Case No. 914/3180/23 dated July 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the executive committee of the settlement council on granting urban planning conditions and restrictions, the permit of the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate of Ukraine for the performance of construction works, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the object of unfinished construction.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusion of the court of appeal regarding the ineffectiveness of the method of protecting the rights of the territorial community chosen by the prosecutor, since the court of appeal did not take into account that the urban planning conditions and restrictions are valid until the completion of the construction of the object, and therefore, the decision to grant them has not exhausted its effect. In addition, the court of appeal did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that a decision of a local self-government body that has not exhausted its effect may be challenged from the point of view of legality, and the requirement to recognize it as illegal is a proper method of protection. Also, the court of cassation noted that the requirement to cancel the state registration of ownership is an effective method of protection, since such registration is not the basis for the emergence of ownership, and its cancellation may restore the violated rights. The court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal did not examine all the evidence in the case and did not assess the validity of the claims on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and referred the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 990/163/24 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to refuse to recommend the plaintiff for appointment to the position of judge.
2. The court granted the claim, since the HQCJ, in refusing to recommend the plaintiff, did not provide sufficient evidence to justify doubts about his integrity, especially considering the previous positive conclusions of the NACP and the decision of the HQCJ of 2018 on the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements for a candidate for the position of judge. The court noted that the HQCJ’s doubts should be based on specific facts, not on subjective feelings, and that the Commission did not provide convincing evidence to refute previous conclusions about the plaintiff’s integrity. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s explanations regarding the contentious issues in the declarations, in particular regarding property that was not declared due to lack of information or because it was not subject to declaration in accordance with the NACP’s clarifications. The court emphasized that the Commission did not take the opportunity to refute the plaintiff’s arguments and did not provide sufficient justification for reassessing previous conclusions.
3. The court declared illegal the decision of the HQCJ to refuse to recommend the plaintiff for appointment to the position of judge and obliged the HQCJ to conduct a repeated interview with the plaintiff.
Case No. 91
0/1128/23 dated 22/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Alter Energo Development” of UAH 7,455,433.10 due to violation of the terms of connection of the plaintiff’s electrical installations to the electrical networks.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the improper fulfillment by “Ukrainian Railways” of its obligations under the agreements on connection to the electrical networks, since “Ukrzaliznytsia” did not ensure the supply of the agreed amount of voltage power to the connection point, which is a violation of the Distribution System Code. The court rejected the arguments of “Ukrzaliznytsia” that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases are not similar to the present one. Also, the court did not find any violations of procedural law in the actions of the appellate court, in particular, regarding the evaluation of evidence and consideration of the instructions of the Supreme Court during the previous review of the case. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence collected by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the additional resolution – without changes.
Case No. 904/3697/24 dated 22/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual by the State Enterprise of Water Supply and Sewerage “Dnipro-Zakhidnyi Donbas” of the water supply tariff for the Gardening Association “Tiahynka” as for a legal entity, and not as for the population.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal, which established that the Gardening Association “Tiahynka” is a non-profit organization created to meet the needs of its members (individuals) in water supply for sanitary and hygienic needs and irrigation of household plots. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Housing and Communal Services” distinguishes between individual and collective consumers, and the determining factor is for whose needs the agreement is concluded. Since the association does not engage in production activities and does not use water for its own needs, but provides for the needs of its members, it is a collective consumer. The court also took into account that the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine recommended not to increase water supply tariffs for the population during the period of martial law. The court referred to similar conclusions of the Supreme Court in cases regarding the supply of gas and electricity to service cooperatives and condominiums.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the resolution of the court of appeal without changes, confirming the obligation of the State Enterprise to apply to the Gardening Association “Tiahynka” the water supply tariff established for the population.
Case No. 160/25952/23 dated 30/07/2025
1. The subject of the
The subject of the dispute was the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) to revoke the banking license and liquidate the Joint Stock Company “Joint Stock Commercial Bank “Concord” (Bank Concord), which was appealed by the bank’s shareholder.
3. The Supreme Court, when considering cassation appeals, focused on the issue of the effectiveness of the method chosen by the plaintiff to protect their rights. The Court took into account the changes in legislation introduced by the Law of Ukraine № 590-IX, which limit the methods of protecting the rights of former shareholders of banks being liquidated, reducing them to claims for damages. The Court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that the cancellation of a decision on the liquidation of a bank does not restore the previous position of the bank and its shareholders, and the only effective way to protect is to compensate for damages. The Court departed from its previous position, noting that the courts should close proceedings in cases where plaintiffs demand the cancellation of decisions on the liquidation of a bank, as this is an ineffective method of protection.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case, recognizing that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect their rights, since current legislation provides only for the possibility of compensation for damages in such cases.
Case №640/4046/20 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the tax authority to refuse registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The court of cassation established that the commissions on issues of suspension of registration of tax invoices, although they have the authority to register/refuse registration of tax invoices, are not separate subjects of power of authority, but operate as part of the controlling body. Accordingly, the proper defendant in the case is the territorial body of the State Tax Service, and not the commission. The court of first instance, when opening proceedings, did not check with which controlling body the plaintiff is registered and by which body’s commission the appealed decisions were made, which is important for the correct determination of the defendant. Since these circumstances were not established by the court of first instance, this is a violation of the rules of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №560/9900/24 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the customs decision on the adjustment of the customs value and the card of refusal to accept the customs declaration.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court mistakenly calculated the amount of court fee that Khmelnytskyi Customs had to pay when filing an appeal, since when appealing a decision on adjusting the customs value, the price of the claim is
the difference between customs payments calculated by the declarant and the customs authority, and the requirement to cancel the refusal card is derived from the requirement to cancel the decision on adjusting the customs value, therefore it is a property claim. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court incorrectly applied a coefficient of 0.8 to reduce the amount of the court fee, since the Khmelnytskyi Customs Office filed an appeal in electronic form. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court prematurely recognized the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal as disrespectful, without taking into account the error in calculating the court fee made by the appellate court itself. Considering these circumstances in their entirety, the Supreme Court did not see any signs of abuse of procedural rights in the appellant’s actions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on refusing to open appellate proceedings and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 990/204/25 dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and obliging the HCJ to perform certain actions.
2. No arguments are given in the decision.
3. The court dismissed the claim.
Case No. 932/12380/20 dated 07/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot, and the recognition as invalid of the donation agreement for this land plot.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the share of the house that belonged to the defendant was allocated in kind before the transfer of the disputed land plot to his ownership, and whether the area of the land plot corresponded to his share in the right of ownership of the house. The court also noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the totality of registered shares of the house does not form the full scope of ownership, which may indicate the presence of other co-owners not involved in the case. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the rights and obligations of the parties in the disputed legal relations is carried out in accordance with the substantive law that was in force at the time of the occurrence of such legal relations, and the methods of protecting rights are determined by the law that is in force at the time of the court decision. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court is not deprived of the right, instead of canceling the entry on the state registration of rights, to cancel the decision of the state registration entity regarding the state registration of ownership of real estate, if it establishes a violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of certificates of inheritance by law as invalid and the recognition of the inheritance as ownerless with its transfer to the ownership of the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to recognize the inheritance as ownerless, motivating this by the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the long period of time after the defendant’s application was left unconsidered, which may indicate a loss of interest in the inherited property, and did not check the presence of other heirs. The court also noted that the appellate court did not establish all the circumstances necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, whether the defendant is a legal heir. In this regard, the case was sent for a new appellate review for a complete and comprehensive examination of all circumstances, taking into account the interest of the territorial community in the absence of other heirs. In the other part, where the courts of previous instances refused to invalidate the certificate of inheritance issued to the deceased’s aunt, the decisions of the courts were left unchanged, as the family ties were confirmed by the case materials.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to recognize the inheritance as ownerless and sent the case for a new appellate review, and in the other part left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 911/268/22 dated 07/29/2025
1. The dispute in this case concerns the return of land plots of the water fund and the cancellation of decisions on their state registration, where the prosecutor acts in the interests of the Kozyntsi settlement council against “Reinir Business Group” LLC.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not take into account the instructions of the Supreme Court in the previous hearing of the case regarding the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. In particular, the appellate court did not investigate whether the defendant could have known about the existence of the General Plan of the Kozyntsi settlement at the time of the case’s consideration and whether this information would have affected the outcome of the case. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess these circumstances, limiting itself to previous conclusions, which contradicts the requirements of completeness and comprehensiveness of the case’s consideration. Also, the court of cassation pointed out the need to establish whether the circumstances referred to by the defendant were known to him before the previous decision was made, and whether приwould these circumstances lead to a different outcome of the trial. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the practice of the Supreme Court and did not investigate all the important circumstances in the disputed legal relations, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case №260/5156/24 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, which increased the amount of monetary obligations for the military levy and personal income tax for a natural person-entrepreneur (FOP).
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, which признали tax assessment notices unlawful due to the controlling authority’s violation of the procedure established by Article 86 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. In particular, the controlling authority did not consider the FOP’s objections to the audit report before issuing the tax assessment notices, which is mandatory. The court noted that the notification of the delivery of the audit report did not contain the necessary data about its receipt by the FOP specifically, and therefore was not proper proof of delivery. The court also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the right to re-evaluate them. In addition, the court pointed out the importance of substantiating court decisions to ensure their understanding by the parties and to prevent arbitrariness.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case №755/16131/16-к dated 07/24/2025
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 accusation of PERSON_7 of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (acceptance of an offer, promise, or receipt of undue advantage by an official).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments that it relied upon when making the decision, as it is stated that the full text of the ruling will be drawn up later. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine which arguments of the defender PERSON_6 the court rejected, and why it left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances. Analysis of the court’s arguments will be possible after the full text of the ruling is published.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave unchanged the judgment of the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv dated January 27, 2021, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated August 07, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6.
Case №910/7722/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract, termination of the contract, recovery of
recovering unjustly acquired funds, penalties, fines, and obligations to perform certain actions regarding the return of equipment.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the contract between the parties is mixed, combining elements of contracting and supply, and that the terms of the contract provide for separate payment for the supplied equipment based on signed consignment notes. The court also took into account that the Company partially paid for the supplied equipment and agreed on a schedule for repayment of the debt, which indicates recognition of the payment obligation. In addition, the court agreed with the appellate court that the Company had violated its payment obligations, which gave the Corporation the right to suspend the performance of work, and therefore there are no grounds for recovering penalties from the Corporation. Regarding the claim for recognition of the contract as terminated, the court agreed with the appellate court that such a method of protection is ineffective, since the law provides for termination of the contract by a court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 924/419/24 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for the distribution of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the application for the distribution of legal costs, was guided by the fact that the party in whose favor the decision is made has the right to reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, but their amount must be justified, proportional to the subject of the dispute, and meet the criteria of reality and reasonableness. The court took into account the consistency of the defendant’s legal position throughout the consideration of the case in various instances, the absence of a significant amount of legal work at the stage of cassation review, and the fact that the costs of preparing an application for reimbursement of legal costs are not subject to reimbursement. In addition, the court took into account the plaintiff’s objections regarding the inflated amount of costs and their disproportion to the complexity of the case. Based on these arguments, the court concluded that it was necessary to partially satisfy the application for the distribution of legal costs, reducing the amount to be recovered from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.
3. The court partially satisfied the application for the distribution of legal costs, recovering from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant EUR 420 of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 160/25952/23 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) to revoke the banking license and liquidate the Joint Stock Company “Joint Stock Commercial Bank “Concord” by a shareholder of this bank.
2. The Supreme Court decided to close the proceedings in the case, referring to the changes in legislation introduced by Law No. 590-IX, which limit the ways to protect the rights of former shareholders of banks that are l
being liquidated, to claims for damages. The court indicated that the cancellation of the NBU’s decision on the liquidation of the bank does not restore the bank’s previous status and the rights of its shareholders, and the only effective remedy is the recovery of damages. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which emphasizes the need to adapt Ukrainian legislation to European standards in the banking sector, which provide for restrictions on ways to appeal decisions on the withdrawal of insolvent banks from the market. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective remedy, namely appealing the decision on the liquidation of the bank, does not comply with current legislation, which provides only for compensation for damages.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, noting that the dispute is not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings.
Case No. 752/15423/22 dated July 31, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against “Municipal Guard” CO for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, since the plaintiff was dismissed for absenteeism.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of PERSON_1. The courts found that the plaintiff was absent from work for valid reasons, namely due to the introduction of martial law, the need to take the family to a safe place, and subsequent mobilization to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court noted that in the context of martial law, employees who are absent from work due to circumstances related to hostilities or danger to life and health are not subject to automatic dismissal for absenteeism. The court also took into account that the plaintiff applied to the territorial recruitment center for mobilization and was drafted into military service. Considering these circumstances, the courts concluded that the dismissal of the plaintiff was illegal, and he is subject to reinstatement with payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Municipal Guard” CO and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 320/33155/23 dated July 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the decision of the Kyiv City Council regarding the establishment of local taxes and fees in the part of the list of parking lots assigned to the municipal enterprise.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the courts of previous instances did not investigate important circumstances, namely: whether the disputed regulatory legal act applies to the plaintiff, whether the defendant complied with the procedure for adopting the disputed decision, in particular, regarding its publication and entry into force. The court emphasized that in order to resolve the issue of the right to appeal a regulatory legal act, it is necessary to clarify whether this act applies to the plaintiff. Also, the court notedthat the courts did not investigate the defendant’s compliance with the procedure for adopting the disputed decision, in particular, regarding its publication, and did not establish the entry into force of this decision. The court pointed out the need to take into account the peculiarities of proceedings in cases regarding appeals against normative legal acts, in particular, regarding the obligation of the defendant to publish an announcement about this in the publication in which this act was or should have been officially published. The court also noted that the courts did not investigate the issue of compliance of the list of parking lots with the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 755/16131/16-к dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for receiving undue advantage by prior conspiracy by a group of persons.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the court of appeal carefully checked the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided reasoned answers to them, in particular, regarding the qualification of the crime based on the element of prior conspiracy, the absence of provocation of the crime by law enforcement agencies, the proper disclosure to the defense of rulings on conducting covert investigative (search) actions, as well as the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of these actions. The court noted that the established circumstances of the case indicate the existence of a conspiracy between the accomplices at the time of the transfer of undue advantage, as well as the absence of signs of provocation of the crime, since the accused did not take measures to establish the fact of the driver’s drug intoxication, but instead agreed to receive undue advantage. The court of cassation also emphasized that the disclosure to the defense of the rulings of the investigating judges was carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the defense had enough time to familiarize themselves with these documents.
3. The court decided to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 914/2176/24 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a limited liability company of unreasonably received funds in the amount of VAT paid under a contract for the supply of goods that were actually transferred to a military unit and should have been exempt from VAT.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to dismiss the claim, emphasizing the presumption of legality of the transaction, enshrined in the Civil Code of Ukraine, and the need to refute it in court. The court noted that the prosecutor did not file a claim to invalidate the contract in terms of including VAT in the price of the goods, and the courts did not establish the nullity of this clause of the contract. Also, the court
