**Case No. 344/11497/23 dated July 8, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of jurisdiction regarding the consideration of the case on the invalidation of the minutes of the general meeting of LLC and the act of acceptance and transfer of real estate, as well as the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights to this property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the part of the claims, considering that the dispute is not of a corporate nature, since the plaintiffs are not participants of LLC “ALAVIT PLUS”, and the dispute arose regarding real estate, which, in their opinion, is illegally used. The court of cassation emphasized that for distinguishing the jurisdiction of courts, it is not enough to have only a formal criterion of the composition of participants, but it is important to take into account the nature of the legal relationship, the rights and interests for the protection of which the person applied, as well as the subject of the dispute. The court noted that the criteria for distinguishing judicial jurisdiction are the subject composition of legal relations, the subject of the dispute and the nature of the disputed substantive legal relations. Since the plaintiffs are individuals, and the dispute did not arise between members of a legal entity and the legal entity itself, the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “ALAVIT PLUS” without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
**Case No. 947/920/21 dated July 2, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage, as well as a counterclaim for the termination of the mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on refusing to satisfy the claim for debt recovery, since the obligations under the loan agreement were fully fulfilled, which is confirmed by the notarized statement of the plaintiff’s representative. The court noted that the examination of the original statement fully complies with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and doubts about this evidence had to be proven by the party referring to them. The court also rejected the reference to the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the return of the debt document, since in this case the parties concluded a notarized loan agreement, and did not issue a debt receipt, and the notarized statement of the creditor is sufficient evidence of the fulfillment of obligations. Since the main obligation is terminated, the mortgage is also terminated.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 761/40652/23 dated July 2, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “NAC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of financial assistance upon dismissal in connection with retirement and average earnings for the period of delay in settlement.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the employee’s claims, m
motivating it by the fact that the appellate court did not verify the compliance with the term for appealing to the court established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which is the court’s obligation regardless of the parties’ arguments. The Supreme Court emphasized that the terms for appealing to the court in labor disputes are checked by the court on its own initiative (ex officio). Also, the appellate court did not provide a legal assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the existence of an identical dispute already resolved by the court, which could be the basis for closing the proceedings in the case. Since the court of cassation cannot establish new circumstances of the case, it was decided to send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal to eliminate these shortcomings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 585/2014/22 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_8 of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal logging).
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed PERSON_7’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 369/14070/18 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments. It can be assumed that the cassation court found certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the review of the judgment of the court of first instance, which became the basis for overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial in the court of appeal. It is possible that the appellate court did not fully investigate the evidence, did not take into account significant circumstances of the case, or incorrectly applied the criminal law, which led to an unreasonable decision. It is also possible that the rights of the participants in the proceedings were violated, which affected the legality and validity of the appellate court’s ruling. More specific reasons for the cancellation will be known after the full text of the decision is announced.
The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 440/5503/20 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of wages for the period of forced absence from work and the distribution of court costs incurred by the plaintiff for professional legal assistance.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of both parties, pointing out the error of the appellate court’s decision in reducing the costs of professional legal assistance awarded by the court of first instance, since the appellate court did not
substantiated why the amount determined by him is proportionate to the complexity of the case and the amount of work performed by the attorney. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not verify the proper and timely filing of the plaintiff’s application for recovery of legal aid expenses in the appellate instance, and also did not provide the defendant with the opportunity to express objections to these claims. The court emphasized that the principle of proportionality of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance applies only if there is a petition from the other party. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance in the appellate instance and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of reducing the expenses for professional legal assistance awarded by the court of first instance, upheld the additional decision of the court of first instance, and also overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance in the appellate instance and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 120/6168/22 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in the case regarding the establishment of judicial control over the execution of the court’s decision on the payment of additional remuneration.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly returned the appeal, since the plaintiff was not required to pay a court fee for filing an appeal against the decision of the court of first instance refusing to establish judicial control over the execution of the court decision. The court took into account that according to the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” payment of the fee for such an application is not provided for. Also, the court took into account the conclusions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which emphasized the inadmissibility of repeated payment of a court fee for the implementation of judicial control over the execution of a court decision, as this creates unreasonable obstacles to access to justice. The court noted that although the conclusions of the Constitutional Court were made in the context of civil procedure, they are also relevant to administrative proceedings in matters of judicial control over the execution of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 320/40631/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, which increased the amount of personal income tax and military levy for the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of the tax authority against the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal. The appellate court returned the appeal because it decided that the person who signed the appeal on behalf of the tax authorit
to the body, acted with limited powers, which did not give it the right to self-representation. The Supreme Court noted that the CAS of Ukraine clearly defines the list of documents to confirm the authority for self-representation or representation in court. The court of cassation also took into account that the joint chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court deviated from the previous position regarding restrictions in the Unified State Register, which allegedly make self-representation impossible. However, in this case, the person who signed the appeal only provided an extract from the Unified State Register, and there were no other documents to confirm his authority. In addition, the Supreme Court found that the tax authority repeatedly filed an appeal, and the appellate court considered the case on the merits, so the contested ruling on the return of the appeal does not prevent further proceedings in the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 200/6369/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Dnipro Court of Appeal to issue a certificate of judicial remuneration for the recalculation of the monthly lifelong monetary allowance of a retired judge, calculated on the basis of 50 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, established on January 1, 2023.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the guarantees of the independence of judges include their material support, which cannot be reduced without appropriate compensation. The court noted that judicial remuneration is regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and consists of a salary and allowances, and the basic salary of a judge of the court of appeal is 50 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, established on January 1 of the calendar year. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff was seconded to the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and it was this court that paid her monetary allowance and made final settlements upon dismissal, so it is authorized to issue a certificate of judicial remuneration. The court referred to a similar legal position set out in the Supreme Court’s decision of November 13, 2024.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/8230/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unfounded of the bank’s unilateral refusal to serve a client on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime, Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction”.
2. In this case, the courts of previous instances satisfied the claim of “Vesela Kachka” LLC against PJSC CB “Ukrgasbank”, recognizing the bank’s refusal to serve the client as unfounded. The courts found that the bank did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of legal grounds for a unilateralof the bank account agreement. In particular, the bank’s conclusion regarding the establishment of an unacceptably high level of risk for LLC “Vesela Kachka” lacked information regarding the assessment of financial transaction indicators/risk criteria specifically in relation to the plaintiff. The appellate court rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the connection of LLC “Vesela Kachka” with another company through a common beneficial owner, since the bank did not prove the existence of reasonable suspicions regarding the plaintiff or its ultimate beneficial owner conducting money laundering operations or other crimes. The Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of previous instances, noting that the bank did not prove the existence of signs of unacceptably high risk in LLC “Vesela Kachka,” as provided for by law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances’ courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 915/16/24(915/601/24) dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on the provision of legal services, concluded between the “Demetra” farm enterprise (debtor) and LLC “SABAZY” (creditor), within the framework of the bankruptcy case of the farm enterprise.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that a secured creditor has the right to appeal the debtor’s transactions that became the basis for the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, since the opening of bankruptcy proceedings changes the procedure for satisfying the claims of the pledge holder. The court took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the disputed agreement, the debtor had overdue debt to the bank, and the provision of legal services was not the main activity of LLC “SABAZY.” Also, no evidence was provided that the debtor applied for the need to receive legal services and the issuance of invoices for the services provided. The court noted that the recognition of a transaction as invalid is a proper way to protect the rights of creditors in a bankruptcy case, aimed at maximizing the satisfaction of their claims. The court indicated that the creditor’s request to recognize the transaction as invalid is a proper method of protection, as it aims to eliminate the adverse consequences for the creditor associated with the commission of such a transaction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “SABAZY” without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court on recognizing the agreement on the provision of legal services as invalid remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/1089/24 dated 07/08/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation to perform certain actions between two operators – the gas distribution and gas transmission system.
The Supreme Court, leaving unchanged the decisions of previous instances, probably agreed with their conclusions regarding the absence of grounds for satisfying the claims of JSC “Operator of the gas distribution system “Kharkivgaz.” It is possible that the courts of previous instances established that LLC “Operator of the gas transmission syste
“Gas of Ukraine” has no obligation to perform the actions required by the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support the need for such actions. Also, the courts may have taken into account the regulatory framework in the field of gas supply and concluded that the disputed actions are not within the competence of the defendant or contradict current legislation. The court of cassation, having checked the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, did not find grounds for their cancellation.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 120/15243/24 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual of monetary allowance and the obligation to recalculate and pay the monetary allowance taking into account certain regulatory acts.
2. The courts of previous instances returned the statement of claim, considering that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court, since he should have learned about the violation of his rights from the moment he received the incorrectly calculated monetary allowance, and not from the date of receipt of the notice of accrued amounts upon dismissal; The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, pointing out that the courts did not take into account the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of payments made, and also incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine regarding the deadlines for applying to the court, without taking into account changes in legislation and the uniform practice formed by the Judicial Chamber for considering cases regarding the electoral process and referendum, as well as the protection of political rights of citizens of the Cassation Administrative Court. The court also noted that the courts had to determine the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the payments made, and divide the disputed period into parts before and after the entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX, in order to correctly apply the consequences of violating the deadline for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 620/5518/24 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the orders for the dismissal of the plaintiff from the position in the National Police and reinstatement to this position.
2. The courts of previous instances concluded that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court, established either by the CAS of Ukraine or the Disciplinary Statute of the National Police of Ukraine, without recognizing the reasons for missing the deadline as valid. They believed that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of objective circumstances that would make it impossible to apply to the court in a timely manner, and references to martial law are general and do not confirm a specific impact on the possibility of filing a lawsuit. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, pointing out that the courts did not establish important circumstances, in particular, whether the plaintiff was familiar with the dismissal order, with which the law associates the start of the term for
appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take all the measures defined by law and did not establish all the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct adoption of a procedural decision in this case at the stage of initiating proceedings in the case, and therefore came to premature conclusions about returning the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to the latter missing the deadline for applying to the court.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 991/4164/23 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the writ of execution as not subject to execution due to the discrepancy between the plaintiff in the court decision and the collector in the writ of execution.
2. The Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court rejected the appeal, noting that the debtor’s obligation to pay funds to the state remains valid and has not been terminated. The court pointed out that the collector in cases of recovery of funds to the state is the state body, according to whose claim the decision was made. The court took into account the changes in the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, which reorganized the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, but emphasized that these changes do not affect the essence of the debtor’s obligations. The court also emphasized the principles of reasonableness and inadmissibility of excessive formalism, believing that indicating the new details of the SAP in the writ of execution is a proper procedure that does not violate the rights of the debtor. The court noted that the plaintiff and the collector in the case is the state, and this party has not changed.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the ruling of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court unchanged.
Case No. 740/8102/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the car sale contract concluded between the father and son as invalid, due to the prosecutor’s suspicion of the fictitiousness of the transaction in order to avoid confiscation of property in the framework of criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the existence of grounds for recognizing the contract as invalid, but changed the motives for the decision. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not pay attention to the fact that private law instruments should not be used to avoid fulfilling public obligations, such as avoiding property arrest or possible confiscation. The court pointed out that since the contract was concluded between close relatives during criminal proceedings, where the father was threatened with confiscation of property, the courts should have recognized the contract as invalid precisely on the grounds that it was aimed at avoiding arrest and/or possible confiscation of property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence provided by the prosecutor, since the permission to disclose information of the pre-trial investigation was granted by an authorized person.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cpartially satisfied the cassation appeal, changed the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recognition of the contract as invalid, and overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the cancellation of the vehicle registration.
**Case No. 695/4784/23 dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the requirement to oblige the executive committee of the village council to re-examine the plaintiff’s application for determining the damages caused by the unauthorized use of his land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the closure of the proceedings in the case, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court indicated that appealing actions regarding the preparation of an act on determining the amount of damages and a decision regarding the consideration of this act, which do not establish any obligations for the plaintiff, is not a method of protecting rights provided by law, and cannot be the subject of a dispute. The absence of a dispute excludes the possibility of appealing to the court, since there is no right subject to judicial protection. The court also noted that the circumstances regarding the determination of damages may be the subject of evidence within the scope of a claim for compensation for damages from the person who caused them, and the act of the commission itself may be evaluated as evidence in such a case. Therefore, appealing to the court with a claim against the authorized body to oblige it to consider an application for determining damages does not correspond to the tasks of civil proceedings and is not subject to judicial review at all.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 911/2191/24 dated 01/07/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the application of “AvtoSpetsProm” LLC for the recovery from the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The Supreme Court, considering the application of “AvtoSpetsProm” LLC, took into account the arguments of the prosecutor’s office regarding the disproportionality of the claimed expenses, as well as the practice of the Supreme Court that the recovery of expenses for legal assistance should not be a way for a party to enrich itself. The court noted that at the stage of cassation review, the defendant’s legal position had already been formed, and no evidence of additional complex study of the disputed legal relations was provided. The court also took into account that the analysis of the cassation appeal and the selection of the regulatory and legal framework are covered by the service of preparing a response, therefore, they are not subject to separation. The court took into account the preliminary calculation of court costs submitted by the defendant, and compliance with the requirements of Article 124 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Taking into account the complexity of the case, the services provided by the lawyer, and the criteria of reasonableness, fairness, and reality of court costs, the court decided to partially satisfy the application.
The court partially satisfied the application of “AvtoSpetsProm” LLC and ordered the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office to recover UAH 10,000 in expenses for professional legal assistance in favor of “AvtoSpetsProm” LLC.
ov.ua/Review/128721752″>Case No. 918/1007/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor who is one of the founders of the debtor enterprise in a bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the creditor’s claims are justified, as they are confirmed by a court decision on the recovery of debt, which has not been executed, as well as information from the Automated System of Enforcement Proceedings on the opened enforcement proceeding. The court emphasized that the mere fact of the creditor’s interest in the debtor is not an absolute ground for refusing to recognize the claims, especially when the debtor disputed the debt in court. The court noted that in such cases, a higher standard of proof should be applied, and monetary claims are subject to thorough verification, but in this case, the appellate court correctly established the validity of the claims based on the available evidence. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the appellate court considered new evidence, as information on court decisions and enforcement proceedings was available and could have been verified by the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the recognition of the creditor’s monetary claims.
Case No. 914/1491/24 dated 08/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of debt from the Subsidiary Enterprise “Sanatorium “Morshynkurort” in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Energy Saving Lviv”.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, dismissing the defendant’s cassation appeal. The courts of previous instances likely fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The decisions of the courts of previous instances are likely based on the existence of contractual obligations between the parties, their violation by the defendant, and the validity of the calculation of the debt amount. The Supreme Court, having verified the legality and validity of the court decisions, found no grounds for their cancellation. Also, the Supreme Court resumed the execution of the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову (ruling) of the appellate court, which were suspended for the duration of the cassation proceedings.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 911/9/24 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use of land plots for forestry purposes and the cancellation of decisions on their state registration.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of proceedings in the case. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that at the time of filing the claim, LLC “NASK Development” was a proper defendant, since
and it was this person who had the ownership right to the disputed land plots registered. The court noted that the replacement of an improper defendant is possible only when the lawsuit is filed against the wrong person who should be liable under the claim at the time of its filing. In addition, the appellate court indicated that the disputed legal relations allow for procedural succession, since at the time of the case consideration, the land plots were registered as owned by an individual who acquired material rights and obligations in the disputed legal relations. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plots by an individual creates a legally significant procedural effect, since such a transfer of ownership implies the entry of the acquirer into the already existing system of legal relations regarding the object.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 910/9270/24 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine on the transfer of property from the balance sheet of one state organization to the balance sheet of another.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim of LLC “Spetsmekhbud 21”, reasoning that to satisfy the claim, it is necessary to establish the existence of a violated right or interest of the plaintiff, as well as the conformity of the chosen method of protection to the violated right. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove how the disputed order violates his rights as a creditor of the State Organization “70 Management of the Chief of Works”, since the bankruptcy proceedings of this organization were closed, and the court decision on the recovery of debt in another case is absent. The court also took into account that the disputed order is an act of individual action, and the right to appeal it belongs only to the person whose rights are directly violated. The court emphasized that a debtor who disposes of property after the obligation arises acts in bad faith, but in this case, it was not proven that the order was aimed at avoiding the recovery of the debtor’s property.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 391/713/23 dated 07/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the accusation of PERSON_8 in committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle, which caused the victim moderate bodily injury).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the representative of the victim, canceling the ruling of the appellate court. In making this decision, the court of cassation
likely established certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. It is possible that the appellate court did not fully examine the evidence, did not properly assess the arguments of the parties, or committed other procedural violations that led to an incorrect resolution of the case. In this regard, the Supreme Court decided that a new appellate review is necessary to ensure a fair trial and avoid any doubts about the legality and validity of the court decision.
The court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 440/5503/20 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of wages for the period of forced absence from work and the distribution of legal professional assistance costs.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, stating that the appellate court unreasonably reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, without indicating why the amount it determined is proportionate to the complexity of the case and the amount of work performed by the lawyer. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of first instance reasonably applied the principle of proportionality in the distribution of court costs, taking into account the partial satisfaction of the claims. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not verify the validity and timeliness of the party’s request for recovery of legal aid costs in the appellate instance, and also did not provide the other party with the opportunity to provide objections to such claims. The court of cassation emphasized that the principle of proportionality of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance applies only if there is a motion from the other party.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the reduction of expenses for professional legal assistance and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court in this part, and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 742/4668/23 dated 02/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict against a person convicted of illegal purchase, carrying and storage of ammunition.
The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person’s guilt proven on the basis of the examined evidence, in particular the search protocol, the expert’s opinion and the investigative experiment protocol. The court noted that there was no voluntary surrender of ammunition, as it took place during an authorized search. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, since a copy of the search warrant was lawfully extracted from another criminal proceeding, and the defense was familiar with the case materials. The court of cassation emphasized that the provisions of Article 298-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the obligation
The binding nature of the investigating judge’s ruling for the use of evidence in criminal offenses does not apply to the evidence defined in Art. 84 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was used in this case. The appellate court properly verified the arguments of the appeal and reasonably left the verdict unchanged.
The court ruled: The judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel shall be dismissed.
Case No. 921/110/23(921/327/24) dated June 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of agreements on offsetting mutual homogeneous monetary claims as invalid within the bankruptcy case of “TIERRA” LLC.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not determine all the grounds for the claim, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the possible forgery of the documents provided by the defendant, and did not verify their authenticity, which is a violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings. In addition, the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff, in addition to referring to the suspicious period of the conclusion of the agreements, also asserted the fictitiousness of these agreements, the absence of actual economic operations, and the forgery of documents. The court of cassation emphasized the court’s obligation to assess the evidence in view of its credibility, as well as to ensure proper study of the documents, arguments, and evidence presented by the parties. Since the courts of previous instances did not fulfill these requirements, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel their decisions and send the case for a new trial.
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. 914/466/23(914/2942/23) dated July 8, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the commercial court of appeal refusing to seize property that was the subject of a mortgage, in order to secure the creditor’s claims.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, based on the fact that the appellate court reasonably refused to grant the bank’s request to seize the property, since the mortgagor was not the borrower under the loan agreement, and the mortgage agreement secured the obligations of another person; neither the loan agreement nor the security agreement, which would secure the fulfillment of the borrower’s obligations under the loan agreement, were declared invalid by the appellate court, and therefore, there are no grounds for applying the provisions of Part 12 of Art. 238 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the bank had already satisfied its claims under the loan agreement by selling the mortgage property, and it was not proven that these funds were returned to the bank. In addition, the court of cassation noted that since bankruptcy proceedings have been opened against “Olimpex Coupe International” LLC, the property must be returned to the debtor to satisfy the creditors’ claims in the manner,
determined by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, and the application of Article 1057-1 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in such a case is unfounded.
3. The court ruled to leave the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling – without changes.
Case No. 910/4456/24 dated 08/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of UAH 4,024,762 from LLC “Investbud-11” in favor of the Main Center for Capital Construction, Reconstruction and Procurement of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appeal of the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv dated 18.07.2024 and the постанов of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 13.03.2025, since the cassation appeal was filed on the basis of paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, but no proper grounds were provided regarding the incorrect application of substantive law or violation of procedural law, which led to the adoption of an illegal decision. Regarding the appeal of the additional decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv dated 26.09.2024 and the постанов of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 13.03.2025, the Supreme Court found no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal, since the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, considering them reasoned and lawful.
The court ruled: to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appealed court decisions – without changes.
Case No. 560/10852/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order to include the building in the list of newly discovered architectural objects.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that in order to grant an object the status of a newly discovered object of cultural heritage, it is necessary to conduct scientific research activities to determine its cultural value, as well as conduct an examination regarding the possibility of recognizing the object as a monument and compiling accounting documentation. The court noted that the appellate court justified the legality of the appealed order with evidence that was created after its adoption, which is unacceptable. Also, the courts of previous instances established the absence of an examination by the defendant regarding the possibility of recognizing the object as a monument and accounting documentation (card). The defendant, as a subject of power, did not prove the legality of its decision, did not provide proper evidence of the existence of an examination and accounting documentation, which is its responsibility.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the постанов of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance on satisfying the claim, changing its reasoning part.
Case No. 917/499/24 dated 02/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim in the interests of the village
regarding the recognition of ownership of unauthorized constructed real estate objects (greenhouses) located on communal land plots, in order to protect the interests of the territorial community.
The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, since at the time of the case’s consideration, the disputed real estate objects (greenhouses) were actually absent, which was established based on the protocols of the scene examination within the framework of criminal proceedings, and therefore, the right of the territorial community was not violated. The court noted that the courts of previous instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact of unauthorized construction of greenhouses in the past and their acquisition by the defendant, but at the time of the case’s consideration, these objects no longer existed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts correctly did not assess the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection, since the main thing is the absence of a violated right at the time of applying to the court. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding his unsuitability, since he was the one who acquired the disputed property and objected to the cancellation of his ownership of it.
The court upheld the decisions of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 902/1288/23 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a ruling on the closure of proceedings in a case on the insolvency of an individual and the refusal to recognize them as bankrupt.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the debtor provided incomplete and unreliable information about their property status and income, as well as about the property status of their family members, which is a violation of the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court noted that the debtor repeatedly made corrections to the declarations, including in violation of the established deadlines, which indicates their bad faith conduct. In addition, the court took into account the decision of the creditors’ meeting to close the proceedings in the debtor’s insolvency case. The court also drew attention to the fact that the restructuring plan proposed by the debtor provided for the write-off of almost the entire amount of debt, which indicates evasion of fulfilling obligations. The court emphasized that only a conscientious debtor can use the bankruptcy procedure.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 405/7805/23 dated 07/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of the director-artistic director of a communal institution, appointed to the position during martial law.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that, according to the circumstances of the case, the head of the Kirovohrad Regional Council was found guilty of unlawfully dismissing the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that since the order to announce a competition for the position of director
