Case No. 454/2920/22 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a residential building by evicting PERSON_1, and a counterclaim for recognition of the right to use this building.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of the religious organization for the eviction of PERSON_1 from the house owned by the organization, since PERSON_1 did not have an independent right to reside in this house, but lived there as a family member of the rector of the church. The court took into account that the religious organization is the owner of the house and has the right to use it for the residence of a new rector. The court also took into account that the eviction would not violate the rights of PERSON_1, since he has other housing inherited from his father. The court noted that the interference with the right to housing is proportionate, as it pursues a legitimate aim – providing housing for the new rector of the church, and is necessary in a democratic society. The court rejected the arguments of PERSON_1 about the illegality of the registration of the ownership right of the religious organization, since this is not the subject of the dispute in this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, renewing the execution of the eviction decision.
Case No. 911/2308/23 (369/8871/23) dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the rulings of the appellate commercial court on leaving the appeal without motion and returning the appeal in the case of bankruptcy of an individual.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court improperly assessed the evidence of sending a copy of the appeal to the other party, namely the plaintiff in the bankruptcy case, which was mandatory, since the plaintiff is not a person obliged to register an electronic account in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellant provided sufficient evidence of sending a copy of the complaint through the postal service, entered in the relevant register of postal operators. Also, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not resolve the appellant’s motion to postpone the payment of court fees, which is also a violation of procedural rights. The court of cassation emphasized that it has the power to verify and evaluate the evidence provided to confirm the commission of procedural actions by the parties to the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 910/6694/24 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages caused by a fire on the defendant’s territory, where the plaintiff leased the premises.
2. Ver
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the claim for damages, as the conclusions on the application of legal norms in the cases referred to by the appellant concern legal relations that are not similar to the circumstances of this case, where the courts found no direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s damages, and the existence of contractual obligations of the lessees to comply with fire safety regulations. The court of cassation instance noted that for compensation of damages, it is necessary to prove the fact of damage caused by the defendant, the illegality of his behavior, the causal connection between this behavior and the damages, as well as the defendant’s fault. In this case, the courts found that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a causal link between the defendant’s unlawful conduct and the damages caused. Also, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recovery of legal aid expenses, as the courts did not investigate who exactly provided legal aid to the defendant, considering the legal assistance agreement and the power of attorney issued in the name of the lawyer, and also did not take into account the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activity” regarding persons authorized to provide legal aid.
3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the claim for damages and sent the case for a new trial regarding the recovery of legal aid expenses.
Case No. 204/4451/23 dated 07/10/2025
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 regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_8’s guilt. The court noted that the courts of previous instances correctly assessed the evidence, in particular, the testimony of witnesses and the conclusions of expert examinations, which confirm the intentional nature of the convicted person’s actions aimed at causing the victim’s death. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about necessary defense, as it was established that PERSON_8’s actions were not due to the need to defend against a socially dangerous encroachment, but were intentional, aimed at murder. Also, the court recognized the inspection of the scene of the incident as lawful, as it was conducted with the voluntary consent of the commander of the military unit where the convicted person temporarily resided, and without objections from the residents of the house. The court rejected the arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of the inspection of the scene of the incident, and noted that the totality of evidence, including indirect evidence, proves PERSON_8’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 466/12336/21 dated 07/09/2025Case No. 372/2439/16-ц dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of individuals against PJSC “Centrenergo” for compensation for moral damage caused by the negative impact of the Trypillia TPP on the environment.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiffs did not prove with proper evidence the existence of all elements of a civil offense, namely: unlawful conduct of the defendant, the existence of moral damage and its amount, the causal relationship between the actions of the defendant and the damage caused, as well as the defendant’s guilt. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide convincing evidence of excessive pollution of their place of residence, that such pollution is a direct consequence of the illegal activities of the Trypillia TPP, and that the defendant’s guilt is traced both in intent and in negligence. The court also took into account that the defendant’s officials committed violations of environmental protection legislation, but the connection between these violations and the violation of the rights or legitimate interests of the plaintiffs was not proven. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, noting that no facts of discriminatory treatment of the defendant towards the plaintiffs were established, and that the circumstances of this case differ significantly from the circumstances that were assessed in the ECHR cases “Dziemiuk v. Ukraine” and “Dubetska v. Ukraine”.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts – without changes.
Case No. 990/292/24 dated 26/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the non-consideration of a judge’s application for resignation, the cancellation of the HCJ’s decision to suspend the consapplication for resignation and the obligation of the HJC to consider this application.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, reasoned that the HJC lawfully suspended the consideration of the judge’s application for resignation, as there was a disciplinary complaint pending, the consequence of which could be the dismissal of the judge from office on grounds provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine, which differ from the grounds for dismissal upon resignation; the court cannot assess the validity of the disciplinary proceedings within the framework of this case; the HJC acted within its powers, and the delay in considering the application for resignation is not unlawful inaction, considering the existence of a disciplinary complaint; the court did not find any signs of a discriminatory approach by the HJC to the consideration of the issue of the judge’s resignation.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 582/1039/20 dated 03/06/2025
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 conviction of PERSON_7.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, rejecting the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that guided the court of cassation instance in making its decision based on the provided operative part of the ruling. For a complete analysis, it is necessary to review the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later, in order to understand the court’s motives for upholding the judgment and ruling. Without the full text of the decision, it is impossible to understand whether the Supreme Court deviated from any previous legal positions.
The court ruled: to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and to dismiss the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel.
Case No. 454/1266/15-ц dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement jointly and severally from the borrower and the guarantor.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the bank’s claim, recovering the debt under the loan from the debtors and rejecting the claims for the recovery of the commission and part of the interest accrued after the expiration of the loan term. The court noted that after the expiration of the loan term, the bank loses the right to accrue interest, and the creditor’s rights are protected by Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also agreed with the appellate court that the guarantor’s receipt does not change the term of fulfillment of the loan obligation, as there is no evidence of the bank’s demand for early recovery of the loan. The court of cassation instance emphasized that evidence cannot be based on assumptions, and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances. The court also rejected the arguments about violations of procedural law, noting that the decision of the appellate
of the court of appeal is reasoned and complies with the requirements of the law.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal without changes.
**Case No. 199/9892/22 dated 09/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right to lease.
2. The court of cassation, canceling the decision of the court of appeal, indicated that the prosecutor did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the forgery of documents on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership of the disputed land plot, and the court of appeal, re-evaluating the evidence, did not provide justifications for such re-evaluation. The court of cassation also took into account that the disputed land plot is located in a temporarily occupied territory, which complicates access to the originals of documents. In addition, the court of cassation noted that the claim for recovery of the land plot from the lessee (SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”) and cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right to lease is subject to consideration in the order of commercial (economic) proceedings, since the parties to the lease relations are legal entities. The court of cassation also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which emphasizes the need to prove the circumstances referred to by the party, and the inadmissibility of assumptions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of satisfying the claims against the individual and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim, and closed the proceedings regarding the claims against the legal entity.
**Case No. 471/216/22 dated 09/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdicts of the local and appellate courts regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (manslaughter).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the representative of the victim, and left the verdicts of the courts of previous instances unchanged, based on the following: the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, gave a proper assessment to the evidence obtained in the manner prescribed by law, and correctly applied the norms of substantive law; the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the validity of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances; no significant violations of the criminal procedural law were established that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of court decisions; the imposed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime committed and the identity of the convicted person. The court of cassation agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of first and appellate instances, and found no grounds for overturning or changing the court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the verdicts of the local and appellate courts unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the representative of the victimwithout satisfaction.
**Case No. 902/25/24(902/1531/23) dated 15/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery by the farm enterprise from the illegal possession of the company of a transshipment bunker and the recovery of lost profits.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the fact that the bunker was located at the defendant’s, which is a necessary condition for recovering property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the transfer of the bunker to the defendant, and the pledge agreement, which indicates the location of the bunker, is not sufficient proof of its possession by the defendant. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not register the ownership of the bunker in the prescribed manner. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant does not deny the fact that the bunker is located at his place, since the defendant denied it. The court also considered justified the refusal of the courts of previous instances to satisfy the plaintiff’s petitions for the recovery and examination of evidence, since the plaintiff did not prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for their submission.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the farm enterprise without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 754/7412/23 dated 14/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as having lost the right to use a residential premises.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s loss of interest in the disputed housing, considering that at the time of leaving the apartment, the defendant was a minor and could not independently choose a place of residence. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s departure with his mother to Germany in connection with the military aggression of Russia and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, which is a valid reason for absence. The court noted that the tenant of the apartment (the plaintiff’s mother) had not previously raised the issue of the defendant’s loss of the right to use the housing. The court took into account that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of the first and appellate instances, and found no grounds to interfere in their assessment. The court also noted that the applicant’s disagreement with the court decisions and the assessment of evidence is not a basis for satisfying the cassation appeal.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 990/131/24 dated 26/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Advisory Group of Experts’ refusal to provide public information, namely copies of decisions regarding candidates for the position of judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine who did not meet the criteria of high moral qualities.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, emphasizing that h
although the plaintiff referred to the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information,” the essence of his claims was to appeal the refusal to publish the decisions of the Advisory Group. The court noted that according to the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,” the full text of the decision regarding a candidate who does not meet the criteria is published only at his written request. Providing this information to the plaintiff would deprive the Advisory Group of the opportunity to comply with the requirements of the law. The court also emphasized that the current restrictions apply to all cases of publication of negative decisions, and not only to their posting on the website. Since none of the candidates demanded the publication of the full text of the decision, providing these decisions at the plaintiff’s request would contradict the legislative prohibition.
3. The court decided to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1 against the Advisory Group of Experts.
Case No. 990/74/25 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to refuse to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility.
2. The court of cassation refused to open proceedings, citing the fact that the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ can be appealed exclusively to the HCJ itself, and not to the court. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that although everyone has the right to appeal decisions of government bodies to the court, this right is not absolute and may be limited by law. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice” clearly defines that decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ can be appealed only to the HCJ, and not to the court. The court also indicated that the complainant, by filing a disciplinary complaint, only informs the competent authority about the possible improper behavior of the judge, and the final decision on bringing to responsibility is made by the HCJ. The court also noted that similar conclusions have already been expressed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in other cases.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 904/128/25 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot by demolishing an unauthorized construction and canceling the state registration of ownership of this construction.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim, imposing an arrest on the disputed property and prohibiting any registration actions, since failure to take such measures could complicate or make it impossible to effectively protect the rights of the state. The court proceeded from the fact that the methods of securing the claim chosen by the prosecutor’s office correspond to its subject and are aimed at preserving the existing situation until the court decision enters into legal force. The court also took into account that in the event of alienation of the disputed property, the interests of the state cannot be protected within this court proceeding.
without new appeals to the court. The cassation court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the appellate court did not establish the actual owner of the real estate, since the defendant’s ownership of the property was established, and the circumstances of the use of the property are established during the consideration of the dispute on the merits. The cassation court emphasized that the defendant’s ability to alienate the property may complicate the execution of the court decision if it is rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 582/1039/20 dated 06/03/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of beatings, light or moderate bodily injuries to a law enforcement officer in connection with the performance of official duties by this officer).
The cassation court upheld the verdict because the arguments of the convicted person and his defense counsel were found to be unsubstantiated. The court noted that the indictment was sent within the terms of the pre-trial investigation, and the issue of the legality of the search is not the subject of consideration in this case. The court also rejected the arguments about necessary defense, as no circumstances indicating a state of defense were established. The court did not find grounds for the recusal of the judge of the first instance and did not find any violations in the automated distribution of the case. Regarding the violation of the right to defense, the court indicated that the convicted person was removed from the courtroom for violating the order, and the defense counsel had the opportunity to participate in court sessions. The appellate court considered the case in the absence of a defense counsel, as the convicted person refused him, and the crime did not require the mandatory participation of a defense counsel. The court also rejected the arguments about not examining the video recordings, as the defense did not substantiate the need for their re-examination.
The court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 920/632/24(920/1436/24) dated 07/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on an appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the determination of the plaintiff in the case and the acceptance for consideration of the application to change the subject of the claim.
The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), rulings of the court of first instance are appealed separately from the court decision only in cases expressly provided for in Article 255 of the CPC of Ukraine. In this case, the ruling of the court of first instance on determining the plaintiff in the case and accepting for consideration the application to change the subject of the claim is not subject to appeal separately from the court decision, since
is not a substitution of a party in the case (procedural succession). The court of cassation emphasized that procedural succession involves the transfer of procedural rights and obligations from one person to another in connection with the transfer of substantive rights. Since in this case such a transfer did not occur, appealing the ruling is possible only together with the court’s decision on the merits of the dispute.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged.
Case No. 199/9891/22 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land by the prosecutor in the interests of the state represented by the Nikolske Settlement Council from the illegal possession of PERSON_1 and SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”, as well as the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, since the dispute between a legal entity and an individual (entrepreneur) is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim against PERSON_1, since the prosecutor did not prove with proper evidence the illegality of PERSON_2’s acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plot, and therefore the illegality of its recovery from PERSON_1, who acquired it under a sale and purchase agreement. The court noted that the presence of a copy of another order of the State Geocadastre with the same number, but different content, is not conclusive evidence of forgery of the order, on the basis of which the ownership right was registered. The court of cassation also overturned additional decisions of the previous instances on the recovery from the prosecutor’s office of expenses for legal assistance in favor of SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”, since the main decision regarding this company was overturned.
Note: In this case, the Supreme Court refers to the legal position set out in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated May 05, 2025 in case No. 199/9897/22 (proceedings No. 61-14436сво24), to which the cassation proceedings in this case were suspended.
Case No. 344/10700/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of the spouses, namely an apartment acquired during the marriage, where the plaintiff requested recognition of her ownership of a 1/2 share.
2. The court of appeal, unlike the court of first instance, granted the claim, based on the fact that the apartment was acquired during the marriage and is not the personal property of the husband, since it was not received by him as an award or prize for personal merits within the meaning of the Family Code of Ukraine. The court found that the apartment was received by the defendant in the interests of the family, since when receiving it, he provided
