[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244591](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244591)
**Case No. 910/12208/24 dated July 29, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,964,622.41.
2. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and upholding the decision of the court of first instance, reasoning that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law and did not take into account all the circumstances of the case. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, which, presumably, more fully and objectively examined the evidence and established the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute. Also, the Supreme Court reversed the enforcement of the appellate court’s decision, recovering from LLC “Engineering and Technical Center “Signal” in favor of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” previously received funds and court costs. This indicates that the appellate court erroneously satisfied the claims that were rightfully rejected by the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244597](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244597)
**Case No. 916/4168/24 dated July 31, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of closing appellate proceedings on the complaint of a self-employed individual (FOP) who is not a party to the case, against a court decision on the recovery from LLC in favor of JSC of the cost of unaccounted gas.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, as the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, interests or obligations of the self-employed individual (FOP) who filed the appeal. The court noted that the FOP is not a party to the contract with the gas supply company, and the gas meter belongs to LLC, not the FOP. Also, the court indicated that the FOP is not deprived of the opportunity to protect its interests in other court proceedings, in particular, by filing indemnity claims. The court emphasized that the circumstances established in this case may be refuted by the FOP in another court proceeding, since it was not a party to this case. The court rejected the FOP’s arguments about the court’s failure to examine the evidence, as they are not decisive for establishing the fact of violation of the FOP’s rights by the challenged decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the self-employed individual (FOP), and left the appellate court’s order to close the appellate proceedings unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244599](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129244599)
**Case No. 902/709/24 dated July 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the annex to the contract for the provision of electric energy distribution services, where the Condominium “Cosmonavtiv-77” indicates impossible
regarding the use of a common building meter for accounting of consumed electricity.
2. The court of cassation instance, in refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Condominium “Cosmonauts-77”, proceeded from the fact that the contract for the provision of electricity distribution services was concluded on the basis of an application for accession, where the Condominium agreed to the terms of Annex No. 3, which defined a single means of accounting for electricity – a common building meter. The court noted that the Condominium did not provide evidence of the existence of other meters that should be used to account for electricity consumed by the Condominium for its own needs. Also, the court took into account that the recognition of Annex No. 3, in which only one meter is indicated, as invalid, would make it impossible to execute the contract as a whole, since there would be no means of measuring the amount of electricity consumed. The Supreme Court analyzed the previous decisions referred to by the Condominium and found that they related to other circumstances, in particular, when the annexes to the contracts provided for several points of electricity metering, which allowed one of the annexes to be recognized as invalid without making it impossible to execute the contract as a whole. The court also took into account that the Condominium filed a lawsuit only two years after the conclusion of the contract, which may indicate a lack of intention to change the terms of the contract.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Condominium “Cosmonauts-77” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 927/422/24 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Chernihivgaz” against the actions and inaction of a private enforcement officer in the enforcement proceedings on the recovery of debt from JSC “Chernihivgaz” in favor of LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine”.
2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC “Chernihivgaz”, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the complaint against the inaction of the private enforcement officer. The court recognized as unlawful the inaction of the private enforcement officer regarding the non-suspension of enforcement actions and the non-removal of the arrest from the debtor’s funds, since JSC “Chernihivgaz” is in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Measures Aimed at Overcoming Crisis Phenomena and Ensuring Financial Stability in the Natural Gas Market”. The court noted that the private enforcement officer was obliged to suspend enforcement actions and remove the arrest from the debtor’s accounts, since he does not have the authority to assess the amount of debt to be settled. The court departed from the conclusion regarding the identity of asset management and ownership rights, noting that ARMA asset management does not change the title of ownership.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
of instances regarding the refusal to satisfy the complaint of JSC “Chernihivgaz” against the inaction of the private enforcement officer, and satisfied this complaint, obliging the private enforcement officer to suspend enforcement actions and remove the arrest from the debtor’s funds.
Case No. 914/1559/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as hopeless and the write-off of the tax debt of an individual entrepreneur within the framework of the insolvency case.
2. The court of cassation indicates that the courts of previous instances prematurely satisfied the debtor’s application for writing off the tax debt, as they did not properly verify whether the tax debt actually arose within three years before the opening of the insolvency proceedings, as required by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP). The court emphasizes that it was necessary to establish when exactly the monetary obligations acquired the status of tax debt according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, taking into account possible appeals of tax notices-decisions. Also, the courts did not investigate the circumstances regarding the debtor’s property status, in particular the presence of a vehicle, which could indicate the debtor’s bad faith. The court of cassation emphasized that the debt restructuring procedure aims to achieve a compromise between the debtor and creditors, and not just to write off debts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance.
Case No. 952/4367/25 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings against four individuals from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. It is only apparent from the text that the consideration of the case requires a significant amount of time, therefore the panel of judges limited itself to drawing up and announcing the operative part of the decision. Full reasons will be given later.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another.
Case No. 908/204/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation, the renewal of the company’s charter, the recovery of a share from the authorized capital, the determination of the amount of the authorized capital, the composition of the participants, and the size of the participants’ shares.
2. The court decision does not state the court’s arguments. Therefore, I cannot provide information on the main arguments that the court relied on when making the decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courtstations – without changes.
Case No. 908/1117/24 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of the Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding the approval of the amount of contribution for the management and maintenance of the building.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that the plaintiff was duly notified of the general meeting, as the notification was sent by mail, which complies with the requirements of the law; the quorum for making the decision was observed, since the voting was attended by co-owners who collectively own most of the building area; minor procedural violations are not grounds for recognizing the decision as invalid, as they did not lead to a violation of the plaintiff’s rights; it is important to take into account the balance of interests of all co-owners, and the cancellation of the decision may negatively affect the activities of the HOA; and, finally, the plaintiff did not prove that the disputed decision violated his rights and interests. The court also noted that the HOA is a non-profit organization, and minor procedural errors should not be the basis for canceling decisions on issues of joint property management.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/17666/23 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the application for an additional decision, referring to the fact that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to reimbursement if the scope of services provided and their cost are confirmed, regardless of actual payment. The court took into account the evidence provided, the scope of services provided, the objections of the Ministry of Justice, as well as the principles of disposition, competitiveness, reality, proportionality, and reasonableness of court costs. At the same time, the court did not reimburse the costs of preparing the application for an additional decision, as this is an action aimed at exercising the right to submit evidence regarding already incurred expenses. The court reduced the amount of reimbursement based on the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, as well as taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The court decided to recover from PERSON_2 and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 9,500.00 each, as reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 910/502/23 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of dispatch (operational and technological) management services.
lling, as well as penalty, fine, three percent per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as the courts did not establish all the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, whether the volume of dispatching services actually included the volume of exported electricity and to which countries the export was carried out. The court of appeal did not properly assess the evidence of the defendant, which confirms the volume of exported electricity, and also did not take into account the defendant’s arguments regarding partial payment of claims. In addition, the courts did not check and did not assess the defendant’s arguments regarding violations of the rules for calculating the terms when calculating the accrued amounts of 3% per annum and inflation losses, without providing a reasonable calculation in the decision. Regarding the penalty and fine, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to take into account the legal position of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court regarding the application of NERC Decree No. 332, which suspends the accrual and collection of penalties for the period of martial law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of recovering the debt, 3% per annum, inflation losses, penalty and fine, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/2732/21 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state executor regarding the return of the writ of execution without execution due to the liquidation of the debtor bank.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the Administration’s complaint against the inaction of the state executor, based on the fact that the Law “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” is a special law in disputes related to the fulfillment of obligations by a bank that is being liquidated. The court noted that although paragraph 4 of part 4 of article 4 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” provides for the return of the writ of execution in the event of liquidation of the bank, this provision cannot deprive the claimant of the right to enforce a court decision that has entered into legal force, especially if the obligations arose as current in the liquidation procedure. The court also emphasized that the execution of a court decision is an effective way to protect the interests of the claimant and corresponds to the principles of legal certainty. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding improper jurisdiction of the writ of execution, since the return of the writ of execution was carried out on a different basis.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “AKB “Capital”, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/2070/23 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution
regarding court costs, namely the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the defendant in favor of the private enforcement officer in the case on foreclosure of the mortgage item.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which ordered the defendant to pay the costs of professional legal assistance to the private enforcement officer, since the defendant did not provide reasonable objections to the application for the distribution of court costs and did not file a motion to reduce their amount. The court of cassation noted that the mere fact that a party did not submit a preliminary calculation of court costs is not an unconditional ground for refusing reimbursement. The court of cassation also took into account that a private enforcement officer is entitled to reimbursement of court costs on general grounds. However, the cassation court reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered from the defendant in favor of the private enforcement officer in the cassation instance, taking into account the level of complexity of the case, the scope of the cassation review, the cassation review in the order of written proceedings, the services provided by the attorney, and also taking into account the criteria of reasonableness, fairness and reality of court costs.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the additional постанову [ruling] of the appellate court – without changes, but reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, which is subject to recovery from the defendant in favor of the private enforcement officer in the cassation instance.
Case No. 910/16868/19 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of sale and purchase agreements of a share in the authorized capital of the company, acceptance and transfer acts as invalid, the cancellation of registration actions and the recovery of the share from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation, overturning in part the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his rights, since in order to recover property (a share in the authorized capital) it is not necessary to challenge previous agreements and cancel registration actions; it is enough to file a claim for vindication against the final acquirer of the property. The court also noted that the claim for recovery of property must be filed against the person who is the actual owner of the property at the time of the case consideration, and not against the previous owner. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that if the property was alienated under an invalid transaction, the owner may recover it in the order of restitution only if it is in the possession of the party to this transaction, and in other cases the provisions on vindication apply. The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the effectiveness of methods of protection and the need for their conformity.
of the violated right.
3. The court of cassation instance partially overturned the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the claims for invalidation of contracts, acts, and cancellation of registration actions, and in other part left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 910/10399/18 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State Treasury Service of Ukraine at the expense of the State Budget of lost profits caused by the illegal actions of prosecutors who illegally seized the property of Vima LLC.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the courts of previous instances, in particular, established the fact of causing losses to the plaintiff in the form of the value of the lost equipment, and also reasonably determined the amount of lost profits, limiting it to the period of the contract with the company “Paradiso”. The Supreme Court emphasized that the conclusions of the courts do not contradict the general conclusions regarding the recovery of lost profits, and the prosecutor did not refute these conclusions, referring to general provisions, and not to specific circumstances of the case. The court also rejected the argument about the need to involve Ingrid Plus LLC as a co-defendant, since no reasonable evidence was provided that this organization is responsible for the damage caused. The Supreme Court emphasized that its function is to ensure the uniformity of judicial practice, and not to re-evaluate the facts established by the courts.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the Head of the Zakarpattia Regional Prosecutor’s Office without satisfaction, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 638/13381/24 dated 08/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of a university professor in connection with the expiration of the term of the employment agreement (contract).
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim for reinstatement, based on the fact that the term of the contract had expired, an agreement on extension had not been reached, and the dismissal was lawful in accordance with paragraph 2 of part one of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the extension of the contract requires the consent of both parties, and not only the desire of the employee, and that the provision of the contract on the employee’s preferential right to conclude a contract for a new term can be realized only if such consent is available. The court also indicated that the absence of a warning about dismissal is not a violation, since the contract is terminated automatically after the expiration of the term.
his actions. The court rejected the reference to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances in this case differ.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the appellate court’s ruling.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129280646](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129280646)
**Case No. 903/794/24 dated 07/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the closure of proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual entrepreneur due to the submission of false information about the property status.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the proceedings in the case of insolvency of individual entrepreneur Fishchuk V.V., because the debtor provided incomplete and false information about his property status and the income of family members in the declarations, which is a violation of the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court emphasized that the bankruptcy procedure of an individual is voluntary and requires the debtor to act in good faith, including providing complete and reliable information about property, income, and expenses. The court noted that the debtor submitted declarations of property status three times, and the last ones were submitted after the creditor’s motion to close the proceedings in the case, which indicates the debtor’s bad faith. The court also took into account that the debtor did not provide explanations regarding the impossibility of obtaining information from official sources about the property of family members. The court emphasized that the closure of proceedings in the case is an unconditional measure of the debtor’s liability for actions to the detriment of creditors.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129277882](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129277882)
**Case No. 824/142/22 dated 07/31/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in the enforcement proceedings in the case of recognition and granting permission for the enforcement of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, thus supporting the decision to replace a party in the enforcement proceedings. The court probably agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of legal grounds for such a replacement, taking into account the circumstances of the legal succession of the debtor in the enforcement proceedings. It is important that the dispute arose in connection with the enforcement of the decision of the international commercial arbitration, which provides for a special procedure for recognition and enforcement in Ukraine. The court also took into account the arguments of the parties, in particular, the representatives of the applicant and the debtor, regarding the validity of the replacement of the party to the enforcement proceedings. The court’s decision is based on the analysis of the case materials and the norms of the current legislation governing the issues of enforcement proceedings and legal succession. The court of cassation confirmed the legality and validity of the appellate court’s decision.
of Appeal, finding no grounds for its cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 910/9763/24 dated July 31, 2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery of a penalty for non-compliance with the deadlines for equipment installation under a supply agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the counterclaim for the recovery of a penalty, because the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law when accepting evidence submitted in violation of the established deadline, and did not properly assess electronic evidence, in particular a video recording, rejecting it solely due to the absence of an electronic digital signature, without taking into account that electronic evidence can be evaluated on the basis of general principles of evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should have assessed all the evidence in aggregate, and not rejected it formally. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/12005/22 regarding the procedure for accepting evidence submitted in violation of procedural deadlines.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of satisfying the counterclaim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 910/2389/23 dated July 16, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the use by LLC “NVP “Restin” of a land plot in the protection zone of the Museum of Outstanding Figures of Ukrainian Culture, after the expiration of the lease agreement.
2. The court decided that the prosecutor rightfully applied to the court, since the Kyiv City Council, which should protect the interests of the community, is itself the defendant in the case. The court emphasized the importance of protecting cultural heritage, considering the location of the site in the protection zone of the Museum. However, the court noted that the existence of contractual relations between the parties makes it impossible to apply a negatory action (Article 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine). At the same time, the court indicated that the claim for the return of the land plot is lawful, since the term of the lease agreement has expired, and the lessee is obliged to return the land plot to the owner in accordance with Article 785 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law “On Land Lease”. Claims for recognizing the decision of the City Council as illegal and the lease agreement as invalid were recognized as ineffective means of protection, since the agreement has already terminated. The court also emphasized that the statute of limitations has not been missed regarding the claim for the return of the land plot.
3. The court obliged LLC “NVP “Restin” to return the land plot to the territorial community of the city of Kyiv.
**Case No. 921/740/21 dated July 08, 2025**
1.
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of opening bankruptcy proceedings against Private Enterprise “Afisha” based on the creditor’s application.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, as it found that the monetary claims of the initiating creditor against the debtor arose on the basis of court decisions on the recovery of unjustifiably acquired funds. The court took into account that the debtor’s obligations arose from the moment the debtor knew or should have known about the unjustified possession of the property, namely before March 12, 2020, which does not fall under the restrictions established for the COVID-19 quarantine period. The court noted that the main task of the preparatory hearing in a bankruptcy case is to verify the validity of the applicant’s claims, to establish the presence/absence of a dispute about the right and the circumstances of satisfying the claims before the preparatory hearing. The court also indicated that the absence of a dispute about the right consists in the absence of ambiguity regarding the parties, the essence, the basis of the obligation, the amount of the obligation, and the term of its fulfillment. The court emphasized that in order to avoid abuse by the debtor, challenging the claims of the initiating creditor must occur before filing an application for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129280640](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129280640) **Case No. 918/822/23(918/873/24) dated July 29, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the reimbursement of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendants in connection with the consideration of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, which was dismissed.
2. The court, when considering the defendants’ applications for reimbursement of legal costs, was guided by the principles of fairness, good faith, reasonableness, and proportionality of legal costs, and also took into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the attorney. The court noted that the amount of the attorney’s fee is determined by agreement with the client, but the court is not entitled to interfere in these legal relations. At the same time, the court has the right to reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be distributed between the parties if they are disproportionate to the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent on their performance. The court also took into account that the attorney representing the interests of the defendants submitted only one document on the merits – a response to the cassation appeal, which was based on the legal position stated in the courts of previous instances, as well as the fact that the attorney represented the interests of several defendants simultaneously. The court took into account that the participation in the case took place via video conference.
3. The court partially granted the defendants’ applications for reimbursement of court
