Case №160/7169/24 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Communal Enterprise and the Krynychky Settlement Council regarding the bringing of the civil defense protective structure to a proper condition.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim without consideration, since the prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service (SES), which, according to current legislation, does not have the authority to independently apply to the court with such claims. The court noted that although the amendments to the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine expanded the powers of the SES, they require a clear correlation with the provisions of the law, which would provide for the relevant case of the SES applying to the court. The court also took into account that at the time the prosecutor applied to the court, the provisions on the SES had not been changed, and there is no law that directly authorizes the SES to apply to the court with claims regarding the bringing of protective structures to a proper condition. The court emphasized that the prosecutor can represent the interests of the state in court only in cases where the relevant authority does not provide protection or does so improperly, and the prosecutor cannot be considered an alternative subject of appeal to the court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case №120/8946/24 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal to return the appeal due to the absence of the signature of the person who filed it after the text of the complaint.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appeal was rightfully returned because it did not contain the signature of the person who filed it after the main text. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the signature on the document must be located after the main text to confirm the person’s expression of will and agreement with its content. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about excessive formalism, emphasizing that this approach does not limit the right to access to justice, but ensures the proper use of procedural rights. The court also noted that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling, are binding, as they were formed as a result of resolving an exclusive legal problem.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case №500/2893/24 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of dismissing the prosecutor’s statement of claim regarding the obligation to bring the civil defense protective structure to a proper condition.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the prosecutor’s statement of claim without consideration, since the prosecutor
The prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MD SESU), which, in the court’s opinion, does not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. The court noted that according to current legislation, in particular the Civil Protection Code of Ukraine, the SESU is not authorized to appeal to the court with lawsuits regarding bringing protective structures into readiness. The court also took into account that although amendments to the legislation have expanded the scope of legal relations in which the SESU can be a plaintiff, this requires a clear correlation with the law, which would provide for the relevant case. The court rejected the prosecutor’s reference to the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances and regulatory framework in the previous case were different.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 160/20702/21 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the Executive Committee of the Kryvyi Rih City Council against the actions of the State Audit Service of Ukraine (State Audit Service) regarding amendments to the plan for state financial control measures, as well as the cancellation of the order on amendments to the plan, requirements for the elimination of violations, and warnings about improper implementation of budget legislation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the actions of the State Audit Service as unlawful. The court stated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, regarding the terms for making changes to the state financial control plan, considering that such changes should be made exclusively before the beginning of the relevant quarter. The court noted that Instruction No. 319, which is followed by the State Audit Service, allows for changes to be made later if there is a justified need. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the proposals of the controlling subdivisions of the State Audit Service, which justified the need to amend the plan. The court also emphasized that Instruction No. 319 is not subject to mandatory state registration, as it is aimed at organizing the implementation of decisions of higher authorities and does not contain new legal norms. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to re-examine the case, examining the validity of the grounds for making changes to the control plan.
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. 991/970/25 dated 23/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office for the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue, namely a car and funds acquired by the wife of a person authorized to perform state functions.
2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, which partially satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, established
that the assets (a car and part of the value of an apartment) were acquired with funds, the origin of which was not confirmed by legal income. The court took into account that the defendant, being an official, had the opportunity to influence these assets, although they were formally registered in the name of his wife. The court also disregarded the defendants’ arguments about the wife receiving loans to purchase the property, as no convincing evidence was provided to confirm the financial capacity of the lenders and the reality of the debt obligations. The court noted that the failure to declare the loans received by the wife also indicates their fictitious nature. The arguments about the improper execution of the prosecutor’s documents were rejected, as they were duly certified and did not contain any signs of unreliability. The court critically assessed the first instance court’s conclusion on the legalization of funds, as this may violate the presumption of innocence. The appellate court also disagreed with the conclusion that the defendants had acquired joint ownership of the apartment, as the funds used to purchase it were recognized as unjustified assets.
3. The defendant’s representative’s appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court was upheld.
Case No. 340/7444/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Zavallia Village Council regarding the maintenance of the civil defense structure in readiness for use.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances courts to dismiss the claim, as the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MD SES), which does not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. The court noted that the prosecutor may represent the interests of the state in court only in cases where the protection of these interests is not carried out or is improperly carried out by the authorized body, or in the absence of such a body. The court emphasized that the SES has the right to appeal to the court only in cases expressly provided for by law, and the current legislation does not give the SES the authority to appeal to the court with a claim to bring protective structures into readiness. The court also noted that the prosecutor cannot be considered an alternative subject of appeal to the court and replace the proper subject of authority. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned other legal relations.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decisions of the previous instances courts.
Case No. 990/178/24 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice to dismiss a judge from office.
The court refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that the High Council of Justice acted within its powers and in accordance with the requirements of current legislation. The court took into account the providedand found that the decision on dismissal was justified and lawful. In particular, the court took into account that all procedural requirements were met during the consideration of the judge’s dismissal, as well as the existence of grounds for such dismissal provided by the Constitution of Ukraine. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the illegality of the High Council of Justice’s decision. In addition, the court took into account the position of the defendant’s representative, who provided arguments in favor of the lawfulness of the challenged decision.
The court decided to dismiss the judge’s claim to declare illegal and cancel the HCJ’s decision to dismiss her from office.
Case No. 420/31/24 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the inaction of a communal enterprise regarding the failure to ensure the readiness of a civil defense structure for its intended use.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the statement of claim, since the prosecutor filed the lawsuit in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in the Odesa region (MD SES) and the Odesa Regional Military Administration (OMA), which, according to current legislation, do not have the authority to file such claims. The court noted that the SES has the right to apply to the court only in cases expressly provided for by law, and no regulatory act gives it the authority to sue for bringing protective structures into readiness. Similarly, the Odesa RMA does not have the relevant powers under the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, as there was insufficient justification for such deviation, and ensuring the uniformity of case law is important for legal certainty. The court emphasized that the prosecutor cannot replace the proper subject of power who can and wants to protect the interests of the state.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 580/6731/24 dated 07/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the order of the Central Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice (Kyiv).
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Central Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice (Kyiv), overturning the decision of the Cherkasy District Administrative Court and the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal. The case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance. The court of cassation, presumably, found violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the courts of previous instances, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case and the correct application of the norms of substantive law. It is possible that the courts did not full
