[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129045074](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129045074)
**Case No. 750/11077/23 dated 17/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding PERSON_8, convicted under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code (robbery committed in large amounts or under martial law).
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_8’s guilt in the open theft of a jacket from the store, emphasizing that her actions were confirmed by the testimony of the victim, witnesses, video recordings, and other evidence. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the absence of intent and the inadmissibility of evidence, noting that the appellate court reasonably refuted these arguments. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the decision of the appellate court regarding the imposition of punishment, considering it too severe. The court pointed out that the appellate court did not properly take into account the mitigating circumstances, in particular, the positive characteristics of PERSON_8, the presence of a family and a minor child, as well as the state of excitement caused by the conflict with the store. The court emphasized that the punishment should not only be a penalty but also contribute to the correction of the convicted person, and the appellate court did not justify why the application of milder measures would not ensure the achievement of this goal.
3. The Supreme Court amended the verdict of the appellate court, applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code to PERSON_8 and imposing a punishment below the lowest limit prescribed by law, in the form of 5 years of imprisonment, and also released her from serving the sentence on probation based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code with a probationary period of 3 years.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129060052](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129060052)
**Case No. 359/5164/23 dated 22/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s return of appellate complaints filed by both the defense counsel and the accused himself against the first instance court’s verdict.
2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the appellate court violated the accused’s right to appeal a court decision, as provided for in Article 24 and Clause 6 of Part 4 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that in exceptional cases, when the accused independently eliminates the deficiencies of the appellate complaint filed by the defense counsel, due to the termination of the legal aid agreement, the death of the defense counsel, or other impossibility for the defense counsel to correct the deficiencies, the court must take these circumstances into account. In this case, the accused clearly indicated that he was filing an appellate complaint due to the refusal of the services of the previous defense counsel, therefore, the appellate court had to assess his complaint for the elimination of deficiencies, and not return it formally due to the expiration of the term. The interconnectedness of the rulings on the return of the complaints of the defense counsel and the accused necessitated the cancellation of both decisions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appellate complaints to the accused and his defense counsel and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 990/312/23 dated 07/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the termination of the plaintiff’s citizenship of Ukraine.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the President of Ukraine acted within the scope of his powers defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, issuing the Decree on the basis of the submission of the SMS and the proposals of the SSU, which were based on the established fact of the plaintiff’s voluntary acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation as an adult. The court noted that the SSU has the authority to detect the facts of acquisition of foreign citizenship by citizens of Ukraine, and the SMS lawfully submitted to the President a submission on the loss of citizenship by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments about acquiring citizenship of the Russian Federation as a minor and about violations of the procedure for termination of citizenship were rejected by the court as unfounded and not supported by relevant evidence. The court also took into account that the termination of citizenship of Ukraine will not make the plaintiff a stateless person, and that the legislation of Ukraine does not exclude the possibility of restoring citizenship after its loss.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
**Case No. 939/856/24 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of children and penalties for late payment of alimony.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance in the part of the recovery of penalties for late payment of alimony. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court had no reason to question the calculation of arrears provided by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not refute it and did not provide his own calculations. The court also emphasized that it is the alimony payer who has the obligation to prove the absence of fault in the occurrence of arrears. Regarding the recovery of alimony, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that alimony should be recovered until the eldest child reaches the age of majority, and then the amount of alimony may be reviewed in a new claim.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to recover the penalty and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, and in the other part, the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 916/960/25 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in connection with the appeal review of the ruling on securing the claim.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court on the partial satisfaction of the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, since the plaintiff did not file a claim after filing the application for securing the claim, which makes it impossible to resolve the disp
motion on the merits and the allocation of court costs based on the results of such consideration. The court noted that otherwise, the defendant would be deprived of the opportunity to recover its legal aid expenses, which contradicts the principles of commercial procedure. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not refute the appellate court’s conclusions that the lawsuit was not filed and did not provide evidence to support the excessiveness of the claimed amount of legal aid expenses. The court rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the case law of the Supreme Court, as the factual circumstances in this case differ from the circumstances in the cases referred to by the plaintiff.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the additional decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/2024/24 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unduly acquired funds in the amount of UAH 1,795,452.38, which the plaintiff believes the defendant unduly received under a bank guarantee.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claims, based on the fact that the basis for withholding the bank guarantee is the non-performance of the contract, not the violation of its terms. The appellate court found that the plaintiff fulfilled the obligations under the contract, albeit with a delay, and therefore the defendant had no grounds to receive funds under the guarantee. The court also took into account that the contract between the parties was terminated, which made it impossible for the customer to obtain the final result under the contract in the form of the performance of construction works secured by the guarantee, and therefore the defendant’s receipt of the guarantee payment for the untimely performance of design works is unlawful. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defendant’s cassation appeal regarding the need to deviate from the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 27 of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement” because it did not find significant arguments for such a deviation.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claim.
Case No. 585/717/22 dated July 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 15, Part 2 of Article 185, Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (attempted theft, committed repeatedly).
2. This operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court were upheld. To understand the court’s reasoning, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the ruling. Usually, the Supreme Court verifies the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts, based on the arguments of the cassation appeal. It assesses the correct application of substantive and procedural law, as well as the completeness
circumstances of the case. If decisions are left unchanged, this may indicate that the courts of previous instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, gave them a proper legal assessment, and did not allow significant violations of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 750/11077/23 dated 17/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed in large amounts or under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, amending the decision of the appellate court. The court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposing a punishment below the lowest limit provided for by the sanction of Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in the form of 5 years of imprisonment. Based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the person was released from serving the sentence on probation, establishing a probationary period and imposing duties stipulated by Article 76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, to appear for registration at the probation authorities, to report changes of residence, and not to travel abroad without permission. The court took into account the circumstances of the case and the personality of the accused, considering her correction possible without actual imprisonment. The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
3. The Supreme Court amended the appellate court’s verdict, applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and releasing the person from serving the sentence on probation.
Case No. 990/215/24 dated 16/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of the NSDC decision on the application of sanctions to the plaintiff.
2. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, as it considered that the plaintiff’s lawyer was not authorized to sign the claim due to the invalidity of the plaintiff’s passport, which, in the court’s opinion, meant the absence of a person with such data. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, emphasizing that current legislation does not oblige a lawyer to verify the validity of a client’s documents to confirm their identity. The court emphasized that a warrant issued in accordance with the Law “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activity” is an independent confirmation of the lawyer’s authority. Also, the court noted that denial of access to justice through excessive formalism is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The issue of whether the plaintiff has the right to appeal the Presidential Decree should be resolved during the consideration of the case on its merits.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and sent the case for continued consideration.
Case No. 420/3977/23 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the military unit’s refusal to issue an updated certificate of monetary allowance for pension recalculation, taking into account indexation.
2. The court noted that the indexation of monetary allowance is a state guarantee to maintain the purchasing power of the population, has a systematic nature, and its legal nature consists in compensating for the depreciation of monetary allowance due to inflation. Considering that special legislation does not regulate the issue of classifying indexation as a type of monetary allowance for calculating pensions, the court applied the provisions of special laws regarding the mechanism of indexation, its purpose, and legal nature. The court emphasized that failure to take indexation into account would lead to the application of depreciated monetary allowance when determining the pension amount. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which confirms the right of individuals to include indexation in the monetary allowance for pension calculation. The court rejected the defendant’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned other factual circumstances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 160/32067/23 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the tax authority did not have sufficient grounds to refuse registration of tax invoices, as the plaintiff provided the necessary documents and explanations at the request of the tax authority. The court noted that in the receipts for suspension of registration of tax invoices, the tax authority did not specify a specific list of documents that the taxpayer must provide for making a reasonable decision on the registration of tax invoices in the URTI. The court also indicated that the tax authority, during the monitoring of tax invoices, should analyze primary documents only according to external criteria and does not have the right to analyze the taxpayer’s business transactions for their reality; such an assessment can be provided by the controlling authority exclusively within the framework of a relevant documentary audit of the taxpayer. The court also took into account that the plaintiff provided additional explanations and documents sufficient for the registration of tax invoices, and the tax authority did not substantiate the grounds for disregarding these documents.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 160/20748/24 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Ternopil Customs regarding the determination of the commodity code.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to
regarding the opening of appellate proceedings due to the missed deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account all the circumstances, in particular, that the initial appeal was filed on time, and the re-filing occurred within a reasonable time after the deficiencies were corrected. The court of cassation emphasized the need to take into account the appellant’s good faith procedural conduct and to maintain a balance between ensuring proper procedural conduct and the right to appeal. It was also taken into account that the deficiencies of the initial appeal were eliminated as soon as possible after its return. The court pointed to the excessive formalism of the appellate court, which led to a violation of the appellant’s right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 917/704/23 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the refusal to suspend enforcement proceedings and lift the seizure of the debtor’s property, LLC “Lubnygaz-Trading”, due to its inclusion in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in the natural gas market.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that the Law of Ukraine No. 1639-IX provides for a set of measures to settle debts in the gas market, and LLC “Lubnygaz-Trading” was rightfully included in the register of enterprises covered by this law. The court indicated that the private enforcement officer is not a participant in the debt settlement procedure and is obliged to suspend enforcement actions if the debtor is in the relevant register and the debt is subject to settlement in accordance with Law No. 1639-IX. The court also noted that the enforcement officer does not have the authority to assess the amount of debt to be settled, as this is the competence of other bodies. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading” is a participant in the debt settlement procedure in accordance with this law, and the provisions of the law apply not only to debts to NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine”. The court also took into account the principle of legal certainty, which requires respect for special laws and the reasonable expectations of the parties regarding their application.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading” and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 916/3515/24 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the vehicle sublease agreement concluded between SE “Yuzhny” and PE Proshin S.S.
2. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, agreeing that PE Proshin S.S. did not acquire the right of a lessee, since the lease agreements with individuals were not notarized.
certified, which is a mandatory requirement of the law. Accordingly, he did not have the right to sublease the property. The court also took into account that the actual transfer of vehicles under the sublease agreement did not take place, as no acceptance certificate was drawn up. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction (restitution) is impractical, since the property was not actually transferred. The court also noted that SE “Pivdennyi” reasonably believes that the sublease agreement was concluded with the aim of creating a fictitious debt for the subsequent bankruptcy of the enterprise, which violates its rights and interests.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PE Proshyn S.S., and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 357/16013/24 dated July 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the decision of the court of first instance to refuse parole for the convicted person.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances indicated by the defense counsel in the motion to reinstate the term. In particular, the appellate court did not pay attention to the fact that the term for appeal for a convicted person serving a sentence should be calculated from the date of receipt of a copy of the court decision, and not from the date of its announcement. Also, the appellate court did not properly assess the defense counsel’s arguments that the convicted person received a copy of the ruling of the court of first instance only on December 24, 2024, and the defense counsel appealed to the court on December 31, 2024, i.e., within seven days from the date the convicted person received a copy of the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court limited itself to a formal reference to the date the copy of the decision was sent to the correctional colony, without checking the actual date the convicted person received the copy of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 357/16013/24 dated July 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to reinstate the term for appealing.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, concluded that the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to reinstate the term for appealing is subject to cancellation. The court of cassation indicated the need for a retrial of the issue by the appellate court. At the same time, the specific arguments that guided the Supreme Court are not specified in the operative part of the resolution, but it can be assumed that violations of the norms of procedural law were found, which prevented the realization of the right to appeal. Perhaps the appellate court did not fully take into account the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline or did not properly assess the arguments of the defense counsel. Also,
the court could take into account the importance of the case for the defender’s client.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
**Case №944/7490/23 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment for the convicted PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict of the appellate court, agreeing that the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release PERSON_6 from serving the sentence with probation. The appellate court took into account the severity of the crime committed under martial law, which increases the public danger of the act. The court noted that the local court did not fully take into account the circumstances of the case and unreasonably considered disability as a mitigating circumstance, since the defendant’s father is disabled, not the defendant himself. Also, the appellate court reasonably took into account the aggravating circumstance – the commission of a crime using the conditions of martial law, which was not properly assessed by the court of first instance. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments about the possibility of applying Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the presence of an aggravating circumstance makes its application impossible.
3. The court decided to leave the verdict of the Lviv Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 – without satisfaction.
**Case №484/2986/22 dated 07/17/2025**
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 punishment of PERSON_7 for violation of traffic rules, which caused moderate bodily harm to the victim.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, since the appellate court, changing the judgment of the local court regarding the imposition of punishment, issued a ruling instead of a judgment, thereby violating the requirements of the criminal procedural law, since it actually worsened the position of the convicted person by imposing a more severe punishment in the form of a fine and deprivation of the right to drive vehicles. The court of cassation emphasized that the deterioration of the convicted person’s position is possible only in the case of the appellate court issuing its own judgment. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account the requirements of Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which a judgment is rendered in the event that it is necessary to apply a more severe punishment. Considering that the appellate court imposed a punishment that is more severe than the punishment imposed by the court of first instance, it had to issue a judgment, not a ruling.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case №694/954/21 dated 07/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is
challenging the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment for violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s judgment, emphasizing that the appellate court had justifiably overturned the previous judgment of the local court due to insufficient consideration of the severity of the crime and its consequences, as well as the absence of convincing reasons for releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation. The court of cassation agreed that the appellate court had correctly assessed the lack of sincere remorse in the convicted person, as he disputed the procedural status of one of the victims, and did not provide evidence of active assistance in solving the crime. The court of cassation emphasized that the opinion of the victims regarding the measure of punishment is not decisive but should be assessed in conjunction with all the circumstances of the case, taking into account the severity of the crime and its consequences. The court of cassation also noted that the civil court’s decision to establish the fact of cohabitation as a family without marriage does not have preclusive effect on the criminal proceedings in terms of determining the status of the victim.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the appellate court’s judgment.
Case No. 944/7490/23 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide the court’s arguments. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, which will state the reasons that guided the Supreme Court in upholding the appellate court’s judgment. Typically, the court of cassation verifies the legality and validity of court decisions based on the arguments of the cassation appeal. The court may have agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the proof of the person’s guilt, the correctness of the classification of his actions, and the fairness of the imposed punishment. Also, the court may not have found significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could lead to the cancellation or modification of the appealed judgment. For a more detailed analysis, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 991/10162/24 dated 07/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue, namely an apartment purchased by the defendant.
2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, noting that the court of first instance did not properly assess the evidence, in particular the donation agreement of funds for which the apartment was purchased, and the source of origin of these funds. The court of appeal
indicated the unconvincing nature of the defendant’s version regarding the legality of the funds’ origin, considering the donor’s (defendant’s mother) retirement age and her lack of sufficient income to make such a donation. The court also questioned the reality of the car-sharing business idea, which was allegedly the purpose of the loan used to make the donation, pointing to the absence of proper evidence of conducting such a business and the fictitious nature of the loan agreements. The court noted that the settlement agreement in the civil case is not proper evidence of the legality of the funds’ origin, as the court does not investigate the legality of the funds’ origin when approving it. Considering all this in aggregate, the court of appeal concluded that the prosecutor had proved the unreasonableness of the asset, and the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to confirm the legal sources of the funds’ origin.
3. The court granted the claim and ordered the apartment to be recovered into state revenue, recognizing it as an unjustified asset.
Case No. 908/51/25 of 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PJSC “UKRGASBANK” for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s shares in the authorized capital of several companies.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court had violated the norms of procedural law by failing to examine the evidence available in the case file regarding the value of the defendant’s shares in the authorized capital of the companies, and also mistakenly considered it impossible to impose an arrest on shares that belong to other persons but are controlled by the defendant as the ultimate beneficial owner. The court of cassation emphasized the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the doctrine of “lifting the corporate veil” in procedural relations and the possibility of securing a claim by imposing an arrest on property that belongs to the defendant indirectly. The court of cassation also indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that persons whose rights are affected by the measures taken to secure the claim have the right to appeal the court’s ruling. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not ascertain whether the nominal value of the shares in the authorized capital of the companies is commensurate with the amount of the claim stated by the plaintiff in this case, or whether it exceeds the amount of the claim.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.
Case No. 644/6237/24 of 17/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the prosecutor’s appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the convicted PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, pointing to a number of significant violations of the criminal procedure law. In particular, the appellate court initially opened appellate proceedings, recognizing the prosecutor’s complaint
that complies with the requirements of the law, and then, after the appointment of the appellate review, left it without movement and returned it, motivating it by non-compliance with the requirements of Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In addition, the court did not take into account the provisions of Article 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the deadline for submitting documents by mail and assessed the validity of the arguments of the appeal at the stage of resolving the issue of initiating proceedings, which is the competence of the court of appeal during the appellate review. As a result, the court of cassation recognized such actions of the court of appeal as violating the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 585/717/22 dated 07/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed repeatedly.
2. The court of cassation considered the arguments of the defender about the need to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the decriminalization of the act, referring to the amendments to Article 51 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, introduced by Law No. 3886-IX. The court noted that although changes to the legislation that decriminalize the act have retroactive effect, the value of the stolen property (UAH 2,854), for which PERSON_7 was convicted, exceeded the threshold established for 2022 for the onset of criminal liability (UAH 2,481). The court also took into account that PERSON_7 fully admitted her guilt in committing the crime, and the simplified procedure for considering the case was agreed upon by the parties. Thus, the court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal on the validity of the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 180/1433/24 dated 07/23/2025
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 in the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_6 of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed in large quantities or under conditions of recidivism).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not specify the specific arguments that the Supreme Court was guided by, since only the operative part of the decision was announced. However, from the text, it can be understood that the prosecutor appealed the decision of the court of appeal, and the Supreme Court partially satisfied his cassation appeal. This means that the Supreme Court found certain violations or inconsistencies in the ruling of the court of appeal, which require a retrial by the court of appeal. Perhaps the norms of substantive or procedural law were incorrectly applied, or the court of appeal did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, which led to the cancellation of its ruling. A complete understanding of the position of the Supreme Court requiresto wait for the full text of the resolution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6 and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 916/3700/24 dated 07/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding abuse of monopoly power in the market of freight transportation by rail.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision, noting that the appellate court did not take into account that, in order to determine competition in the market, the absence of barriers to entry into the market must be consistent with the expression of will of the business entity to be a competitor. Also, the appellate court did not take into account that, in order to qualify actions as abuse of monopoly power, the mere fact of committing the actions is sufficient, and not the occurrence of consequences in the form of restriction of competition. The court of first instance established that the Company did not provide evidence of the existence of competitors, and the AMCU proved the fact of overpricing. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must evaluate evidence comprehensively and objectively, taking into account its reliability and interrelation. In this case, the appellate court violated the balance of acceptance of the parties’ arguments, which became the basis for overturning its decision.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim to invalidate the AMCU’s decision.
**Case No. 918/857/23 dated 07/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of decisions of the general meeting of the association of co-owners of an apartment building regarding issues of building management, contributions, and election of governing bodies.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the plaintiff did not prove how the appealed decisions violate her rights and interests, and also did not provide unconditional grounds for recognizing the decisions as invalid, such as the lack of a quorum or the adoption of decisions on issues not included in the agenda. The court also took into account that minor procedural errors in the organization and conduct of the meeting should not be grounds for overturning decisions supported by the majority of co-owners, especially if these decisions do not have signs of discrimination or violation of the rights of a particular co-owner. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is not within its competence, and rejected the applicant’s arguments regarding the unauthorized composition of the court of appeal, since the repeated automated distribution of the case was carried out in accordance with procedural rules due to the vacation of the previous composition of the court. The court also noted that failure to notify or improper notification of a co-owner about the general meeting is not always a basis for recognizing the decision
invalidating such fees.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 906/1324/23 dated 22/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the former director of the company of damages in the amount of UAH 10,409,500, caused, according to the plaintiff, by the defendant’s misappropriation of the company’s assets after dismissal from the position.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, because the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all the elements of the economic offense necessary for the recovery of damages. In particular, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact of causing damages, their amount, the illegality of the defendant’s conduct, and the causal relationship between his actions and the damages. The financial statements provided by the plaintiff are not sufficient evidence, as they do not take into account the depreciation of fixed assets, the real condition of uncompleted capital investments, and the actual loss of inventory. Also, the mere fact of non-execution of the decision of the general meeting on the transfer of property is not evidence of the defendant’s misappropriation of property. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide primary accounting documents, inventory reports, audit reports, or conclusions of forensic economic expertise that would confirm his arguments.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 180/1433/24 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of theft committed under martial law, given the leniency of the imposed punishment and the unjustified release from serving it on probation.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court took a formal approach to the review of the judgment, did not take into account the defendant’s previous convictions for similar crimes, his lifestyle, and the fact that the stolen property was returned only after the crime was discovered by the police, and not voluntarily. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not provide sufficient justification for the possibility of correcting the convicted person without actual imprisonment, which is important for achieving the purpose of punishment, including preventing the commission of new crimes. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out the need to take into account the degree of public danger of the crime and data on the identity of the accused when deciding on release from serving the sentence on probation. The court also noted that the appellate court did not provide convincing arguments regarding ensuring the goal of general prevention of crimes against property in the case of the accused’s release from punishment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appappellate instance.
Case №990SСGС/19/25 dated 21/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility for unwarranted delays in the consideration of cases of administrative offenses.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to bring the judge to disciplinary responsibility, as the judge did not take sufficient measures for the timely consideration of cases of administrative offenses, which led to the closure of proceedings due to the expiration of the terms of bringing to responsibility. The court noted that the judge should have taken all possible measures to consider the cases within the terms established by law, taking into account the public danger of offenses under Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The court rejected the judge’s arguments about excessive workload, as no evidence of the legal or factual complexity of the cases was provided, and it was not substantiated why the cases were not considered in the presence of evidence of notification of participants about court hearings. The court also emphasized that the disciplinary sanction was imposed within the three-year term established by law, taking into account the periods that are not included in this term (the time of the disciplinary proceedings, vacations, and sick leaves).
3. The court decided to dismiss the judge’s complaint and leave the decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.
Case №545/2504/23 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the order on the suspension of the employment contract as illegal and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, stating that the very fact of military aggression is not an unconditional basis for suspending the employment contract, and the employer must prove the impossibility of providing work and its performance by the employee. The court emphasized that the suspension of the employment contract is a temporary measure that is applied only in case of objective impossibility for both parties to fulfill their obligations. Since “Ukrzaliznytsia” continued to operate, and the plaintiff was not offered another job, the suspension of his employment contract was recognized as illegal. Also, the Supreme Court applied the analogy of the law, indicating that in this case, the provisions on the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence should be applied, since the employee was illegally deprived of the opportunity to work.
3. The court of cassation satisfied the claim, признав незаконним наказ про призупинення дії трудового договору та стягнув з АТ «Укрзалізниця» на користь позивача середній заробіток за час вимушеного прогулуrecognized the order on the suspension of the employment contract as illegal and recovered from JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” in favor of the plaintiff the average earnings for the period of forced absence.
