Case No. 650/2364/23 dated 07/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the father in relation to his minor child.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities. The courts noted that the fact of the father’s separate residence from the child is not in itself a sufficient basis for deprivation of parental rights. Also, the courts took into account that the conclusion of the guardianship authority does not contain sufficient justification for the need to deprive parental rights. The appellate court additionally noted that the defendant showed interest in the child by acknowledging the claim for alimony, which indicates his desire to participate in the child’s maintenance. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in cases where it is impossible to change the parents’ behavior, and only if they are at fault.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 686/4313/20 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of inviolability of dwelling).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and reasonably found PERSON_6 guilty of illegally entering the victim’s apartment. The court noted that the concept of “dwelling” in the criminal law aspect is broader than in civil law, and covers any premises intended for residence, regardless of their actual use at the time of the crime. Also, the court rejected the arguments of the cassator regarding the violation of the terms of the pre-trial investigation, since the period of familiarization with the case materials is not included in the general term of the investigation. The court did not agree with the claims about the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular video recordings, since no violations of the procedure for obtaining them were established.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 927/439/24 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of actions as illegal, the cancellation of the order and the obligation to perform certain actions.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings opened on the basis of paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Proof the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which indicates that the court did not find grounds for cassation appeal in this part. Regarding the ground for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged. This means that the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the Commercial Court of Chernihiv Oblast and the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, finding no violations of substantive or procedural law that would lead to the cancellation or amendment of the appealed decisions. The court of cassation instance upheld the legality and validity of the decisions of previous instances, leaving them in force.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 926/1601/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the orders of the State Geocadastre regarding the inventory and transfer of land plots to communal ownership, as well as the cancellation of state registration of these plots.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on several key arguments. First, the prosecutor cannot file a lawsuit against himself, that is, against the state body, which is the State Geocadastre. Secondly, the method of protection chosen by the prosecutor – cancellation of state registration of land plots – is ineffective, since the proper method of protection in this case is a vindication claim, that is, claiming property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also noted that the cancellation of state registration may lead to a gap in the State Register of Real Property Rights. In addition, the court took into account that one of the challenged orders is missing from the case file, which casts doubt on the validity of the claims in this part. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the need to take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 922/2524/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the former director of LLC “UKN” to recognize the termination of labor relations and exclude her data from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations (USR).
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect her rights, because
that exclusion of information about her from the Unified State Register is not a proper way of protection in this case. The courts noted that the plaintiff, for a long time after her dismissal, actually performed the duties of a director, in particular, signed documents and submitted them to state authorities, which indicates her participation in the management of the enterprise. The court pointed out that an effective way of protection would be to oblige LLC “UKN” to carry out state registration of changes to the information in the Unified State Register regarding the change of director, but such a requirement was not stated. In addition, the courts referred to the fact that the court is not entitled to interfere in the activities of the state registration service, obliging it to enter any information into the unified state register. The court also took into account the declarative principle of state registration, according to which the authorized person must submit documents for making changes to the register.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts – without changes.
Case No. 990/2/25 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision and inaction of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the failure to provide the judge with the opportunity to review the materials of the disciplinary case through the electronic cabinet.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HCJ provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to review the materials of disciplinary cases, although not through the electronic cabinet, as the plaintiff requested, but through a cloud storage and partially through the electronic cabinet, which meets the requirements of the HCJ Regulations. The court noted that the Regulations do not provide for the applicant’s right to determine the method of reviewing the materials of the disciplinary case, but only offers alternative options, taking into account technical capabilities. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s right to review the case file was fully ensured, as the HCJ provided access to the materials in a manner prescribed by law. The court also took into account that the task of administrative proceedings is to protect the violated rights, and in this case, the violation of the plaintiff’s rights was not established.
3. The court dismissed the appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance – without changes.
Case No. 237/3510/23 dated 07/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder in connection with the performance of official duties.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt in committing the crime under clause 8 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely the intentional murder of a person in connection with the performance of his official duties.
that the murder was committed against the commander while he was performing his military duties. The court of cassation noted that the motive of the crime was precisely the performance of official duties by the victim, and not personal insult. At the same time, the court of cassation drew attention to the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination, according to which the convicted person suffers from a mental disorder, which affected his ability to understand his actions and control them. Considering this, the court of cassation decided to mitigate the imposed punishment and apply to the convicted person a compulsory medical measure in the form of providing outpatient psychiatric care in a compulsory manner at the place of serving the sentence.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, but changed the court decisions regarding the imposed punishment and the application of the compulsory medical measure.
Case No. 904/2351/24 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Interpipe Niko Tube LLC in favor of Ukrgasvydobuvannya JSC of a penalty and fine accrued for alleged violation of contractual obligations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, without specifying specific arguments in this part of the resolution, but sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance. This may indicate that the courts of previous instances, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law, or committed other violations that made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. Perhaps, the court of first instance will need to re-examine the evidence, assess the arguments of the parties, or take other procedural actions for the correct resolution of the dispute. Also, the court of cassation may have had doubts about the validity of the calculation of the penalty and fine, or about the existence of grounds for their accrual at all.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Case No. 907/914/22 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 7,293,039.33.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of Ferment Plus LLC, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part regarding the closure of proceedings against Aliado LLC and Maersk Ukraine LTD LLC, and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court. The court of cassation probably found that the appellate court mistakenly closed the proceedings against these defendants, possibly due to incorrect application of the norms of procedural law or incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case. The decision to send the case for a new trial indicates
regarding the need for a re-evaluation of the evidence and arguments of the parties regarding the liability of Aliado LLC and Maersk Ukraine LTD LLC. In other part, the appellate court’s ruling was left unchanged, which may indicate the validity of the appellate court’s decision regarding other aspects of the dispute or another defendant (Maersk A/S Company).
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling regarding the dismissal of proceedings against two defendants and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and in other part, the ruling was left unchanged.
Case No. 990/171/24 dated July 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the HQCJ’s decision to refuse to recommend the appointment to the position of a judge.
2. The court granted the claim, as the HQCJ did not provide sufficient grounds for the refusal of recommendation, and its conclusions were subjective and based on assumptions, not on specific facts. The court noted that the HQCJ did not prove that the circumstances specified in the decision affect the candidate’s ability to administer justice honestly and impartially. Also, the court pointed to the inconsistency of the HQCJ’s actions, which had previously recognized the candidate as meeting the requirements for the position of a judge. The court emphasized that the HQCJ’s decision must be reasoned, impartial and reasonable, and doubts about the candidate’s integrity must be supported by specific evidence. The court also took into account that the candidate provided explanations regarding all disputed issues, and the HQCJ did not provide evidence that would refute these explanations.
3. The court признав визнав illegal and overturned the decision of the HQCJ and obliged the Commission to conduct a repeated interview with the plaintiff.
Case No. 346/277/23 dated July 11, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for recovery of debt under loan agreements, since the defendant did not provide evidence of repayment of funds. The court noted that the presence of the original receipt from the plaintiff indicates the defendant’s failure to fulfill the obligation. The court also took into account that the defendant admitted the fact of signing the receipt, which the plaintiff insisted on. The court of cassation emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances it refers to, and the courts of previous instances reasonably partially satisfied the claims. Regarding the accrual of 3% per annum, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which took into account the provisions on the borrower’s exemption from liability under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine for the period of martial law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of the denegotiability and 3% per annum (taking into account the period of martial law) unchanged, and closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the claims for recovery of debt under one of the loan agreements.
Case No. 1-1000/2011 of 22/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the district court and the decision of the court of appeal regarding persons accused of committing a criminal offense.
2. The judge of the Supreme Court, considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, found that the case concerns the accusation of persons of committing a particularly serious crime under Part 1 of Article 255 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, the participation of a defense attorney is mandatory in such cases. Taking this into account, the judge decided to schedule the case for cassation review with mandatory notification of the participants in the proceedings and explanation of their rights. This decision is based on the need to ensure the right to defense of the accused in criminal proceedings.
3. The court scheduled the criminal case for review in cassation proceedings by the Supreme Court and determined the mandatory participation of a defense attorney in the proceedings.
Case No. 460/2089/25 of 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against actions/inaction of state authorities regarding non-payment of pension and non-provision of funds in the budget to repay debt under a court decision.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to return the statement of claim, as the plaintiff combined in one statement claims that are within the jurisdiction of different courts: to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a court of first instance) and to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service (subject to the jurisdiction of the district administrative court). The court noted that the list of cases subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a court of first instance is exhaustive. Combining claims that are subject to the jurisdiction of different courts is a violation of the rules for combining claims established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court also indicated that the return of the statement of claim does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to re-apply to the court with a proper claim. The Grand Chamber emphasized that it has no legal grounds to separate the claims in this case.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 455/338/20 of 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney,
indicating that the courts of previous instances unreasonably took into account the fact of overtaking within the populated area, since there were no corresponding road signs at the scene of the accident. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of the “populated area” sign does not require the driver to comply with the rules governing traffic in the populated area. At the same time, the court noted that the exclusion of this circumstance does not affect the conclusion about the violation of other clauses of the Traffic Regulations, in particular, regarding the prohibition of overtaking in front of a pedestrian crossing. The court also recognized as justified the conclusions about the existence of a causal relationship between the driver’s actions and the consequences of the accident, since it was his violation of the Traffic Regulations that led to the tragic consequences. The court of cassation instance confirmed that the investigative experiment was conducted voluntarily, and the conclusions of the examinations do not contain significant discrepancies.
2. The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the previous instances, excluding references to overtaking in the populated area from the reasoning parts, but left the court decisions unchanged in other parts.
Case No. 243/4300/23 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the court of appeal on the return of the appeal of “Budresurs” LLC against the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the accusation of PERSON_8 of official negligence, which, according to “Budresurs” LLC, led to losses of the company.
2. The court of appeal returned the appeal of “Budresurs” LLC, motivating it by the fact that the company is not a party to the criminal proceedings and, accordingly, does not have the right to appeal the verdict. The Supreme Court did not agree with such a decision, emphasizing that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code, everyone has the right to appeal a court decision that concerns their rights and interests, regardless of whether they were a party to the court hearing. The court indicated that the verdict of the court of first instance contains circumstances that directly relate to the property interests of “Budresurs” LLC, since they indicate the transfer of funds to the company’s account in an amount exceeding the value of the actually performed works. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal did not properly analyze the arguments of the appeal of “Budresurs” LLC and did not take into account that the appealed verdict may affect the rights and interests of the company.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 947/26071/22 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the act and resolution of the private enforcement officer on the transfer of property to the claimant, the recognition of the certificate of acquisition of property from auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership, and the termination of p
Rights of ownership to a residential building.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, as it took a formal approach to resolving the dispute, did not clarify the nature of the disputed legal relations, did not evaluate the arguments of the appeal and the statement of claim, and also did not take into account that the electronic auction did not actually take place, and the property was transferred to the creditor under a procedure other than the sale of property at auction. The court also noted that the appellate court agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the effective method of judicial protection of the plaintiff’s rights, but at the same time dismissed the claim on formal grounds, which is contradictory. In addition, the court of cassation instance indicated that in this case there was no legal transaction that could be declared invalid on the basis of the norms of civil legislation on the invalidity of legal transactions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal instance.
Case No. 643/11513/23 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the pensioner’s claim against the individual entrepreneur for the return of funds that, in her opinion, were transferred to fraudsters through the defendant’s account.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the absence of legal grounds for the defendant to receive funds and conduct unfair business activities. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of contacting law enforcement agencies with a statement about the defendant’s fraudulent actions. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the consideration of the case by an unauthorized panel of judges, since the replacement of the judge took place in accordance with the established procedure. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the arguments about the lack of time for the judge to familiarize himself with the case files are only assumptions. In addition, the court indicated that the cassation appeal does not contain arguments regarding the incorrect application of substantive law and violation of procedural law in resolving the dispute on its merits.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 569/20492/23 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the amendment of the verdict against PERSON_7, convicted of illegal drug trafficking (Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The appellate court amended the verdict of the court of first instance, excluding the qualifying element of “particularly dangerous narcotic drug” from the charge and replacing the punishment with imprisonment under probationary supervision, motivating this by the positive post-criminal behavior of the accused and his repentance. The Supreme Court
disagreed with this decision, noting that the appellate court did not adequately substantiate why the punishment imposed by the local court was unfair and why probationary supervision is an adequate type of punishment in this case, considering the system of punishments defined by Article 51 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Also, the appellate court did not justify why it believes that probationary supervision, and not, for example, restriction of liberty, is the type of punishment that meets the requirements of Articles 50, 65 of the Criminal Code in this case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court’s ruling must contain proper reasoning and references to the law that the court relied on, which was not done in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 580/710/24 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Cherkasy region to recalculate and pay the pension to the plaintiff using the average salary indicator for 2020-2022.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, stating that the courts did not take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court that the content of the application, and not the formal adherence to the approved form, is of key importance in resolving disputes regarding the appointment or recalculation of pensions. The Court emphasized that in this case, the attorney’s request contained a clear request for recalculation of the pension, taking into account the relevant salary indicators, which indicates the plaintiff’s obvious desire to exercise their right. The Court also noted that the refusal to consider the application on formal grounds alone is a manifestation of excessive formalism, violates the principle of “good governance” and “legitimate expectations.” At the same time, the Court cannot oblige the defendant to make a recalculation, as this is the defendant’s discretionary power, which requires verification of all legally defined conditions and grounds for such recalculation.
3. The Court recognized as unlawful the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Cherkasy region to recalculate the pension and ordered to reconsider the plaintiff’s application, taking into account the conclusions set out in the resolution.
Case No. 686/15993/21 dated 07/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for an additional decision regarding reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, motivating it by the fact that the costs of professional legal assistance must be real, necessary and reasonable in size, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the services of a lawyer, such as familiarization with the cassation appeal, research
judgment of judicial practice and preparation of a response are partially duplicated and are components of one task. The court also took into account that the amount of the fee was fixed and did not depend on the volume of services provided. The court referred to the practice of the ECtHR and its own previous decisions, which emphasized the need to assess the costs of legal assistance taking into account their reasonableness and proportionality. The court also noted that in the absence of a motion from the other party to reduce costs, the court may reduce them only on its own initiative, guided by the criteria defined in the CPC of Ukraine.
2. The court ordered the recovery from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 of UAH 5,000.00 as reimbursement of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance, refusing to satisfy the rest of the claims.
Case No. 758/428/24 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to leave unchanged the judgment of the court of first instance, by which the person was convicted of fraud (Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and released from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedural law regarding a comprehensive review of the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, in particular, it did not provide proper justification for the correctness of applying the institution of release from serving the sentence with probation to the convicted person. The appellate court did not analyze the arguments of the prosecutor, who insisted on imposing a real punishment, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person. The court of appeal limited itself to a formal reference to agreement with the conclusions of the court of first instance, without providing its own reasons why the correction of the convicted person is possible without actual imprisonment. Such a superficial attitude to the consideration of the appeal indicates a violation of the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 933/248/24 dated 07/23/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgments of the court of first and appellate instances regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed in large quantities or under martial law or a state of emergency).
The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgments of the previous instances.
Case No. 922/468/22 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of agreements on the supply and distribution of electrical energy as concluded for the purpose of supplying/distributing electricity to п
household consumers with payment at tariffs for household consumers.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts because they did not properly assess the defendants’ arguments regarding the lack of documents on the commissioning of residential real estate objects to which electricity is supplied, and also did not investigate the issue of ensuring separate accounting of electricity for the technical needs of the building and the domestic needs of residents. The court noted that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is important to establish whether the objects were put into operation as residential, whether separate accounting of electricity is ensured, and what needs the electricity supply ensures. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts must evaluate the evidence comprehensively, fully and objectively, and the decisions must be legal and justified. Since the courts of previous instances did not fulfill these requirements, their decisions were recognized as premature and subject to cancellation. The court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case, therefore the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
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.
Case No. 2-295/2009 dated 07/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, namely overdue interest and penalties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recovery of overdue debt on interest and penalties, since the defendant improperly fulfilled his obligations under the loan agreement; the court noted that the plaintiff requested to recover precisely the overdue debt on interest, which arose as of March 20, 2009, as well as a penalty for untimely fulfillment of obligations under the agreement, accrued as of July 16, 2010; the court rejected the defendant’s argument about the expiration of the loan term, since the change in the loan term under the agreement is related to sending a notice of loan repayment, which was not done; the court also took into account that the loan term changed as a result of foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage in another case; the court indicated that the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the defendant referred to, were made under other factual circumstances, therefore they cannot be the basis for canceling the appealed court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in the part of the satisfied claims for the recovery of debt on interest and penalties.
Case No. 216/6411/21 dated 07/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the refusal to inherit and the claim
Transfer of immovable property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the waiver of inheritance, drawn up in a simple written form without notarization, is void. The court noted that the demand to recognize such a waiver as invalid is not an effective way of protection, as it does not ensure the restoration of the plaintiff’s violated right. Also, the courts correctly established that the consequences of the nullity of the defendant’s written waiver do not affect the validity of the contracts of sale and donation of the disputed apartment, and therefore, there are no grounds for its recovery from someone else’s illegal possession. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument about not being provided with the opportunity to file a motion for the appointment of a forensic handwriting examination, as the plaintiff’s representative did not file such a motion in the court of appeal, and there were no mandatory grounds for appointing an examination. The court of cassation emphasized that the principle of adversarial proceedings places the burden of proof on the parties, and the court is not obliged to consider proven a circumstance asserted by a party if it is not supported by proper evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 903/499/24 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions regarding the transfer of a land plot to the authorized capital of the company as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot, and the recognition of ownership of it by the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his rights, since there were no contractual relations between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, and therefore, real property law remedies, such as a claim for recovery of property, would be more appropriate. The court noted that the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claims would not lead to the actual protection of his interests, as it would not restore his violated right. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff acquired the right of a mortgagee to the disputed land plot, and therefore, has the right to demand it from the last acquirer. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the claim in full.
Case No. 990SCGS/7/25 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on bringing the judge to disciplinary responsibility.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the judge’s complaint, canceling the decision of the High Council of Justice on bringing
her to disciplinary liability. The court likely took into account the complainant’s arguments regarding the lack of sufficient grounds for holding her liable, possibly pointing to the inconsistency of the judge’s actions with the criteria of a disciplinary offense. Also, procedural violations committed by the High Council of Justice during the consideration of the case may have been taken into account. The court could have concluded that the HCJ did not properly assess all the circumstances of the case, or incorrectly applied the norms of legislation governing the disciplinary liability of judges. It is important that the decision of the Grand Chamber is final and not subject to appeal, which emphasizes the importance of this decision for the judge.
3. The court granted the judge’s complaint and overturned the decision of the High Council of Justice on holding her disciplinary liable.
Case No. 990/3/22 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of PJSC “Volyn Mining and Chemical Company” against the Decree of the President of Ukraine regarding the application of sanctions to the company, imposed by the decision of the National Security and Defense Council.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, as the court of first instance reasonably dismissed the claim due to the repeated failure of the plaintiff’s representative to appear at court hearings, who was duly notified of the time and place of the case consideration. The court noted that the plaintiff did not ensure the representation of its interests in court, which prevented the consideration of the case on its merits, taking into account the nature of the disputed legal relations and the scope of circumstances that need to be established. The appellant’s arguments about the impossibility of the representative’s participation in court hearings due to conscription for military service were rejected, as sufficient evidence was not provided of the impossibility of transferring access to official correspondence or authorizing another representative. The court emphasized the obligation of the parties to the case to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to inform the court of a change of location, and also pointed to the lack of registration of the plaintiff’s electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System.
3. The court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal.
Case No. 990/173/25 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Council of Justice on the dismissal of a judge of the Kyiv District Administrative Court in connection with the submission of a resignation application.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to open proceedings, as it believes that the challenged decision of the High Council of Justice is an act of individual action, as it relates to a specific person – a judge who was dismissed from office. The right to appeal such an act belongs exclusively
person in respect of whom it was adopted, or whose rights and interests are directly affected. The court emphasized that the task of administrative proceedings is to protect the violated right of a person, and not to restore legality in public legal relations. Also, the Grand Chamber rejected the appellant’s arguments that the decision of the HJC imposes an obligation on the Kyiv District Administrative Court to dismiss a judge who is not on the staff of the court, since the appealed decision does not contain any indication of such an obligation. The court emphasized that restrictions on appealing acts of individual action do not restrict access to the court, since the addressees of these acts can appeal them.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 743/1378/13-к dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the return of the application of the convicted PERSON_6 for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely Articles 429 and 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since, having discovered that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 462 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it did not give the applicant the opportunity to correct the deficiencies, but immediately returned it. In addition, the appellate court, returning the application, actually considered it on the merits, noting the absence of circumstances that could affect the court decision and were not known to the court during the appellate review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of Part 2 of Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be understood as granting the judge the authority to check the existence of grounds for initiating proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances and to decide on the initiation of such proceedings or refusal to initiate them. Such a violation is significant, as it casts doubt on the legality and validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing of PERSON_6’s application in the court of appeal.
Case No. 160/30897/24 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision issued by the tax authority to PJSC “KAMET-STEEL”.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, agreed with their conclusions regarding the unfoundedness of the tax notice-decision. The courts of previous instances established that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm violations of tax legislation by PJSC “KAMET-STEEL”. In particular, it was not proven that the economic operations, which formed the basis for the accrual of tax liabilities, were fictitious or did not have a real character. The court of cassation emphasized that the tax authority
