**Case No. 761/48660/19 of 16/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of claim rights under credit and mortgage agreements, the recognition of the right of claim under these agreements for the plaintiff, and the cancellation of decisions of state registrars.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the contract of sale of claim rights dated December 31, 2014, is void, and therefore, the subsequent contract of sale of claim rights dated July 04, 2015, is also invalid, since it was concluded by a person who did not have the right to sell these assets. The court noted that the institute of a bona fide purchaser does not apply to relations regarding the transfer of claim rights, which are regulated by the law of obligations, and not by property law. The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the disputed contract of sale of claim rights dated May 25, 2018, there was already a dispute regarding the invalidity of previous contracts. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the rights of the new owner of the apartment, which is the subject of the mortgage, were rejected, since the transfer of ownership occurred after the decision of the court of first instance. The court also emphasized that the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim between the bank and Finance Company LLC was concluded on the basis of valid results of electronic auctions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 531/912/23 of 16/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the local self-government body regarding the transfer of land to communal ownership and its subsequent transfer to private ownership to another person, as well as the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of this land plot.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court prematurely satisfied the claim, since the status of the disputed land plot and the legality of the village council’s decision to transfer it to the defendant’s ownership were not properly established; the appellate court mistakenly shifted the burden of proving the legality of the transfer of the land plot to communal ownership to the defendant, while the plaintiff had to prove the illegality of such actions; in order to cancel the decision of the village council, it is necessary to establish the illegality of this decision and the status of the land plot, which the appellate court did not do; the court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case or re-evaluate the evidence, therefore, the case must be returned for a new trial.
to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 2-41/97 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the convicted person’s cassation appeal against the court’s decision to bring the sentence into compliance with the law and to mitigate the punishment.
2. The court of cassation refused to request the case file because the cassation appeal was filed after the deadline established by the procedural law. The court noted that the issue of restoring the term for cassation appeal is not within its competence, but should be decided by the court that heard the case, in accordance with Article 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960. Since the convicted person applied for the restoration of the term directly to the court of cassation, without complying with the proper procedure, his complaint cannot be considered. The court also rejected the motion to recuse the judge, as the arguments presented did not contain grounds provided for in Articles 54-55 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960. The judge noted that there are no procedural obstacles for the convicted person to apply for the restoration of the term to the competent court.
3. The court dismissed the motion to recuse the judge, left the motion to restore the term for cassation appeal without consideration, and refused to request the case file on the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 824/33/25 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of A.X. AGROSLAVINVEST S.R.O. to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) regarding the recovery from it in favor of “Trading House “Novaagro” LLC of debt for delivered goods, penalties, and other expenses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to dismiss the application to set aside the ICAC decision, as the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of the ICAC’s lack of competence to hear the dispute. The court noted that the arbitration agreement between the parties provided for the resolution of disputes in the ICAC, and the applicant did not properly prove the conclusion of an additional agreement to change this jurisdiction to the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast. The court also took into account the inconsistent behavior of the applicant, who initially denied the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast, and then referred to it as the proper one. The court emphasized that the powers of the national court when considering cases on the setting aside of decisions of international commercial arbitration are limited, and it
cannot review these decisions on the merits. The court also took into account the principle of autonomy of the arbitration agreement, according to which doubts about its validity are interpreted in favor of its validity.
3. The court dismissed the appeal of A.X. AGROSLAVINVEST S.R.O., and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 331/4882/23 dated 21/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for treason and collaborative activity.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing treason (Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and collaborative activity (Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court likely considered the provided evidence, its relevance and admissibility, as well as the completeness of the trial. Also, the court could have taken into account the validity of the classification of the convicted person’s actions and the correspondence of the assigned punishment to the severity of the committed crimes and the identity of the perpetrator. The absence of reasonable grounds for cancellation or modification of the appealed court decisions also influenced the decision of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 522/18958/23 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the loan agreement and the additional agreement to it as un заключёнными (not concluded).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his rights, namely, the requirement to recognize the agreement as not concluded is not a proper way of protection in this case. The court noted that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection is an independent ground for dismissing the claim, and the courts of previous instances mistakenly assessed the circumstances on the merits of the dispute, while indicating the inappropriateness of the chosen method of protection. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts should have dismissed the claim precisely because of the inappropriateness of the chosen method of protection, without assessing the circumstances on the merits of the dispute. The court of cassation changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, emphasizing that the refusal to satisfy the claim is based solely on the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective method of protection.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
in the part of their motivation, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 991/6084/25 dated 17/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the property of the defendants in the case of recognition of unjustified assets and their recovery to the state revenue.
2. The Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the seizure of the defendants’ vehicles, as there are reasonable grounds to believe that these assets may be recognized as unjustified and recovered to the state revenue. The court took into account that failure to take measures to secure the claim may complicate the enforcement of the court decision in the event of the claim being satisfied, as there is a risk of alienation of property. The appellants’ arguments about the absence of a real risk of alienation of property were not convincing, since the defendants’ awareness of the inspection does not exclude the possibility of committing actions to alienate property in the future. The court also noted that the imposed arrest does not prevent the use of the property, but only restricts the right to dispose of it, which is a proportionate restriction of the right of ownership. The court has the right to examine the evidence attached to the statement of claim when considering the application for securing the claim, as they are part of the evidence base.
3. The appeals of the defendants’ representatives were dismissed, and the ruling of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court was upheld.
**Case No. 991/7017/25 dated 21/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is a criminal proceeding against two judge’s assistants, accused of abuse of influence and forgery of documents by prior conspiracy.
2. The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court approved the plea agreement, taking into account that the accused fully admitted their guilt, undertook to cooperate in exposing another person involved in the corruption crime, and ensure the transfer of bail to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine; the court also took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, the presence of minor children and the absence of material damage from the crime. The court concluded that the agreement is in the interests of society, as it ensures a quick trial, helps to expose other crimes and supports the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights and interests of the parties, are concluded voluntarily, and the agreed punishment is necessary and sufficient for the correction of the accused.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and senimposed on the accused a sentence of imprisonment with a probationary period, obligating them to transfer the bail to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Case No. 990/8/24 dated June 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) regarding the application of sanctions to a natural person and a legal entity.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the President acted within the limits of his constitutional powers when enacting the NSDC decision on sanctions, which was adopted based on proposals from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The court noted that the existence of a real or potential threat to national interests is an evaluative concept, and the President has discretion in assessing the sufficiency of grounds for imposing sanctions. The court also took into account that the SBU provided evidence confirming the existence of circumstances that served as the basis for submitting the proposal to apply sanctions. The court indicated that sanctions are not a type of liability, but a restrictive measure to protect national interests, and that interference with the right of ownership is proportional to the goal of ensuring national security. The court also rejected arguments about procedural violations, as it did not establish them during the consideration of the case.
3. The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, dismissing the claim.
Case No. 686/28662/23 dated July 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right of joint joint ownership to a part of a brick factory, the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right of ownership to this factory, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff filed a claim only against “Podilskyi Tsehelnyk” LLC, although the requirement to recognize the right of joint joint ownership arises from an investment agreement with an individual entrepreneur (IE), who should be the proper defendant for this requirement. The court noted that the plaintiff did not make claims against the IE for recognition of ownership, and other claims are derived from this main requirement. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the determination of defendants is the right of the plaintiff, but the establishment of the properness of the defendants is the duty of the court. Since the plaintiff did not involve the IE as a co-defendant, and it is the IE that is a party to the investment agreement, this is grounds for dismissing the claim. The court also noted that the procedural status of a third party (IE in this case) differs from the status of the defendant, and the court cannot
to decide on the rights and obligations of a third party in a dispute between the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 201/11849/23 dated July 21, 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 a person under Part 3 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (collaborative activity).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, pointing out the inadmissibility of referring in court decisions to data obtained from protocols of presenting a person for identification by photographs, as there were violations during these investigative actions. The Court noted that such evidence cannot be relevant and admissible. At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the other parts of the court decisions, which indicates that other evidence was deemed sufficient to prove the person’s guilt. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of complying with procedural rules during the collection of evidence to ensure a fair trial. The judges took into account that the exclusion of inadmissible evidence does not affect the overall validity of the conviction.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, excluding references to certain evidence from the court decisions, but otherwise upheld the court decisions.
Case No. 500/2276/24 dated July 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax assessment notices issued by the controlling authority.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which dismissed the lawsuit of the individual entrepreneur. The Court noted that in the case of appealing tax assessment notices after using the administrative appeal procedure, a special norm of the Tax Code of Ukraine applies, which establishes a one-month period for appealing to the court, and not the general norm of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, which provides for a three-month period. The court emphasized that the taxpayer missed the one-month deadline for appealing to the court and did not provide valid reasons for its reinstatement. The Court also noted that there is no conflict between the norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, since the special norm takes precedence. The Court departed from the conclusion set out in paragraph 101 of the Grand Chamber’s decision of January 19, 2023, in case No. 140/1770/19, that the norm of paragraph 56.18 of Article 56 of the Tax Code of Ukraine establishes special deadlines for appealing to the court, referring to this issue
