**Case No. 906/387/24 dated 07/15/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC Firm “Novopharm-Biosynthesis” in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The court, when considering the application for the recovery of legal assistance expenses, was guided by the principles of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness of court costs, and also took into account the criteria defined by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the amount of expenses should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the value of the claim, and the significance of the case for the party. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s objections regarding the inflated amount of expenses for legal assistance. The court emphasized that the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance should not be a way for the party to enrich itself excessively. The court assessed the provided evidence and concluded that the claimed amount of expenses is not commensurate with the work actually performed by the attorney, therefore, reduced the amount of compensation.
3. The court partially granted the application of LLC Firm “Novopharm-Biosynthesis” and ordered the Commercial Company “SIA GENTMED” to pay UAH 20,000 in expenses for professional legal assistance.
**Case No. 914/1132/23 dated 07/22/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the claim of the Lviv City Council to cancel the state registration of the right of private ownership of LLC “Perekhrestia” to the shashlik restaurant building, since, according to the plaintiff, the building has been destroyed, and the registration of the ownership right to a non-existent object violates the rights of the territorial community to freely dispose of the land plot.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating that the appellate court prematurely recognized the method of protection chosen by the Lviv City Council as improper, without taking into account that the claim to cancel the state registration of a real property right can be considered as a claim to eliminate obstacles in the use of property, if the registration creates such obstacles. The court also noted that the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances regarding the actual existence or destruction of property on the disputed land plot, which is important for determining the appropriate method of protection. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out the error of the appellate court’s reference to the conclusions regarding the negatory action, since there is no reason to consider the occupation of the land plot by the defendant unlawful, taking into account the previous decision to grant the land for lease. Also, the court of cassation instance stated that the conclusion of the appellate court underlying the appealed ruling on the refusal to satisfy the claim due to the inappropriateness of the method of protecting its rights chosen by the City Council also contradicts the conclusion stated in the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated June 20, 2023, in case No. 633/408/18 that claims for cancellation of state registration of a real property right
ava under certain conditions can be considered as claims for the elimination of obstacles in the use and disposal of property, if this registration creates the relevant obstacles.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the appellate court’s decision and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 568/944/24 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return of an appeal to a person who challenged the closing of criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the motion to renew the term for appeal, without taking into account important circumstances, namely that the applicant received the full text of the investigating judge’s ruling later than the announcement of its operative part, and, accordingly, could not know the reasons for the refusal to satisfy his complaint at the time of filing the appeal. The court emphasized that the appellate court misinterpreted the position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that everyone has the right to appeal a court decision, and the appellate court should not have deprived the person of this right without clarifying all the circumstances. Also, the court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court’s ruling does not meet the requirements of legality, validity and motivation established by Art. 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and scheduled a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 560/9382/24 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Khmelnytskyi region regarding Bio Electrics LLC.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the tax authority’s cassation appeal. The court agreed with the previous courts in the part regarding the cancellation of one of the tax assessment notices, considering it unlawful. The court’s arguments regarding this part of the decision are not given in the introductory and operative parts. At the same time, regarding the other part of the appealed tax assessment notices, the Supreme Court decided that the courts of previous instances did not fully ascertain the circumstances of the case and committed violations of the norms of procedural law. In this regard, the case in this part was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance for a more thorough examination of the evidence and justification of the position. This decision indicates that the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding all disputed issues and considers it necessary to re-examine certain aspects of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, leaving unchanged the decisions of the previous courts in the part of one tax assessment notice, and in the other part overturned them and sent the case
for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/5708/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the suretyship agreement concluded between LLC “TD “Eurotrubplast” and LLC “Liko Leasing Ukraine”, under which the latter acted as surety for the obligations of LLC “Energoresurs” under the supply agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that LLC “Liko Leasing Ukraine” did not prove the circumstances indicating the invalidity of the suretyship agreement. The court noted that the presence of the seal of LLC “Liko Leasing Ukraine” on the agreement, as well as the absence of evidence of loss, forgery of the seal, or transfer of it to another person, indicate that the agreement was concluded lawfully. In addition, the court indicated that even an unreasonable rejection of a motion to order an expert examination is not an unconditional basis for overturning a court decision if it did not make it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case. The court also emphasized that the appellant’s argument regarding the need to order an expert examination to verify the circumstances of the agreement’s signing is unfounded, as the circumstances of not signing the agreement are not grounds for recognizing it as invalid according to established judicial practice.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Liko Leasing Ukraine” and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 522/3494/20 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the mortgaged property (car) owned by the defendant to repay the debt under the loan agreement of a third party.
2. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiff filed a claim for foreclosure on the subject of the pledge, although previously, on the basis of a court decision, the right of pledge had already been exercised by recognizing the right of ownership of this property by the previous creditor, the successor of which is the plaintiff; in such a case, the right of pledge is terminated, and the plaintiff acquires the right of owner to the property, and therefore has the right to a claim for recovery of property from illegal possession; the court of first instance reasonably refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protection, and the court of appeal mistakenly overturned this decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 922/2728/21 dated 24/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contribution of a land share (unit) to the authorized capital of the company and the recognition as invalid of the state act on the right of ownership of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to close the appeal proceedings, since PE
“Zolota Nyva 1,” which was not a party to the original dispute, failed to prove that the decision of the court of first instance directly violates its rights and interests as a participant of “Agrokom” LLC. The court emphasized that the company and its participants are different legal entities, and a violation of the company’s rights does not necessarily mean a violation of the rights of its participants. The court also noted that the appeal of Private Enterprise “Zolota Nyva 1” is actually an attempt to re-initiate the appellate review of the court decision, which had already been rejected due to the missed deadline. The court took into account that the dispute arose between the heir of one of the founders of the company and the company itself, and not between the participants of the company, therefore there is no direct violation of the rights of another participant to participate in the management of the company and receive profits. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, which concerned the merits of the dispute, since the subject of the appeal was the ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings.
3. The court of cassation instance amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left it unchanged in the other part, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 357/14157/21 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of state acts on land ownership as invalid and the cancellation of decisions on state registration of rights to land plots.
2. The court refused to satisfy the initial claim of PERSON_1, as he did not provide sufficient evidence of acquiring ownership of the disputed land plot in the manner prescribed by law, in particular, there is no decision of the village council on granting him permission to allocate land, as well as evidence of his membership in the collective agricultural enterprise at the time of land distribution. Instead, the court satisfied the counterclaim of PERSON_2 and PERSON_3, taking into account that they received a certificate of inheritance for a land share (unit) after the death of their mother, and subsequently formalized ownership of the relevant land plots, which does not raise doubts about their legality. The court also took into account that the fact of overlapping land plots, established by the expert examination, is not decisive for resolving the dispute, since the main reason for rejecting the claim of PERSON_1 was the failure to prove the legality of his acquisition of ownership.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and left the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/6583/22 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the guarantor bank of the amount of the bank guarantee, penalties, three percent per annum and inflation losses, as well as a counterclaim for recognition of the bank guarantee as unenforceable.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court, which satisfied the initial claim and refused to satisfy the counterclaim, based on the fact that in the conditions of martial law and active hostilities in Kyevidence, the plaintiff took all possible measures for the proper presentation of the claim under the guarantee, in particular, by sending it through the SWIFT system within the term of the guarantee, which corresponds to banking practice, and additionally confirming the validity of the signature. The court also took into account that the guarantor bank, having received the claim through SWIFT, did not reject it, but took actions that indicate recognition of the claim as proper. The court noted that the untimely receipt by the guarantor bank of the original claim by mail was related to the organization of the bank’s work in martial law conditions, and not to the actions of the beneficiary. The court of cassation also noted that there are no grounds for forming conclusions regarding the application of the rules of law referred to by the appellant, since the payment claim under the bank guarantee was duly and timely submitted to the guarantor bank.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 199/5460/22 dated 07/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of property, namely a garage, the owner of which is the plaintiff, but which is used by the defendant.
2. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the garage based on a sale and purchase agreement, which is confirmed by relevant documents. The defendant, in turn, did not provide any evidence that would confirm her ownership of this garage or legal grounds for its use. The court also noted that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of any obstacles to the use of their property, and the defendant, using the garage without legal grounds, creates such obstacles. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence provided by the plaintiff, as this evidence was not decisive in establishing the fact of the plaintiff’s ownership of the garage. Also, the court noted that the lease agreement, which was referred to by the courts of previous instances, was not the main evidence in the case, and its presence or absence does not affect the decision regarding the plaintiff’s right of ownership. Taking these circumstances into account, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims are justified and subject to satisfaction.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts, resuming the execution of the first instance court’s decision.
Case No. 910/3014/23 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs, namely the costs of professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “IT Company” in connection with the review of the case in the courts of appeal and cassation instances.
2. The court partially satisfied the application of LLC “IT Company”, reducing the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be reimbursed, taking into account their disproportionality to the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, and the scope of services provided. The court
taking into account that the legal position of “IT Company” LLC did not change during the consideration of the case, the regulatory framework of the disputed legal relations did not change, and the same lawyer provided legal assistance to the Company in courts of various instances, which did not require a significant amount of time spent on legal work. The court also noted that the content of the appeal and cassation appeals of “IT Company” LLC is similar, which indicates an inflated cost of services for the preparation of procedural documents. In addition, the court did not take into account services that did not affect the resolution of the dispute, as well as the costs of preparing objections to the application for an additional decision. The court departed from the previous conclusion regarding the reimbursement of expenses for the preparation of the application for an additional decision, noting that such expenses are not subject to reimbursement.
3. The court ordered “Snetch” LLC to pay “IT Company” LLC UAH 80,000 for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the courts of appeal and cassation instances, refusing to satisfy the rest of the application’s claims.
Case No. 534/1505/24 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the apartment donation agreement concluded between the father and daughter as invalid, since the plaintiff believed that this agreement was concluded in order to avoid foreclosure on the debtor’s property.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, agreed that the donation agreement has signs of fraudulence, since it was concluded between close relatives (father and daughter) during the court proceedings on the recovery of debt from the father. The court also took into account that the place of registration of residence of the defendants did not change after the conclusion of the agreement, and the court decision on the recovery of debt remained unfulfilled. The court noted that such actions indicate the bad faith of the parties, who intended to hide the property from forced sale to repay the debt. The court emphasized that civil rights should not be used to avoid paying debts or enforcing court decisions, and that abuse of rights is unacceptable. The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the donation agreement, there was already a court dispute regarding the recovery of debt, which should have prompted the acquirer to be more careful.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 907/893/23 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the general meeting of shareholders of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Zakarpattgaz” regarding the termination of powers and election of members of the Supervisory Board, as well as the approval of the terms of contracts with them.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since it found that JSC “DAT “Chornomornaftogaz” acted as the manager of the arrested assets
on the basis of the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the concluded agreement that complies with the special legislation on the management of seized assets. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights to management is not an automatic basis for invalidating the decisions of the general meeting if the transfer was carried out legally. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights as a result of the challenged decisions, in particular, the right to participate in the management of the company. The court emphasized that the manager acted within the powers granted to him, and the management agreement itself was not declared invalid. In addition, the court referred to the постанову (resolution) of the Supreme Court of April 16, 2024 in case No. 922/331/23, where similar legal relations were already considered.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 639/3935/22 dated 24/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules) and the closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, as the court of appeal held a court hearing without the participation of the representative of the injured party, which significantly violated her rights to participate in the consideration of the criminal proceedings and to defend her legal position. The court of appeal started the court hearing almost an hour earlier than the scheduled time, without notifying the injured party about this. This limited the injured party in the realization of her right to participate in the consideration of the criminal proceedings and the right to defend her legal position, in particular, regarding the application of the provisions of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_8 due to the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court indicated that the court of appeal must create the necessary conditions for the parties to exercise their procedural rights and provide answers to the lawyer’s objections regarding the existence of legal grounds for releasing PERSON_8 from criminal liability due to the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the court of appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 824/38/25 dated 24/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from a foreign company.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, dismissing the appeal of the foreign company A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. The court was guided by Articles 24, 351, 367, 368, 374, 375, 381-384, 454-461 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Representatives of the plaintiff, “TB “Novaagro” LLC, participated in the court hearing. The court noted that the постанову (resolution) is final and not subject to appeal. The full постанову (resolution) will be drawn up within 10 days. The court did not provide specific arguments as to why
he left the appellate court’s decision unchanged, only indicating the articles of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine that he was guided by.
3. The court ruled to leave the appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 925/696/24 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a clause in the supply agreement regarding the inclusion of VAT and the recovery of the VAT amount paid for the goods, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, were not subject to taxation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, because exemption from VAT for the supply of goods to the Armed Forces of Ukraine requires clear documentary evidence of the final recipient of the goods. Such confirmation must be either in the form of an end-user certificate or directly indicated in the terms of the contract. In this case, neither a certificate was provided, nor was it clearly defined in the contract that the final recipient was the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also noted that references to the support program for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the contract are not sufficient confirmation of the final recipient. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence and establish new circumstances, but must proceed from the circumstances that were established by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation also noted that the principle of legal certainty was not violated, as the appellate court correctly applied the norms of tax legislation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/16557/23 dated 07/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and JSC “DTEK Odesa Electric Networks” regarding the accounting of electricity consumed by SE “Odesa Oil Refinery” as unlawful and the obligation to take actions to change the certified data of commercial accounting.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the actions of the defendants to assign the volumes of electricity consumed by SE “Odesa Oil Refinery” after the plaintiff’s refusal to supply it, are unlawful, because they violate the rights and economic interests of the plaintiff, forming its monetary obligations. The court emphasized that the distribution system operator (JSC “DTEK Odesa Electric Networks”) should have stopped the electricity supply to SE “Odesa Oil Refinery” after receiving a corresponding request from the “supplier of last resort” (SPZD “Ukrinteresnergo”). Since this was not done, the volumes of electricity consumed should have been attributed to the losses of the distribution system operator. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that SE “Odesa Oil Refinery” had the status of a “protected consumer”, since no evidence of a corresponding appeal to the Inter-of the household commission and inclusion of the consumer in the list of protected consumers. The court also confirmed that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is proper and effective, as it is aimed at restoring the violated right and preventing unfounded claims.
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №757/21492/24-к dated 23/07/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129086892](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129086892)
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appellant’s appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling on the failure to enter information about a criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (ERDR).
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly returned the complaint to the applicant, considering that the deadline for appealing had been missed. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account the provisions of Articles 115, 116, 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for calculating procedural deadlines, especially for persons in custody. The court of cassation established that the applicant filed an appeal within the time limit established by law, since the appeal period should be calculated from the date of receipt of a copy of the investigating judge’s ruling, and not from the date of its issuance, and the appeal was filed in a timely manner through the administration of the pre-trial detention center. Thus, the appellate court committed a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case №160/32031/24 dated 24/07/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129074535](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129074535)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Saksaganskyi District Court regarding the failure to provide copies of time sheets.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, since the Saksaganskyi District Court missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that receiving a copy of the first instance court’s decision by the court’s electronic office on February 19, 2025, is considered proper notification, and the arguments about the workload of the court’s president, technical failures in the ESIAS (Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System), and other circumstances are not objectively insurmountable. The court emphasized that the parties to the case must exercise their procedural rights and fulfill their obligations in good faith, and the improper organization of the court’s work cannot be the basis for renewing a missed deadline. The court also took into account the length of the missed deadline for appealing.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case №2-1374/11 dated 23/07/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129086662](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129086662)
1.The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the state enforcement officer’s actions regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings based on the full execution of a court decision to recover debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation, granting the complaint, emphasized that the decision of the court of first instance stipulated the recovery of debt in foreign currency, although with an equivalent indicated in hryvnia at the time of the decision. The court emphasized that indicating two monetary amounts (in foreign currency and hryvnia equivalent) introduced ambiguity in the understanding of the debtor’s obligation. The Supreme Court indicated that in such a case, the claimant should be transferred specifically the foreign currency determined by the court decision, and not its equivalent in hryvnia at the exchange rate on the date of payment. The court also considered that the debtor made the payment only a long time after the court decision came into legal force. The court of cassation emphasized that the previous courts incorrectly applied the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the execution of decisions on the recovery of debt in foreign currency.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and granted the complaint of Finance Property Group LLC, recognizing the actions of the state enforcement officer as unlawful and canceling the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129088440](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129088440) **Case No. 916/4912/24 dated 07/24/2025**
avi.
3. **Court decision:** To partially satisfy the cassation appeal of SFH “VIKTORIYA”, to reverse the decision of the appellate court, and to refer the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 939/241/22 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of gift agreements as sham and the recognition of the right of ownership to a share in the joint property of spouses.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting their conclusions that the gift agreements concluded between the plaintiff’s ex-husband and a third party were actually purchase and sale agreements that concealed the fact of the acquisition of property in marriage with joint funds. The court agreed that the plaintiff became aware of the violation of her rights only after gaining access to her ex-husband’s documents, and therefore did not miss the statute of limitations. The court also noted that the registration of property in the name of one of the spouses does not change its status as jointly owned property. It is important that the court of cassation instance emphasized the binding nature of the instructions given by it during the previous consideration of this case for lower courts. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, as they amounted to a revaluation of the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 760/19185/22 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of services for theoretical training and practical flight training.
2. The court of appeal, whose decision was supported by the Supreme Court, established that an agreement was concluded between the parties, which provided for two stages of training: theoretical and practical. The court noted that the customer has the right to refuse classes and demand a refund before the start of each of these stages. Since the customer only completed the theoretical course and did not start the practical one, the court decided that he has the right to a refund of the funds paid for the practical part of the training. The court also took into account that the actual start of practical training was not proven, and the evidence provided by the defendant does not confirm the customer’s awareness of the start date of the training and the possibility of its implementation. In addition, the court took into account information from the airport where the practice was to take place, that none of the declared cadets arrived, and subsequently flights were suspended due to martial law.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 911/1778/24 (911/98/23) dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the failure to suspend
