Case №559/2389/24 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation by refuting inaccurate information disseminated by the defendant on the social network Facebook.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff is an official (city mayor), and therefore the limit of permissible criticism regarding him is much wider than for an ordinary individual. The court took into account that the defendant’s statements, although critical, were made using hyperboles, allegories, and satire, and do not contain factual data that can be verified for truthfulness. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between facts and value judgments, stressing that the truth of value judgments is not subject to proof. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression, which includes ideas that may offend, shock, or disturb. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for granting the claim for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim for refutation of inaccurate information.
Case №521/4550/20 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the defendants from the apartment, the right to a part of which belongs to the plaintiff.
2. The court dismissed the claim for eviction, motivating this by the fact that a special regime of joint shared ownership of the disputed apartment arose between the plaintiff and the defendant PERSON_2, since the plaintiff’s share was recovered from PERSON_2 by a court decision, and the procedure for using the apartment between them was not established. The court noted that the other defendants moved into the apartment as family members of PERSON_2 on legal grounds, when there was no joint shared ownership yet, and their eviction is not justified. The court indicated that the absence of violations during the settling of the defendants and the subsequent emergence of a special regime of joint shared ownership of the disputed apartment do not give grounds for evicting PERSON_3 and PERSON_4. The court also took into account that the plaintiff demands the eviction of the defendants from the entire apartment, and not only from the part belonging to him.
3. The court of cassation amended the decisions of the previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, but left the decision to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case №450/2534/23 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of certificates of ownership of real estate, issued on the basis of electronic auctions, which were previously declared invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate
of the appellate court that the ownership certificates issued to the defendant are illegal, as they are based on electronic auction certificates that were invalidated by a court decision that has become legally binding. The court noted that the plaintiff has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the debtor’s property, from which the court’s decision to recover the debt in her favor can be enforced, is not unreasonably reduced. Also, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the property cannot be claimed from a bona fide purchaser, since no claims for the recovery of property were filed in this case, and the dispute concerns the lawfulness of the issuance of ownership certificates. The court of cassation emphasized that its task is to correct judicial errors, not to conduct a new trial, and found no grounds for overturning the decision of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 907/553/16 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling and decision of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal to recognize the monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Zakarpattia region against an individual entrepreneur in bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the tax authority missed the deadline established by the Tax Code of Ukraine for the collection of tax debt, namely 1095 days, regarding penalties accrued before the date of the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. The court also noted that the accrual of penalties during the period of the moratorium on meeting creditors’ claims is unlawful, referring to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring the Debtor’s Solvency or Declaring Bankruptcy.” The Supreme Court emphasized that the deadlines for filing creditors’ claims after the debtor is declared bankrupt are regulated by Article 59 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, and not by Article 130, as the appellant claimed. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances reasonably took into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 59 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures in similar legal relations. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellant’s arguments amount to disagreement with the decisions of the courts of previous instances and a re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 161/5741/21 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a clause in a loan agreement as invalid and the recovery of funds paid as remuneration for the provision of a financial instrument.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decision
of Appeal, emphasizing that the provisions of the loan agreement regarding the payment of commissions are void because they contradict the legislation on consumer protection and banking activities. The court stated that the claim for recognition of the invalidity of a void transaction is an improper method of protection, as such a transaction is invalid by virtue of the law. The Court departed from the previous position regarding the start of the statute of limitations in cases involving void transactions, noting that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment of commencement of performance of the void transaction, and not from the moment when the person became aware of the violation of their rights. Since the plaintiff applied to the court outside the statute of limitations, the court of cassation decided to dismiss the claim for recovery of funds.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court in the part of the satisfied claims and dismissed the claim for recovery of funds.
Case No. 759/5539/21 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation, and compensation for moral damage caused by the dissemination of information in the Viber messenger, which, according to the plaintiff, is unreliable.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of dissemination of unreliable information by the defendants, which degrades her honor and dignity. The court noted that the provided screenshots do not allow identifying the persons registered in the messenger group and establishing that the defendants are registered under the corresponding names. In addition, it is impossible to establish the date and time of the correspondence from the provided evidence. The court also took into account the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and noted that a person who expresses their own views and critical opinions cannot be obliged to prove their truthfulness. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove that the disseminated information is a factual statement that can be verified, rather than an evaluative judgment.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 359/6355/16-ц dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of forestry land plots to private ownership and their subsequent reclamation to state ownership.
2. In this case, the courts have long been clarifying whether the disputed land plots transferred to private ownership overlap with the forest fund lands that are in the permanent use of SE “Boryspil Forestry”. A key issue was the admissibility and evaluation of evidence, in particular expert opinions, regarding the existence of such an overlap. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to take into account all
of evidence in their entirety and provided instructions on verifying the validity of the appellate court’s acceptance of new evidence that had not been submitted to the court of first instance. The appellate court, taking into account these instructions, rejected the new evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the appellate review stage and, having reviewed the case based on the evidence that was the subject of assessment in the court of first instance, concluded that there was no irrefutable evidence of the disputed land plots overlapping with the plot of the State Enterprise “Boryspil Forestry.” The court also noted that the presence of conflicting evidence that cannot be resolved at the appellate review stage does not provide grounds for granting the claims.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claims for the recovery of land plots.
Case No. 755/5160/23 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of intellectual property rights infringement on a trademark and the obligation to perform certain actions, in particular, regarding the use of a domain name on the Internet.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the expert’s opinion, which indicated the possibility of misleading consumers through the defendant’s use of a trademark similar to the plaintiff’s mark. The appellate court took a formal approach to the assessment of the expert’s opinion, failing to take into account that the expert fully answered the questions posed, and did not offer to conduct an additional or repeated examination if it had doubts about the opinion. The court of cassation emphasized the court’s obligation to ensure a competitive process and a comprehensive investigation of the case’s circumstances. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not adhere to the basic principles of civil procedure, such as adversarial proceedings and dispositiveness.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 489/2088/18 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot and the cancellation of the privatization of a land plot.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claims because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the violation of her rights. The court took into account that at the time the plaintiff obtained ownership of the land, the defendant already owned real estate on the adjacent plot. The examination did not reveal the possibility of eliminating inconsistencies between the boundaries of the plots. The court also noted that the fact of the defendant’s unauthorized seizure of a part of the plaintiff’s land plot, the arrangement of a sewage system on its territory, the presence of an unfilled cesspool, and the installation of a fence have not been proven. The court of appeal
agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of a violation of her rights.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case №752/17575/16-ц dated 24/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts for the sale of a country house as invalid and the cancellation of the record of ownership, as the plaintiffs believe that their ownership right to the real estate object was violated due to the entry of a double record into the State Register of Real Property Rights.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that a private notary is an improper defendant in a dispute regarding the cancellation of a decision on state registration of ownership, as the proper defendant is the person whose right or encumbrance is registered. The court also emphasized that the selection of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for dismissing the claim, and indicated that in this case, the proper method of protection is a vindicatory claim against the last acquirer of the property, rather than recognizing previous transactions as invalid. The court noted that the cancellation of the state registration of the defendant’s ownership right and the closure of the section of the State Register of Real Property Rights cannot be separate claims. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of a conclusion from the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court had already considered a similar dispute in case № 752/26843/17 and formulated relevant legal conclusions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case №372/2692/20 dated 30/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the city council’s decision to transfer land plots into private ownership as invalid, the recognition of state acts of ownership of these plots as invalid, their reclamation and recognition of state ownership of them, as well as a counterclaim for the recognition of ownership of these plots by an individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the disputed land plots were illegally occupied by the defendants, as they belong to the lands of the water fund, which is a violation of the Land and Water Codes of Ukraine. In this case, the proper method of protection is not a vindicatory claim (reclamation of property), but a negatory claim (removal of obstacles in the use of property), provided for in Article 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, with a demand for the return of the land plot to the owner. The court noted that the prosecutor incorrectly chose the method of protection, stating claims for the reclamation of land plots, and not for the removal of obstacles in their use, which does not allow the claim to be satisfied. The court also took into account that the principle “jura novit curia” (the court knows the laws) cannot be applied in this case, as the prosecutor mistakenly based the claim requirements on the fact that the defendants received the land in violation of the requirements of the current land and water legislation (the land was state-owned and belonged to the water fund lands), and not referring to specific legal norms.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the refusal to satisfy the prosecutor’s initial claim.
Case No. 362/5171/21 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under a loan agreement and a counterclaim for invalidation of this agreement.
2. The appellate court, in overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the transfer of funds is confirmed both by the content of the loan agreement and by the notarized agreement on the pledge of corporate rights. The court noted that the defendant in the counterclaim did not provide sufficient evidence of the absence of receipt of funds under the loan agreement, which indicates the reality of the transaction. The defendant’s arguments that the parties had non-debt legal relations, but relations aimed at acquiring corporate rights, are not supported by sufficient evidence and are refuted by the text of the loan agreement and the pledge agreement. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the validity of the appellate court’s decision. The court of cassation also noted that the absence in the operative part of the court decision of conclusions based on the results of the appellate review of the decision of the district court regarding the counterclaim requirements is grounds for applying to the appellate court with a request to issue an additional decision in the case or for the appellate court to issue an additional decision on its own initiative.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 559/296/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the deadline for appealing the investigating judge’s order to extend the preventive measure in the form of house arrest.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s order, stating that the appellate court did not take into account the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, namely, lack of awareness of the reasons for the decision made by the investigating judge at the time of announcing the operative part of the order. The court of cassation referred to the position of the Supreme Court, expressed in the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of May 27, 2019, according to which lack of awareness of the reasons for the decision may be a valid reason for reinstating the deadline for appellate appeal. The appellate
appellate court did not properly assess these arguments, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court prematurely concluded that there were no grounds for granting the defender’s motion.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 910/9529/22 dated 08/04/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the state enforcement officer’s actions regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings based on a court order, the execution of which was suspended by the Supreme Court.
The court of cassation noted that the enforcement officer initiates the compulsory enforcement of a decision based on an enforcement document upon application by the claimant. The Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” contains an exhaustive list of grounds for returning the enforcement document to the claimant without acceptance for execution, and the suspension of the execution of a court decision by the court of cassation is not such a ground. The court emphasized that the suspension of enforcement actions is possible only in open enforcement proceedings, and this does not prohibit the claimant from applying to the state enforcement officer with a request to perform enforcement actions. Since the courts of previous instances established the absence of grounds for returning the enforcement document, they correctly concluded that the complaint against the actions of the state enforcement officer should be dismissed. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, noting that the appealed decisions were made with a full examination of the circumstances of the case and in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 757/55832/21-ц dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a current deposit agreement concluded in 1995 between an individual and a bank, given that the obligations under this agreement were not recorded on the bank’s balance sheet at the time of nationalization.
2. The court of cassation, granting the cassation appeals of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and PrivatBank, proceeded from the fact that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has the right to apply to the court with such a claim, since it is a shareholder of the bank and acts in the interests of the state. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” is a special law, and its provisions take precedence over the general norms of civil legislation. In particular, Article 41-1 of this Law establishes that transactions, obligations under which were not recorded on the bank’s balance sheet at the time the state acquired ownership of the bank’s shares, are void. The court also took into account that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine proved the fact that the obligations under the disputed agreement were not recorded at the time of nationalization.
bank. The court pointed out that the appellate court erroneously applied the principle of non-retroactivity of laws in time, since in this case we are dealing with ongoing legal relations to which the current legislation applies. The court also noted that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is proper and effective, as it allows to protect the interests of the state as a shareholder of the bank.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which satisfied the claim of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Case No. 343/1700/24 dated July 31, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment imposed on a person convicted of intentional failure to comply with a court decision on the deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, agreeing that the punishment in the form of imprisonment with a probationary period is fair and necessary for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes, considering that the crime was committed shortly after the entry into legal force of the decision on administrative penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol. The court took into account the data of the pre-trial report, which indicated an average risk of re-offending, but considered that correction was possible without actual imprisonment. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court reasonably disagreed with the possibility of correcting the convicted person only with a fine, taking into account the intentional nature of the actions and the short period of time after the administrative penalty. The court of cassation found no grounds to consider the imposed punishment excessively severe, as it corresponds to the severity of the crime and the personality of the convicted person.
3. Decision of the court of cassation: the judgment of the appellate court was upheld, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel was dismissed.
Case No. 203/5918/23 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order to suspend the employment contract of an elementary school teacher due to the impossibility of performing work remotely due to the introduction of a mixed form of education.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that from September 1, 2023, a mixed form of education was introduced in the educational institution, which requires the presence of teachers in classrooms, and the plaintiff, while abroad, could not perform her duties in person. The courts took into account that the city of Dnipro is not included in the list of territories where hostilities are taking place, and education is conducted in person. The court also noted that Article 57-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Education” is not an absolute guarantee of maintaining remote work, especially when in-person education is a priority for society.
of children. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding discrimination and punishment, as the suspension of the employment contract was carried out based on the objective impossibility of performing the work.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, confirming the legality of the order to suspend the employment contract.
Case No. 953/6878/21 dated July 31, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the existence of legal relations between the parties under the loan agreement, as the defendant wrote a receipt for receiving material assets for a certain amount of money and partially fulfilled the obligation to return funds for a long time. The court noted that the receipt is proper evidence of the conclusion of a loan agreement, and the absence of a specific list of material assets does not disprove the fact of receiving funds. Also, the court rejected the defendant’s reference to the fact that there was a sale and purchase agreement between the parties, since the defendant did not provide any proper evidence to confirm this circumstance, and the testimony of witnesses in this case is insufficient evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is not within its powers.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 361/2980/22 dated July 31, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for theft committed repeatedly under martial law.
2. The court of cassation refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, as the Law of Ukraine, which the prosecutor referred to, came into force after the appealed court decisions were issued, and the previous courts could not apply it. The court noted that the cancellation of court decisions would contradict the principle of res judicata. At the same time, the court took into account that the convicted person had already been released from punishment on the basis of the same law by another court in the procedure of execution of the judgment. Repeated application of the law to the same legal relations contradicts the principle of legal certainty. The court also emphasized the independence of the parties in criminal proceedings and the separation of the functions of prosecution and defense.
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 prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/7722/24 dated August 4, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the TSM Group Corporation for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation.
in the case on the recovery of debt and termination of the agreement.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments: everyone has the right to professional legal assistance, and the party requesting reimbursement of such expenses must prove their amount, justification, and compliance with the criteria of reality and reasonableness. The court takes into account the complexity of the case, the qualifications of the lawyer, the financial situation of the client, and other significant circumstances. The court also takes into account whether the expenses were necessary and their amount was justified, assessing the behavior of the parties during the consideration of the case. In this case, although the Corporation provided evidence of expenses incurred, the court found the claimed amount of the fee disproportionate, considering that the legal position of the Corporation did not change, and the lawyer was familiar with the case from previous instances.
3. The court partially granted the application of the TSM Group Corporation and ordered the recovery from the Joint Stock Company “NNEGC “Energoatom” of UAH 30,000 for expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
Case №947/10923/24 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), regarding the part of the verdict cancelling the release from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The court of cassation instance disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which cancelled the person’s release from serving the sentence with probation, motivating this by the increased public danger of the crime under martial law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not duly take into account the mitigating circumstances, in particular the sincere remorse of the convicted person, assistance in solving the crime, and his subsequent conscription for military service during mobilization, which indicates his correction. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the purpose of punishment is not only retribution, but also the correction of convicts, and in this case, there are sufficient grounds to believe that the convicted person can be corrected without serving the sentence. The court also took into account that the crime committed by the person is not serious, and there are no aggravating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the defense attorney and changed the verdict of the appellate court, releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case №569/6297/22 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of property rights to a two-room apartment in a new building.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, which granted the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not involve the proper defendant in the case, namely the developer (Rivne Housing and Construction Cooperative LLC), which is the owner of the o
