and close to the ideal ownership shares, although it requires certain construction works. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the assessment of evidence provided by the courts of first and appellate instances, and cannot be re-evaluated by the cassation court. The court also rejected arguments about the unfairness of the division, as they do not refute the circumstances of the case established by the courts. The court took into account the expert’s opinion on the technical condition of the house, but noted that the expert proposed several technically feasible options for the division, of which the court chose the most optimal one.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 160/4355/24 dated 03/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated procedural rules by returning the appeal of the military unit. In particular, the appellate court did not resolve the issue of returning the complaint within five days after the expiration of the deadline for remedying the deficiencies, as provided for by the CAS of Ukraine, and also did not verify the fact of crediting the court fee to the budget. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court acted formally, without taking into account that at the time of the decision to return the complaint, the deficiencies could have already been remedied. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court had to check the information on payment of the court fee, in particular, through the State Treasury Service of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new
ial review to the appellate instance.
[**Case No. 260/1053/19 dated 07/01/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128641088)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions by which TPC LLC had the negative value of the object of income tax taxation reduced, the obligation to pay income tax and value added tax increased, and penalties applied.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence. The courts of previous instances did not take into account the existence of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff’s counterparties, did not investigate the reality of economic transactions with each counterparty separately, limiting themselves only to the list of documents provided by the plaintiff. Also, the courts did not establish the circumstances of recognition and accounting of the debt of STOV “Agro-Luchky”, as well as the taking (intention to take) actions to recover it. The court of first instance applied irrelevant practice of the Supreme Court as the only criterion for evaluating evidence and information obtained during the criminal proceedings in the context of resolving a tax dispute. The court of appeal did not refute most of the statements and facts presented by the tax authority and confirmed by the court of first instance, namely: the presence on the primary documents of signatures of persons who deny their involvement in the activities of such companies; discrepancy of information regarding officials indicated as directors in the primary documents and in the USREOU as of the time of signing such documents; lack of individual primary accounting documents (expense invoices and quality certificates), the obligation of which is determined by the terms of contracts between the plaintiff and PE “PEREVAL”; discrepancy with the chronological sequence of transportation and release of goods purchased by the plaintiff from ATENAS LLC on the basis of contract No. 5 dated 06/01/2016; lack of a legal source of origin of inventory items from the plaintiff’s counterparties.
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. 200/20392/16-ц dated 07/04/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626956)
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of the land plot by demolishing the illegally installed fence.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, obliging the defendant to dismantle the fence, since it was installed in violation of building and fire safety regulations, and also limited the plaintiff in the use of the common land plot, narrowing the passage to her part of the house. The courts took into account the conclusions of the examinations, which confirmed violations of safety standards and changes in the order of use of the plot, as well as the testimony of witnesses, who confirmed the fact of the installation of the fence and the restriction of passage. The court of cassation also
of Appeal.
the court of cassation noted that the defendant had not provided evidence to refute these circumstances, and had not proposed alternative solutions to the dispute that would take into account the interests of both co-owners. Also, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal regarding the recovery of legal aid expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the criteria of reasonableness and fairness.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 953/4438/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a mortgage agreement concluded by the plaintiff’s representative on the basis of a power of attorney as invalid.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the representative acted against his interests or in collusion with the other party, and also did not prove the bad faith of the representative’s actions when concluding the mortgage agreement. The court noted that the power of attorney was issued voluntarily, was not canceled or declared invalid at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, and contained the authority to conclude mortgage agreements. The court also took into account that the fact of issuing a power of attorney to the representative by the other party (mortgagee) does not in itself indicate his bad faith. In addition, the courts noted that the plaintiff did not prove the absence of a real intention of the parties to conclude and execute the disputed transaction. The Supreme Court changed the reasoning part of the decision regarding the dismissal of the claim against the representative, indicating that the proper defendant is the other party to the contract, not the representative.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, partially changing the reasoning part of the decision regarding the dismissal of the claim against the representative.
Case No. 759/16389/19 dated 25/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a building by acquisitive prescription.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal prematurely closed the appeal proceedings on the complaint of PE “Firm “Akademprombud”, which was not involved in the case, but believed that the decision of the court of first instance violated its rights and interests. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal should have carefully checked whether the decision of the court of first instance actually concerns the rights and interests of the appellant, given that PE “Firm “Akademprombud” provided evidence to support its claims. In particular, the court of appeal did not take into account previous court decisions in disputes between the same parties, where circumstances regarding the right to use the land plot and property rights of PE “Firm “Akademprombud” had already been established. Improper assessment of the appellant’s arguments and case materials led to a violation of the rules of procedural law, which requires the annulment of the decision of the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
і.
**Case No. 607/14649/24 dated 06/25/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626825](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626825)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery from the State Enterprise in favor of the plaintiff of wage arrears in the form of unpaid bonuses based on the results of work for 2021 and 2023.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal that there is an improper composition of defendants in this case, since the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine should be involved in the case as a co-defendant, and not as a third party, because the accrual and payment of bonuses to the plaintiff is a joint obligation of both the State Enterprise and the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. The court noted that the payment of the annual bonus to the general director is carried out by the state enterprise on the basis of the regulatory documents of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, but at the expense of the state enterprise’s own funds. Also, the court indicated that it is impossible to resolve the issue of the defendant’s obligations to pay the bonus without simultaneously resolving the issue of the third party’s (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine) obligations to verify the fulfillment of the conditions and differentiated indicators established by the annex to the contract, and issuing regulatory documents on agreeing to the accrual of such a bonus, without being involved in the case as a co-defendant. The court also emphasized that it cannot take over the function of appointing and accruing the bonus instead of the body entrusted with such powers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 344/9012/22 dated 07/02/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626743](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626743)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the division of jointly acquired property of the spouses, namely the recognition of the plaintiff’s right of ownership to a 1/2 share of apartments and non-residential premises acquired during the marriage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the property was acquired during the marriage, which gives rise to the presumption of joint common property of the spouses, which the defendant did not refute. The courts took into account that the consent to the conclusion of contracts regarding valuable property was not provided in writing, as provided for by the Family Code of Ukraine. Also, the defendant did not provide evidence of the market value of the disputed property at the time of the consideration of the case, which makes it impossible to actually divide the property without violating the principle of equality of shares. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding improper notification of court hearings, as the case file confirms his participation in the proceedings. Regarding court costs, the court recognized them as reasonable, taking into account the complexity of the case and the amount of legal assistance provided.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal.
**Case No. 2608/6303/12 dated 07/02/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626857](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128626857)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the right of ownership to
non-residential building and a service station under a construction contract.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by groundlessly reinstating the Kyiv City Council’s term for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, which was made more than 12 years ago. The appellate court did not properly verify the arguments of the Kyiv City Council regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, did not take into account information from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions about the Kyiv City Council’s participation in another court case, where it could have learned about the existence of the appealed decision, and did not provide sufficient reasons for reinstating the deadline. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty, which requires strict adherence to the deadlines for applying to the court and appealing court decisions, as well as a reasoned approach to reinstating these deadlines. Reinstating the deadline for appealing a court decision that has entered into force, without proper justification, is a violation of the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 400/4625/22 dated 03/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the military unit against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on its complaint against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recalculation of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit, as the appellate court rightfully refused to open appellate proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the military unit did not provide evidence of the existence of objective obstacles that prevented it from submitting an application for reinstatement of the deadline for appellate appeal in a timely manner. The Supreme Court stressed that the lack of budgetary funding is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for appeal, as the state must adhere to the principles of good governance. The court also noted that the need to comply with the internal procedure for allocating funds cannot be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline.
The court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 120/8298/24 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff, based on certain calculated values, as well as inaction regarding the recalculation of the monetary allowance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recognizing as unlawful the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual of monetary allowance to the plaintiff without taking into account the base salary and the salary for military rank, determined by multiplying the amount of the living wage
of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established on January 1 of the corresponding calendar year, but denied the satisfaction of claims for the period from May 20, 2023, when Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 481 came into effect, which stipulated that official salaries be calculated based on the amount of UAH 1,762. The court noted that, from May 20, 2023, paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 704 provides for a fixed calculation value for the official salary and salary for military rank of UAH 1,762, and not the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established on January 1 of the calendar year. The court also emphasized that the principle of dispositivity applies in administrative proceedings, which places an obligation on the court to decide only those issues that the parties in the case ask it to resolve, and that in the event of disagreement with a regulatory legal act adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a proper and effective way to protect rights would be to appeal the relevant regulatory legal act.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 380/13101/24 dated 07/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of the monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the military unit missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the lack of budgetary funding is not a valid reason for missing the deadline, as the payment of court fees is an obligation established by law. The court also took into account that the military unit had already filed an appeal, but did not provide a document on payment of the court fee, which indicates a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the performance of tasks to repel and deter armed aggression by the Russian Federation made it impossible to apply to the court in a timely manner, as these arguments were not supported by evidence. The court emphasized that the state must adhere to the principles of good governance and cannot benefit from violating the rules established by itself.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 760/27204/21 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reinstatement of a prosthodontist and the recovery of wages for the period of forced absence from work due to staff reduction.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that the dismissal of the plaintiff was illegal, as the employer did not prove the impossibility of his employment. The court of appeal reasonably took into account that the plaintiff expressed a desire to take specialization courses to occupy the proposed vacant position of a general dentist.
