[**Case No. 361/3688/21 of 09/07/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128876555)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the local self-government body, expert opinion, and cancellation of the state registration of the land plot as invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which closed the proceedings in the case, since the dispute is public-legal and is subject to consideration in the administrative court. The court proceeded from the fact that the decision of the local self-government body on the approval of the land management project and the transfer of the land plot to communal ownership is an act of individual action, adopted during the exercise of владних управлінських функцій [exercise of authoritative managerial functions]. Obtaining a permit for the development of a land management project does not create property rights and obligations, and the disputed legal relations are not of a private law nature. The plaintiff disputes the actions of the local self-government body, which falls under the jurisdiction of the administrative court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
[**Case No. 1-104/11 of 17/07/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128905852)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of court decisions on the release of a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and the dismissal of civil claims without consideration.
2. The court refused to request the criminal case, since the cassation appeal does not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, namely, it does not contain specific indications of the illegality of the appellate court’s ruling and arguments to substantiate this. The lawyer in the cassation appeal did not indicate in what exactly the illegality of the appellate court’s ruling consists in accordance with the requirements of Article 398 part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, but only referred to the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case. The court noted that the person filing the cassation appeal must indicate specific violations of the law that are the grounds for canceling or changing court decisions, and provide specific evidence and arguments to support each position. Since the cassation appeal does not meet these requirements, it cannot be the subject of consideration by the court of cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to refuse to request the criminal case for verification in cassation procedure.
[**Case No. 569/20492/23 of 17/07/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128905918)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
2. The operative part of the decision does not specify the court’s specific arguments. However, given that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially granted, and the appellate court’s ruling was overturned with
appointment for a new trial, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court found certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case. Perhaps the appellate court did not fully examine the evidence, did not take into account important circumstances of the case, or incorrectly applied the law. For an accurate understanding of the court’s motives, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the resolution, which will state all the arguments and justifications for the decision. Without the full text of the resolution, it is difficult to say exactly which aspects of the appellate decision did not satisfy the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7 and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case №910/18499/20 dated 26/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the validity of the monetary claims of “Interbranch Machine-Building Corporation” LLC against “Khimreaktyv” LLC in the bankruptcy case, which are based on a bill of exchange purchase agreement, subsequently declared invalid.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the monetary claims of “Interbranch Machine-Building Corporation” LLC, justifying this by the fact that the bill of exchange purchase agreement, on which these claims were based, was declared invalid by the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv, which entered into legal force at the time of the consideration of the case in the appellate instance. The court emphasized that an invalid transaction does not create legal consequences, except for those related to its invalidity, and therefore there are no grounds for recognizing monetary claims arising on the basis of such an agreement. The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments about the need to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction (bilateral restitution) are actually a change of the grounds for the stated claims in the court of cassation, which is unacceptable. The court took into account the principle of procedural economy, noting that the cancellation of the appealed court decisions and sending the case for a new trial will not lead to a different result for the applicant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Interbranch Machine-Building Corporation” LLC, and upheld the resolution of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case №286/5265/23 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the legality of the accusation of PERSON_7 under Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale, committed repeatedly or by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, or by a person who has previously committed one of the crimes provided for in Articles 307, 308, 310, 317 of this Code).
2. The operative part of the resolution does not state the arguments of the court, which it was guided by when making the decision. The text only shows that the cassationthe defender’s complaint was dismissed, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged. A full text of the court decision is required to provide a detailed response.
3. The ruling of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal of January 14, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 was left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6 was dismissed.
Case №910/11961/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and the cancellation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on imposing a fine on LLC “Innovative Company “Vizerion” for violation of the legislation on protection of economic competition.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, agreed with the conclusions of the AMCU that LLC “IC “Vizerion” and PE “Spetstekhexport” committed anticompetitive concerted actions related to the distortion of bidding results, since there were close ties between these companies, which made real competition impossible. In particular, the court took into account the facts of the simultaneous presence of the same individuals in labor relations with both companies, the provision of financial assistance between them, monetary settlements between managers, the use of the same IP addresses, synchronicity of actions during participation in bidding, the provision of goods from the same manufacturer for bidding, as well as the location of taxation objects at the same address. The court noted that the totality of these circumstances indicates the consistency of the companies’ actions and their awareness of each other’s activities, which makes real competition impossible. The court also emphasized that for the qualification of actions as anticompetitive, it is not necessary to prove the occurrence of negative consequences, it is enough to have the very fact of agreeing on behavior that may have a negative impact on competition. The court of cassation emphasized that the assessment of evidence is carried out on the basis of their credibility and interrelation in the aggregate, and not on the basis of individual facts.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case №758/428/24 dated 17/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding PERSON_6, accused under Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud).
2. The operative part of the decision does not specify the court’s arguments. To understand them, you need to familiarize yourself with the full text of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case №910/11863/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of services to support the production of electricity from alternative sources under the market premium mechanism.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of previous instances.
with amendments, emphasizing that SE “Guaranteed Buyer” is obliged to timely pay for the services provided by LLC “Lightday”, in accordance with the terms of the contract and legislation, in particular Procedure No. 641, which establishes the final payment deadline – the 25th day of the month following the reporting month; the absence of the Regulator’s approved amount of the service cost does not release the defendant from the obligation of timely payment, as it can make a preliminary calculation based on available information and make adjustments after the cost is approved; the provisions of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding liability for delay in fulfilling a monetary obligation are applicable in this case, as special legislation does not contain norms regulating liability for breach of monetary obligations; the courts of previous instances reasonably refused to reduce the amount of 3% per annum, as the defendant did not prove the existence of circumstances that would justify such a reduction, and also lawfully recovered the costs of professional legal assistance, as the plaintiff provided proper evidence to confirm these costs.
3. The court of cassation instance left the cassation appeals of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 20/5007/703-Б/12 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to open appellate proceedings in a bankruptcy case due to the missed deadline for filing an appeal.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, as the appellant missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the creditor, whose successor the appellant considers itself to be, was duly notified of the court hearings, and the change of creditor is not a ground for renewing the appeal deadlines. Also, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments that it learned about the violation only after the conclusion of the assignment of claim agreement, as the previous creditor was aware of the case and did not appeal the decision. The court took into account that the right to a court is not absolute and is limited by the requirements of procedural law regarding appeal deadlines. The court did not accept the arguments about the appellant’s participation in the territorial defense, as sufficient evidence was not provided that this made it impossible to comply with the procedural deadlines.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 523/22268/23 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement between two individual entrepreneurs.
2. The court refused to open proceedings, as the dispute arose between two individual entrepreneurs, and the previous loan agreement was also concluded between them as business entities.
arbitration nature, indicating the economic nature of the dispute. The court took into account that at the time of filing the lawsuit, both parties were registered as individual entrepreneurs. The court noted that the decisive factor is whether the individual acted as a business entity in the relevant legal relations, and whether these legal relations are economic. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed legal relations arose from a contract concluded between two business entities, and therefore the case is subject to consideration in the commercial court. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the jurisdiction of a dispute depending on the status of an individual as a business entity.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 583/3370/23 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family and the recognition of ownership by way of inheritance.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of cohabitation with the testator as a family for the required five years, including a common budget, joint management of the household, and mutual rights and obligations. The court also took into account that the plaintiff is married and has her own family, which contradicts the claims of living as one family with the testator. In addition, the testator’s granddaughter applied to the notary in a timely manner with a statement of acceptance of the inheritance, which also influenced the court’s decision. The court noted that the testimony of witnesses about help with the household is not sufficient proof of family relations, and photographs of joint celebrations do not confirm established family relations. The court emphasized that evidence cannot be based on assumptions, and each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 243/4300/23 dated 07/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal of Budresurs LLC against the verdict of the court of first instance regarding PERSON_8, accused of crimes under Articles 191 and 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the cassation appeal of Budresurs LLC, canceling the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal. The decision is motivated by the fact that the appellate court, when returning the appeal, did not take into account all the circumstances of the case and committed violations of the norms of the criminal procedure law, which prevented Budresurs LLC from exercising its right to appeal the court decision. The court of cassation pointed out the need for a thorough examination of all the arguments of the appeal and giving them a proper assessment in order to ensure a fair trial. Also, the court
The court of cassation emphasized the importance of observing the procedural rights of participants in criminal proceedings at every stage of the process. As a result, the case was sent for a new trial to the appellate court to eliminate the violations committed.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal of “Budresurs” LLC and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 904/5212/24 dated 07/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Dnipro City Council to secure the claim by imposing an arrest on the property of “Concuritto” LLC within the amount of the claim.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and granted the application to secure the claim. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that there is a risk of alienation of property by the defendant, since “Concuritto” LLC had already alienated property after the opening of proceedings in another similar case. The court took into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which, in cases of recovery of funds, the defendant’s ability to freely dispose of their property may complicate the enforcement of the court’s decision. The court also noted that the imposition of an arrest does not restrict the right to possess and use the property, but only temporarily restricts the right to dispose of it. The defendant did not provide evidence of insufficient funds in the accounts, therefore the court considered the imposition of an arrest on real estate within the amount of the claim to be justified.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Concuritto” LLC, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 759/13330/22 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of funds from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in favor of an individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which established that JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, when filing a complaint, did not indicate which specific rights and freedoms of the debtor were violated by the actions of the state enforcement officer, especially considering that the writ of execution was returned to the claimant shortly after the opening of the proceedings. The court took into account that civil proceedings aim to protect violated rights, and initiating judicial control without proven violation of rights is unacceptable. Also, the court noted that appealing the decision on the recovery of the enforcement fee and the expenses of enforcement proceedings falls under the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The Court of Cassation emphasized that it cannot overturn a decision correct in substance for formal reasons if this does not lead to a violation of the fundamental principles of justice. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, as they were reduced to a reassessment of the evidence, which is beyond its powers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation app
