Case №381/1698/24 dated 07/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of decisions of state registrars and the Fastiv City Council regarding ownership of a land plot and a residential building.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning in part the decisions of the previous instances, indicated that the annulment of the state registrar’s decision on the registration of ownership of unauthorized construction is not an effective remedy, since the construction itself is a violation of the rights of the owner of the land plot, and not the registration. A proper remedy in such a case is a claim for the demolition of the unauthorized construction or recognition of ownership of it. At the same time, the court agreed that the decision of the Fastiv City Council to transfer the land plot to the defendant is illegal, since at the time of the decision, there was already a decision to grant permission for the privatization of the same plot to another person, the successor of whom is the plaintiff. Considering that the plaintiff has a priority right to complete the privatization, the decision of the city council and the registration of ownership based on this decision violate the rights of the plaintiff and are subject to cancellation. The court also redistributed court costs, considering the partial satisfaction of the claim.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part regarding the annulment of the state registrar’s decision regarding unauthorized construction, but upheld the decision regarding the annulment of the city council’s decision and the state registrar’s decision on the registration of ownership of the land plot, and also redistributed court costs.
Case №199/9898/22 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims against the Subsidiary Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” of PJSC “Mariupol Metallurgical Plant named after Illich”, since the dispute between a legal entity and an individual (entrepreneur) is subject to consideration in commercial proceedings, not civil. The court noted that the courts of previous instances violated the rules of jurisdiction by considering a case that is subject to consideration in a commercial court. Regarding the claims against the individual, the court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor did not prove with proper evidence the illegality of the defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plot. The court of cassation instance emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis for its claims.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims against the Subsidiary Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” of PJSC “Mariupol Metallur
the Illich Iron and Steel Works” and closed the proceedings in the case in this part, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in the other part.
**Case No. 757/13185/17-ц dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim by the prosecutor in the interests of the Kyiv City Council for the recovery of non-residential premises from the illegal possession of PERSON_2, who purchased them under a sale and purchase agreement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court because it did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court made during the previous review of this case. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the good faith acquisition of property by PERSON_2, limiting itself to only two circumstances, which, according to the Supreme Court, are insufficiently motivated and contain signs of assumptions. The court did not take into account that PERSON_2 relied on the data of the State Register of Real Property Rights, where there was no information about encumbrances or rights of third parties to the disputed premises. Also, the appellate court did not assess the arguments of PERSON_2 about the lack of connection with previous owners and the acquisition of the premises for business purposes. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court unlawfully accepted evidence at the stage of appellate review, without justifying the impossibility of submitting it to the court of first instance. The court also did not properly investigate the Internet resource referred to by the prosecutor and did not take into account the emergency condition of the building, which affects the value of the premises.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 761/37556/21 dated 07/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against IC “INGO” JSC for the recovery of insurance payment due to the occurrence of an insured event, which, according to the plaintiff, consists in the impossibility to register the ownership of the land plot due to illegal actions of third parties.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not prove that the actions of third parties were aimed at destruction or damage to the insured property, as stipulated by the terms of the insurance contract. The court also took into account that the insurance contract terminated long before the occurrence of the events referred to by the plaintiff. The court noted that an insured event is not the unlawful actions themselves, but actions aimed at destruction or damage to the insured property, and the causing of losses by such actions. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the non-execution of the court decision is an action that, within the meaning of the terms of the insurance contract, is aimed at damaging or destroying the property and the existence of losses, the court found the claim unsubstantiated. The court also emphasized that the insurance contract terminated on June 6, 2012, and the events referred to by the plaintiff as an insured event occurred in June 2020, that is, outside the term of the insurance contract.
3. The court hal
dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 199/9915/22 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right of lease.
2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the claims against the Subsidiary Company “Illich-Agro Donbas”, since the resolution of such claims belongs to the commercial jurisdiction, and not civil. The court noted that the delimitation of the jurisdiction of the courts is carried out according to the subject matter, and since one of the parties to the dispute is a legal entity, the case is subject to consideration in the commercial court. Regarding the claims against an individual, PERSON_1, the court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the absence of evidence of her unlawful acquisition of ownership of the land plot, emphasizing that the prosecutor did not prove the forgery of documents, on the basis of which PERSON_1 received the land. The court also took into account the principle of inviolability of property rights and the need to maintain a balance of interests when interfering with a person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property. The court of cassation instance overturned the additional decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recovery of court costs for professional legal assistance, since the main decisions on which they were based were overturned in the part of the claims against the legal entity.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the claims against SC “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closed the proceedings in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
**Case No. 215/95/15-ц dated 07/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the state act on the right of private ownership of land and the elimination of obstacles in the use of property.
2. The court of appeal, whose decision is being reviewed, proceeded from the fact that the state act on the right of ownership of land was issued by a competent authority within the limits of its powers, on the basis of the decision of the executive committee of the city council. The court found that the establishment of the boundaries of the land plot took place with the involvement of representatives of adjacent land users. It was also established that the necessary package of documents was submitted to the executive committee of the city council in accordance with the requirements of current legislation. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that no violations were found in the procedure for preparing and making a decision on granting a land plot into private ownership, and therefore there are no grounds for satisfying the claims. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal, but in fact come down to disagreement with the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the revaluation of evidence, which contradicts the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court left
left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling without changes.
Case No. 199/9916/22 dated 07/23/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the claims against the Subsidiary Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” of PJSC “Mariupol Metallurgical Combine named after Illich” (SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”), since the dispute between legal entities is subject to consideration in commercial proceedings, and not in civil proceedings. The court noted that the previous instance courts violated the rules of jurisdiction by considering a case that is subject to consideration in a commercial court. Regarding the claims against the individual, PERSON_1, the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance courts that the prosecutor did not prove with sufficient evidence the illegality of PERSON_1’s acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plot. The court emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims or objections, and that proof cannot be based on assumptions. The court also took into account that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of forgery of documents on the basis of which PERSON_1 obtained ownership.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and in the other part (regarding the claims against PERSON_1) left the decisions of the previous instance courts without changes.
Case No. 522/1493/22 dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Academic Council of the Odesa National Medical University regarding the liquidation of the faculty and department, where the plaintiff held the position of dean.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance courts, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her rights or legitimate interests by the challenged decision of the Academic Council, taking into account the autonomy of the higher education institution in matters of management and organizational structure, as well as compliance with the procedure for making decisions by the Academic Council. The court noted that the issue of expediency of reorganization or liquidation of structural units of the university is within the competence of the owner or the body authorized by him, and the court cannot interfere in these issues. Also, the court took into account that the issues of reinstatement and other labor rights of the plaintiff are regulated by the norms of labor legislation, and she can protect them in another procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is to effectively protect violated, unrecognized or disputed
of rights, freedoms or interests, and in this case, the plaintiff did not prove the existence of such violations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №645/7560/18 dated 23/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of apartment sale and purchase agreements as invalid, cancellation of state registration of ownership, recognition of the inheritance as ownerless, and transfer of inherited property to the ownership of the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation instance, partially satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, noted that the appellate court correctly concluded that the claim should be dismissed, but for erroneous reasons. The court of cassation instance indicated that the proper way to protect the rights of the territorial community in the event of alienation of inherited property by a person who is not an heir, in favor of a bona fide acquirer, is to receive monetary compensation. The court also noted that the appellate court mistakenly applied the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case № 461/12525/15, as the legal relations in this case and in the case under review are not similar. The court of cassation instance applied the analogy of the law, referring to Article 1280 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and indicated that the territorial community has the right to receive monetary compensation if the property was alienated to a bona fide acquirer.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but leaving unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
**Case №487/2963/20 dated 24/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the procedure for using the apartment between cohabitants who cannot reach an agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the plaintiff has the right to reside in the disputed apartment, which is violated by the defendants, and cannot be forcibly deprived of housing. The court of first instance reasonably satisfied the claim, since the procedure for using the living space proposed by the plaintiff does not violate the requirements of the law and the rights of the parties, and the defendants did not offer another acceptable option. The court took into account that the defendants are actually one family, and some of them live abroad, so allocating a separate room to the plaintiff is justified. The court emphasized that it does not determine the shares of the parties in the housing, but only establishes the procedure for using it. ** ** The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the right of the tenant and persons permanently residing with him to determine the procedure for using the premises has no restrictions and is not related to the area of the leased premises.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case №564/3477/21 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of individuals from a residential building that is the subject of a mortgage under a loan agreement.
2. The court dismissed the claim for eviction, as it believes that the bank chose an ineffective way to protect its right. The court noted that in the enforcement proceedings, where the mortgaged property has already been seized, the state enforcement officer must apply to the guardianship authority to obtain permission to sell the property where children reside. In case of refusal by the guardianship authority, the enforcement officer has the right to apply to the court with a motion to foreclose on this property, as provided for by Article 435 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. According to the court, initiating a separate lawsuit for eviction is not a legitimate and effective way to protect the creditor’s rights, since there is already a mechanism for resolving this issue within the framework of enforcement proceedings. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, which confirms this approach.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №732/1015/24 dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement concluded between an individual (landlord) and an agro-industrial cooperative (tenant) due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, since bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the defendant (agro-industrial cooperative) and liquidation proceedings were introduced. The court noted that, according to current legislation, all property disputes in which the debtor in a bankruptcy case is a party must be considered by the commercial court within the framework of the bankruptcy case. The court also took into account changes in the legislation that allow the tenant to dispose of the lease right without the consent of the landowner, which makes the lease right an asset that can be included in the bankrupt’s liquidation estate. Thus, the termination of the lease agreement may affect the debtor’s liquidation estate, and the dispute must be considered within the framework of the bankruptcy proceedings.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision to close the proceedings in the case remained unchanged.
Case №916/3630/23(916/4576/24) dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of services to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the existence of grounds for recovering from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “Kherson Regional Energy Supply Company” the debt, 3% per annum and inflation losses, since the defendant violated the terms of the agreement regarding the timely payment of the provided services.
of services. The court noted that the accrual of 3% per annum and inflation losses is a way to protect the creditor’s property right and compensate for the depreciation of funds due to inflationary processes. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the impossibility of fulfilling the monetary obligation due to lack of funds, as this does not release the debtor from liability. The court also pointed out that the absence of the debtor’s fault is not a basis for exemption from liability for violation of a monetary obligation. The court of cassation emphasized that the decision on reducing the amount of annual interest belongs to the discretionary powers of the courts of first and appellate instances, which in this case reasonably refused to reduce the amount of accruals.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 908/324/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court to close the appellate proceedings on the complaint of the tax authority against the decision of the court of first instance approving the report of the liquidator and the liquidation balance sheet of the bankrupt.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the right to cassation appeal belongs to the parties to the case, as well as persons who did not participate in the case, if the court decided on their rights, interests and obligations. The tax authority was not recognized as a creditor in the bankruptcy case, therefore, it is not a party to the case. The appellate court found that the decision to approve the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance sheet does not decide the issue of the rights, interests and obligations of the tax authority. The court of cassation agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the tax authority did not prove how the appealed court decision directly concerns its rights, interests and obligations. The court of cassation also noted that it would not assess the arguments regarding the decision of the court of first instance, as it was not reviewed on appeal.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/2736/22 (910/3040/24) dated 29/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of a non-residential premise and its return to the ownership of Alvis LLC within the framework of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim by imposing an arrest on the non-residential premise, since there is a reasonable risk that the defendant may alienate the property to third parties during the consideration of the case, which will complicate the execution of the court decision if the claim for the recovery of property is satisfied. The court took into account that the dispute concerns the fraudulent nature of the transaction in the bankruptcy case, and the defendant’s ability to freely dispose of the property may make it impossible
effective protection of creditors’ rights. The court also noted that the seizure of property does not restrict the rights of possession and use, but only the right of disposal, which is a proportionate measure to secure the claim. The appellant’s arguments about the sufficiency of other property to cover the creditors’ claims were rejected, as the existence of security in another case does not affect the validity of the security of the claim in this particular dispute. The court emphasized that the appellate court correctly took into account the balance of interests of the parties, preventing unjustified restriction of the defendant’s property rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision on securing the claim.
Case No. 761/42021/23 dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional term for filing an application for acceptance of inheritance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling to close the appellate proceedings, as the person who filed the appeal (PERSON_1) is not an heir, and the decision of the court of first instance to determine an additional term for acceptance of inheritance did not decide the issue of their rights and obligations. The court noted that determining an additional term for acceptance of inheritance is not an automatic confirmation of rights to the inherited property, but only a legal fact that is a prerequisite for acceptance of inheritance. The court also emphasized that the appellate court reasonably closed the proceedings, as the decision of the court of first instance did not directly decide the rights and obligations of PERSON_1 as the owner of the apartment acquired by them under a purchase and sale agreement. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that in order to acquire the right to appeal by a person who did not participate in the case, it is necessary that the court decision directly establish, change or terminate their rights and/or obligations, or create legal consequences for them.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 757/1552/21-ц dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open proceedings on an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings is not a court decision that ended the consideration of the case, and therefore cannot be subject to review based on newly discovered circumstances. The court noted that only those decisions, resolutions or rulings of the court that ended the consideration of the case and that entered into legal force are subject to review based on newly discovered circumstances. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court on this issue, noting that rulings refusing to open appellate proceedings are not included in the list of rulings that ended the consideration of the case. The court rejected the request to appeal to the Constitu
of Ukraine, as it believes that the dispute concerns a matter of law enforcement, not the interpretation of the norms of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that ensuring the uniform application of legal norms by courts of different specializations is the task of the Supreme Court, which it implements by forming relevant conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 454/120/24 dated July 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State Bureau of Investigation for compensation for moral damages caused, in his opinion, by the illegal actions of SBI officials during the consideration of his report of a criminal offense.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support the fact that he suffered moral distress, as well as a causal link between the actions or inaction of SBI officials and the damage caused. The court noted that the mere fact that the investigating judge issued rulings obliging the SBI to take certain actions is not conclusive proof of causing moral harm. The court also took into account that the plaintiff’s rights were restored by the rulings of the investigating judges, which obliged to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations based on his applications. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all the constituent elements of a civil offense, which is his procedural obligation. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they comply with the legal position of the Supreme Court, as stated in other resolutions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 913/501/24 dated July 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a natural gas supply agreement, as well as penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses due to the defendant’s improper performance of payment obligations.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not investigate the issue of the supplier’s actual performance of gas supply obligations and its consumption by the defendant, and did not take into account the terms of the agreement regarding the consumer’s independent control of gas consumption volumes. The appellate court did not clarify whether the failure to send the original acceptance certificate exempts from the obligation to pay for the actually consumed gas, and did not determine the legality of accruing penalties. The court of cassation emphasized the court’s obligation to assess the evidence in its entirety and fully clarify the circumstances of the case in order to make a reasoned decision.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the insolvency receiver in the case of bankruptcy of an individual and a motion to close the bankruptcy proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which recognized the actions of the insolvency receiver as improper due to incomplete identification and realization of the debtor’s assets, in particular, failure to assess and realize the debtor’s corporate rights, as well as failure to take sufficient measures to search for and sell vehicles. The court also took into account the circumstances of the debtor’s conclusion of a rye sale and purchase agreement on the eve of bankruptcy and the subsequent disposal of this property without proper justification. In addition, the court agreed with the appellate court’s decision to refuse to close the proceedings in the case, as this requires verification by a new insolvency receiver of circumstances that may indicate the debtor’s bad faith. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the insolvency receiver is obliged to act in good faith and reasonably, and a timely verification of the debtor’s financial situation is important for an adequate assessment of his solvency.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 916/2497/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land share (unit) lease agreement as invalid and the return of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the state represented by an improper plaintiff, since the Kuyalnitska Village Council is not the owner of the disputed land shares (units), and therefore, the prosecutor did not prove the violation of the rights and interests of the council by the disputed lease agreement. The court noted that undistributed shares (units) are not state or communal lands, but are only at the disposal of the relevant administrations until their owners receive state acts of ownership of the land plot. The court also took into account that the absence of a violated
or disputed right of the plaintiff is an independent ground for dismissing the claim. The court indicated that the disputed land plots may acquire the status of land plots owned by individuals by private ownership, subject to their compliance with the relevant procedure and the performance of relevant actions until 01.01.2028.
3. The Supreme Court ordered to amend the appellate court’s ruling, stating its reasoning part in a new wording, and to leave the rest unchanged, partially satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 366/3378/23 dated 22/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the punishment for illegal acquisition and storage of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances without the purpose of sale (Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation decided to amend the verdict, as the courts of previous instances did not fully take into account the circumstances of the case, data on the identity of the convicted person, and mitigating circumstances. In particular, PERSON_7 is being brought to criminal responsibility for the first time, is positively characterized at the place of residence, is a young person, and sincerely repented of the committed act. The court of first instance did not substantiate why it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the punishment by imposing a milder type of punishment, such as a fine. The appellate court did not properly assess the evidence of the defense, which characterizes the identity of the convicted person, and did not take into account that at the time of the appellate review, PERSON_7 was no longer a serviceman.
3. The Supreme Court granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and amended the court decisions in the part of the imposed punishment, mitigating it to a fine of UAH 34,000.
Case No. 904/2344/24 dated 29/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt between Joint Stock Company “Ukrgazvydobuvannya” and Limited Liability Company “Interpipe Niko Tube”.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute. In particular, the issues regarding the validity of the debt calculation, the terms of the agreement referred to by the parties, and other important aspects that affect the determination of the existence and amount of the debt remained unexplored. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete, and objective review of the case, taking into account all the arguments and objections of the parties, as well as providing a proper legal assessment of each piece of evidence separately and their totality as a whole. Given the identified violations of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court
