**Case No. 910/6141/21 dated 07/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the registration action regarding changes in information about a legal entity in the Unified State Register.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (Minjust) violated the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations” when considering the complaint about registration actions. The appellate court found that the Ministry of Justice considered the complaint of a person whose rights were not violated by the contested registration action, which is the basis for leaving the complaint without consideration in accordance with the law. The court also took into account the decision of the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Oblast, which determined the amount of the plaintiff’s share in the authorized capital of the company, which confirmed the violation of his rights as a result of the contested registration actions. The court of cassation emphasized that the dispute about the law was not resolved in this case, but only the legality of the actions of the Ministry of Justice when considering the complaint was assessed.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/10906/23 dated 07/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the political party “European Solidarity” from non-residential premises that it leased from the limited liability company “Enterprise “Kyiv”.
2. The court granted the claim for eviction, as the lease agreement was terminated unilaterally due to the systematic non-payment of rent by the defendant, and, accordingly, the defendant lost the legal basis for using the premises. The court noted that the defendant did not provide any evidence confirming his right to stay in the premises after the termination of the contract. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the notice of termination of the contract did not mention the return of the keys, as the procedure for returning the premises was regulated by the terms of the contract. The court of cassation also took into account that the courts of previous instances fully established the circumstances of the case, examined the evidence, and gave it a proper assessment.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the political party “European Solidarity”, and the decisions of the previous instance courts on eviction remained unchanged.
**Case No. 129/607/24 dated 07/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the defense counsel’s appeal against the verdict of the court of first insttance, which approved the plea agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC), a verdict based on a plea agreement can be appealed only on clearly defined grounds, namely: the court imposed a punishment stricter than agreed by the parties to the agreement; the verdict was rendered without the consent of the accused to the imposition of punishment; the court failed to comply with the requirements established by parts four, six, seven of Article 474 of the CPC of Ukraine, including failure to explain to him the consequences of concluding the agreement. Since the defense counsel in the appeal did not provide grounds for the illegality of the verdict on these grounds, the appellate court rightfully refused to open proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court acted within its powers, since the defense counsel appealed the verdict on grounds not provided for by law for appealing verdicts rendered on the basis of an agreement.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 9901/121/21 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “M-BUD GROUP” against the decree of the President of Ukraine in the part that applied sanctions to the company.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the President of Ukraine acted within his powers defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions.” The court took into account that the decision to apply sanctions was made on the basis of proposals from the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC), which, in turn, acted on the basis of information provided by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The court also noted that the sanctions were applied to protect the national security of Ukraine, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to prevent terrorist activities. The court emphasized that in the context of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the application of sanctions is a necessary measure to ensure national interests. Additionally, the court took into account that LLC “M-BUD GROUP” did not provide sufficient evidence that the application of sanctions is unreasonable or disproportionate.
3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal of LLC “M-BUD GROUP” and uphold the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 456/5757/21 dated 07/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegality of the decision of the privatization body, the cancellation of the certificate of ownership and the decision on state registration, as well as the recognition of ownership of a part of the apartment in the order of privatization and inheritance.
2. The court refused to grant the claim.
in dismissing the claim, since the plaintiff failed to prove that her right to privatization was violated. The court noted that in order to recognize the privatization as illegal, it was necessary to prove that the plaintiff and her deceased husband had unused housing vouchers at the time of privatization of the disputed apartment, which the plaintiff did not do. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff’s deceased husband did not dispute the privatization of the apartment by his granddaughter during his lifetime, but on the contrary, his actions indicated consent to such privatization. The appellate court also rejected the certificate of unused housing vouchers, submitted at the stage of appellate review, as it was not submitted to the court of first instance without proper justification. The court emphasized the principle of adversarial proceedings, according to which each party is obliged to prove the circumstances to which it refers.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case №741/1428/23 dated 07/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the change in the order of the right to inheritance by law, namely the transition from the second line (the testator’s sister) to the first line (along with the testator’s granddaughter by right of representation).
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of providing material assistance to the testator, which would be the main means of subsistence for him, since it was established that the testator had his own funds in bank accounts, from which payments were made for utilities, purchase of medicines and food. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to satisfy the claim for changing the order of inheritance, a combination of circumstances is necessary, including guardianship, material support, other assistance, duration of assistance, and the testator’s helpless state. The Supreme Court noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation has no authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence, unless there were violations of the procedure for its submission and receipt. The court also took into account that the plaintiff filed another lawsuit for reimbursement of expenses for maintenance, care, treatment and burial of the testator, which indicates a separate dispute regarding these expenses.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case №912/1961/24 dated 07/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement due to the systematic non-payment of rent by the lessee.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim for termination of the lease agreement, since the plaintiff did not claim the return of the land plot.
which makes the chosen method of protection ineffective. The court noted that the application of any method of protection must be objectively justified and reasonable, and the chosen method of protection must actually restore the violated right. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that effective protection in such cases is the return of the land plot in a condition no worse than at the time of transfer to lease. The court emphasized that termination of the lease agreement without a demand for the return of the land is not sufficient to protect the right of communal ownership, as it does not oblige the lessee to return the plot. The court also rejected the appellants’ arguments that the presence of immovable property owned by the defendant on the plot prevents its return, as the termination of the lease agreement does not deprive the former lessee of the right to formalize the use of the plot under its property.
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 521/2219/23 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against SE “AMPU” for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, as she was dismissed on the basis of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 41 of the Labor Code of Ukraine due to the impossibility of providing work due to the destruction of property as a result of hostilities.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which reinstated the plaintiff, as the employer did not provide sufficient evidence of familiarizing the employee with the dismissal order and did not offer all available vacancies. At the same time, the court of cassation instance supported the refusal to recover average earnings for the period of forced absence, as at the time of dismissal, the employment contract was suspended on the basis of an order that the plaintiff did not appeal, and therefore, there is no fault of the employer in the impossibility of calculating and paying wages. The court noted that in this case, the employee is not deprived of the opportunity to receive compensation at the expense of the aggressor state in accordance with part four of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Organization of Labor Relations under Martial Law.” The court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where under similar circumstances, the recovery of average earnings from the employer was denied.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 916/2762/20 dated 07/17/2025
1. The dispute in the case concerns the recognition of the invalidity of the act of acceptance and transfer of property to the authorized capital of Arta-Ko LLC and the recovery of this property into the joint common property of the spouses in the bankruptcy case of an individual.
individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the property transferred to the authorized capital of “Arta-Ko” LLC is the joint joint ownership of the spouses, and was alienated without the consent of one of the spouses, which is a violation of the law. The court also supported the position that “Arta-Ko” LLC cannot be considered a bona fide acquirer, since it knew or should have known about the absence of the consent of the other spouse to the alienation of the property. The court noted that an effective way to protect the violated right is to recover the property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also took into account that the transfer of property to the authorized capital of “Arta-Ko” LLC has signs of fraudulence, since it was carried out in order to avoid the inclusion of the property in the liquidation estate of the bankrupt. At the same time, the court of cassation indicated that the claim for recognition of ownership in this case is an ineffective method of protection, since the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession is sufficient.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of recognizing the joint joint ownership of the spouses in the property and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 914/653/24 dated July 15, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the general meeting of participants as invalid, the recognition of the charter as invalid, and the cancellation of registration actions/entries of the Private Enterprise “First Social Medical Laboratory “Eskulab”.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, as they did not establish which specific rights of the plaintiff were violated by the appealed decisions of the general meeting, did not compare the violated right of the plaintiff with the interests of other participants who unanimously voted for these decisions. Also, the courts did not take into account that the Civil Code of Ukraine, as the main act of civil legislation, establishes a more favorable approach regarding the powers of the general meeting to create an executive body, its competence and composition, and its norms should have been applied. In addition, the courts did not refute the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff did not file a motion to postpone the meeting, which, according to the charter, indicates his proper notification and preparation for the meeting. The court also indicated that the courts did not investigate whether the plaintiff’s corporate rights will be restored if there is an unchallenged decision on the reorganization of the executive body. Considering all these shortcomings, the Supreme Court decided that the courts of previous instances did not investigate all the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The 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.
instance.
Case No. 643/13548/16-ц dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of employees of the gas distribution company, the act of violation, the decision of the commission on additional charges for gas volume, the recovery of the cost of gas supply, and the obligation to return the gas meter.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the claims for recognition of the actions of the gas distribution company’s employees as illegal, since such claims cannot be used to protect any civil right or interest. The court also upheld the closure of proceedings regarding the claims for invalidation of the act of violation and cancellation of the calculation act, as there is a court decision that has entered into legal force, made between the same parties, on the same subject, and on the same grounds. At the same time, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the claims for cancellation of the commission’s decision on additional charges for gas volume, recovery of the cost of gas supply, and the obligation to return the gas meter, as the appellate court did not review the appealed decision of the court of first instance within the scope of the stated claims. The court of cassation instance is deprived of the procedural possibility to establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions regarding the claims for recognition of the actions of the gas distribution company’s employees as illegal, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance regarding the other claims.
Case No. 908/1325/22 dated 17/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of electric energy transmission services, as well as 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claim for recovery of debt, 3% per annum, and inflation losses, as the defendant improperly fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The court of cassation instance emphasized that, according to the terms of the contract and established practice, the service user is obliged to pay for both the planned and actual volume of electricity consumed, and late payment of either of them is a violation of a monetary obligation, which entails the accrual of 3% per annum and inflation losses. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the adjustment acts, as these pieces of evidence were not submitted in time to the court of first instance, and the defendant did not prove the impossibility of their submission due to objective reasons. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that liability for violation of a monetary obligation arises both in the case of late payment of the planned volume and the actual
that is consistent with the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 712/1678/18 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the release of a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court’s ruling regarding the allocation of procedural costs related to the conduct of expert examinations, assigning them to the state, but otherwise upheld the appellate court’s ruling, i.e., agreed with the release of the person from criminal liability based on Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part, limiting itself to indicating that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. In fact, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court’s decision regarding the release of the person from criminal liability but changed the decision regarding the payment of court costs.
3. The court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal partially, amending the appellate court’s ruling regarding the allocation of procedural costs, assigning them to the state, and otherwise upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 922/1632/24 dated 21/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a complaint by a joint-stock company against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the imposition of seizure of the debtor’s property within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court erroneously applied the norms of substantive law, believing that the transfer of the debtor’s corporate rights to the management of ARMA (Asset Recovery and Management Agency) makes it impossible for the private enforcement officer to enforce the decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the management of assets by ARMA is not identical to the right of ownership and, therefore, does not change the status of the debtor as a legal entity, the state’s share in the authorized capital of which does not exceed 25%. The court also referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the identity of asset management and ownership rights. The court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” which do not contain restrictions on the enforcement of decisions in the case of temporary asset management without changing the form of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which dismissed the complaint.
**** The court notes in the decision that it deviates from the previous position, which was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
Case №442/6545/22 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses and recovery of compensation for 1/2 share from the jointly owned property.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of both parties, pointing out the errors of the appellate court. The appellate court did not take into account that the value of the property to be divided should be determined at the time of the case consideration, and not at the time of acquisition, and groundlessly took into account the report on the car valuation at an earlier date. Also, the appellate court did not take into account that it is the defendant who sold the jointly owned property without the plaintiff’s consent who must prove that the funds from the sale were used in the interests of the family. The court agreed that the value of the furniture cannot be taken into account, since the plaintiff did not claim the division thereof.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the recovery of compensation for the disputed property (cars and hunting weapons) and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case №752/19052/14-к dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the prosecutor’s appeal against the first instance court’s ruling on the release of a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The appellate court returned the prosecutor’s appeal, considering that the deadline for appealing had been missed, since the first instance court’s ruling was announced on January 8, 2025, and the prosecutor filed an appeal only on January 20, 2025, without filing a motion to renew the deadline. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, since the prosecutor provided evidence (fiscal check) that the appeal was submitted to the post office on January 14, 2025, i.e. within the statutory deadline. Thus, the appellate court prematurely concluded that the deadline for appealing had been missed, which is a significant violation of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case №910/8667/24 dated 17/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the tax authority against the decisions of previous instances courts refusing to recognize monetary claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy case, which consist of corporate income tax and penalties.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances courts on the absence of grounds for recognizing the monetary claims of the tax authority, since at the time of consideration of the application the debtor has no tax debt. The court noted
that the submission of an income tax return for the first half of the year, which takes into account the losses of the second quarter, is an independent tax return that does not require a clarifying calculation. The court also emphasized that the submission of such a declaration does not constitute satisfaction of the creditor’s claims within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine, but is only a determination by the taxpayer of the amount of the tax liability. The court noted that the final calculation of the tax debt should only take into account those obligations that actually arose for the debtor and were not repaid by him at the time of the opening of the bankruptcy case. The court also stated that it does not have the authority to examine evidence and clarify circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/2389/23 dated July 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use and disposal of a land plot, the recognition of the Kyiv City Council’s decision as illegal, the recognition of the lease agreement as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, and the obligation to return the plot.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the previous courts in the part refusing the return of the land plot and issued a new decision satisfying the claim in this part, obliging LLC “NVP “Restin” to return the plot to the territorial community of the city of Kyiv. The court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the state’s interests due to the improper use of the leased land plot. At the same time, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court did not satisfy the claims to recognize the Kyiv City Council’s decision as illegal and the lease agreement as invalid, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous courts in this part. The court proceeded from the fact that the return of the plot is a sufficient way to protect the interests of the state in this case. Also, the court decided to recover court costs from the defendants in favor of the prosecutor’s office.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and obliged LLC “NVP “Restin” to return the land plot to the territorial community of the city of Kyiv.
Case No. 317/1921/22 dated July 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the purchase and sale agreement of a forestry land plot as invalid and its return to the state.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing out that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right of the state, namely, a negatory action, while in this case a vindicatory action should have been filed, since the state does not possess the disputed land
plot, and the right of ownership to it is registered to the defendant. The court noted that the possibility of acquiring private ownership of land plots of forestry designation is provided by law, and the courts of previous instances did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of a vindication claim in similar disputes. The court also emphasized that for the effective restoration of the state’s right, it is necessary to recover the land plot from someone else’s illegal possession. The plaintiff’s arguments about the impossibility of acquiring private ownership of forestry land contradict the norms of the Forest and Land Codes of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 922/3697/24 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties and fines from “Oil and Gas Equipment Plant” LLC in favor of “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” JSC due to violations of the terms of the supply agreement.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, agreed with the calculation of penalties and fines, but reduced their amount by 90%, taking into account the circumstances that affected the defendant’s failure to fulfill its obligations. The court took into account the defendant’s actions aimed at fulfilling the agreement, including proposals to amend it, as well as circumstances beyond its control, such as the full-scale invasion, shelling of Kharkiv, and damage to production facilities. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of losses incurred, and the defendant paid security for the fulfillment of obligations. The court decided that the full amount of penalties is excessive and has signs of a punitive sanction, therefore, it reduced them, guided by the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” JSC, and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 905/36/23 dated 21/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from a person who has debt to the debtor.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular Article 269 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since it accepted evidence that was not submitted to the court of first instance, without proper justification of the reasons that objectively prevented its submission earlier. The appellate court did not investigate whether there were valid reasons why “Dashukivski Bentonites” JSC did not provide evidence of the assignment of the right of claim and offsetting of counterclaims to the court of first instance. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the principle of procedural economy cannot justify non-compliance with mandatory norms of procedural law. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that the assessment of arguments regarding violation of norms of m
