**Case №199/3181/23 dated 07/30/2025**
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 lease right.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the illegality of the acquisition of ownership of the land plot by the defendant, since the order on the transfer of the land plot into ownership, entered into the electronic system, has the legal force of the original, if it is drawn up in accordance with the requirements of current legislation, and the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of forgery of this order. The court emphasized that every natural or legal person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, and no one can be unlawfully deprived of this right. The court also took into account that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. At the same time, the court of cassation pointed to violations by the courts of previous instances of the rules of jurisdiction of general courts when considering claims against a subsidiary enterprise, since the dispute is a land dispute between the territorial community and a legal entity that belongs to the commercial jurisdiction.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the claims against the Subsidiary Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
**Case №920/1497/24 dated 08/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the city council’s decision and the renewal of land lease agreements.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application of “Agriport-Nord” LLC for securing the claim, filed directly with the appellate court, motivating this by the fact that the declared measures to secure the claim were not the subject of consideration by the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the application for securing the claim must be submitted to the court that is considering the case on the merits, and that the appellate court can decide on the issue of securing the claim only at the stage of appellate review of the decision of the court of first instance on the merits of the dispute. The court also noted that the appellate court violated procedural rules by stating the ruling on the refusal to satisfy the application for securing the claim as part of the resolution, but this did not lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. The court of cassation also pointed out that in the cassationAppeals court rulings on securing a claim, both those that grant the application and those that deny such security, may be reviewed based on the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Agriport-Nord” LLC and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 8/471-23/1 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate commercial court’s ruling to close appellate proceedings on the complaint of an individual who is not a party to the bankruptcy case, against the first instance court’s ruling on the introduction of the debtor’s rehabilitation procedure and approval of the rehabilitation plan.
2. The cassation court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that the right to appeal lies with either the parties to the bankruptcy case or individuals whose rights and obligations are directly decided by the court decision. The Supreme Court noted that the person filing the appeal must prove that the appealed decision directly concerns their rights and interests, and this connection must be obvious and unconditional. In this case, the appellate court reasonably found that the ruling on the introduction of rehabilitation and approval of the rehabilitation plan does not directly violate the complainant’s rights to privatize housing, as it does not resolve this issue. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the complainant did not prove how the approval of the rehabilitation plan directly affects her property status or right of residence, and references to possible impact are insufficient to recognize her right to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 127/3189/24 dated 08/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damages caused by a traffic accident.
2. The appellate court closed the proceedings in the case because it considered that the plaintiff had reapplied to the court with the same claim (same parties, subject matter, and grounds) that had already been decided in another case, the decision of which had entered into legal force. The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that in the new case he claimed a smaller amount and added a new expert study conclusion, which, in his opinion, makes the claims non-identical. The Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments, noting that the identity of the claim is determined by the coincidence of the parties, the subject matter, and the grounds. The court found that in both cases, the parties, the circumstances justifying the claims, and the essence of the claims (compensation for damages resulting from a traffic accident) are identical. Additional evidence does not change the essence of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without
satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling – without changes.
**Case №1326/10462/2012 dated 07/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of the garage and the return of the keys to it.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s complaint due to missing the deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which were in effect at the time of the decision of the court of first instance, regarding the terms of appeal. The court of cassation noted that although the appellate procedure is determined according to the rules in force at the time of filing the complaint, the prosecutor did not provide valid reasons for renewing the missed deadline. The Supreme Court indicated that the need to comply with the procedure for informing the local self-government body about violations of the interests of the state is not an objectively insurmountable circumstance, especially considering the long time that has passed since the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling – without changes.
**Case №910/18031/14 (910/10741/23) dated 07/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the results of the auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property and the purchase and sale agreement concluded as a result of this auction as invalid.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not investigate important circumstances, namely: whether the disputed property is owned by the auction participant at the time of the case’s consideration, whether the auction organizer was involved in the case, whether claims were made regarding the consequences of recognizing the auction as invalid, and whether the satisfaction of the claim will violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. The courts of previous instances did not investigate all the circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case, in particular, whether the subject composition corresponds to the stated requirements, whether the method of protecting the violated right is correctly chosen, and whether the satisfaction of the claim will violate the right to “peaceful enjoyment of property” within the meaning of the practice of the ECHR. The court of cassation emphasized the need to apply the principle of equality of parties in the process, which provides each party with a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not put it in a significantly disadvantageous position relative to the other party. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the court’s decision must be legal and justified, that is, adopted in accordance with the norms of substantive and procedural law on the basis of fully and comprehensively clarified circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of prevof previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/17925/14 dated July 31, 2025
1. The dispute arose regarding the distribution of legal aid costs to a person who considers himself a participant in the bankruptcy case but is not a party to this case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the application of PERSON_1 for the distribution of court costs, because, although PERSON_1 participated in separate proceedings within the bankruptcy case (in particular, regarding the invalidation of apartment purchase and sale agreements), he did not acquire the status of a party in the bankruptcy case as a whole. The court noted that according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, the distribution of court costs is possible only between the parties to the case, and since PERSON_1 is not a party to the bankruptcy case, there are no legal grounds for imposing an obligation on the creditor to reimburse his expenses. The court also emphasized that the realization of the right to judicial protection should not contradict the normative regulation established by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the principle of separation of powers. The court of cassation emphasized that a person is not deprived of the right to compensation for court costs within the framework of those lawsuit proceedings in which he participated, but this does not mean automatic acquisition of the status of a party in the bankruptcy case.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 911/3122/13 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the creditor in the bankruptcy case of VZF Unicum LLC from VAT ACB East European Bank to Leksnavigator LLC as a legal successor.
2. The court refused to satisfy the NBU’s cassation appeal, since Leksnavigator LLC did not prove with proper evidence the transfer of the creditor’s rights to it in full. The court noted that the NBU, applying for the replacement of the creditor, actually acted in the interests of another creditor, and not in its own, which contradicts the principles of commercial court proceedings. The court also took into account that Leksnavigator LLC had previously applied with a similar application, and it was refused, and that not all the necessary documents were provided that would confirm the scope of rights and obligations transferred to Leksnavigator LLC. The court emphasized that in order to establish procedural legal succession, it is necessary to clearly define the grounds for such legal succession and the scope of rights and obligations that passed to the legal successor.
3. The court left the NBU’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes, refusal.
ues”>Справа №910/12208/24 dated 29/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,964,622.41 as unreasonably received funds by the defendant.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision, noting that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 560 and 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that the guarantor is obliged to make a payment under the guarantee if the claim and attached documents comply with the terms of the guarantee, and the list of grounds for refusal to pay is exhaustive. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the event of a dispute regarding the existence or absence of debt, it is the principal who must sue the beneficiary for the recovery of funds received without sufficient legal basis. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the conclusion of an additional agreement is the result of the free will of the parties, and not an obligation, and that each party must act in good faith and bear the risks of its business activities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim for the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds, and also reversed the execution of the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 185/2868/21 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the termination of the enforcement proceedings on the recovery of a car from illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the creditor’s complaint, considering the actions of the state executor lawful. The Supreme Court emphasized that the execution of a decision on the recovery of property does not require the mandatory participation of the debtor, and the executor must take all possible measures to establish the location of the property, declare it wanted, and seize it. The court emphasized that the actions of the executor in opening proceedings, summoning the debtor, imposing fines, and sending a notice of a criminal offense are insufficient for the forced execution of a decision on the recovery of a car. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the decision on the recovery of a car as a decision of an obligatory nature, since its execution does not depend on the will of the debtor.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and satisfied the creditor’s complaint, recognizing the actions of the state executor as unlawful and canceling the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to the formal approach of the appellate court to the consideration of the prosecutor’s appeal, which reasonably questioned the possibility of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to a person who had previously been convicted and released from serving a sentence with probation, but committed another crime. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the severity of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and other circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that the crime was committed under martial law and the person’s prior conviction. The Supreme Court emphasized that a mitigating circumstance should be taken into account when imposing a sentence, and not when deciding on exemption from serving it with probation. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the impossibility of correcting the convicted person without actual imprisonment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/12100/23 dated August 05, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of the Avtogarazhny Cooperative “Pivnich” (North).
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court. The court of cassation likely agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the absence of violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the annulment of the cooperative’s general meeting decision. Possibly, the appellate court found that the plaintiffs had not proved the fact of violation of their rights or legitimate interests by the challenged decision, or that the procedure for holding the meeting complied with the requirements of the law and the cooperative’s charter. Also, the court could have taken into account that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. It is important that the Supreme Court did not find grounds to review the decision of the appellate court, thereby emphasizing its legality and validity.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the additional decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 199/9919/22 dated July 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, agreed with the conclusions
and the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor had not proven with proper and admissible evidence the illegality of the defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the disputed land plot, considering that the development of project and technical documentation and state registration of the land plot were carried out at the initiative of the defendant, and the case file contains a copy of the order that was provided to the state registrar for registration of ownership. The court also took into account the principle of “good governance,” according to which the risk of any error by a state body is borne by the state itself, and errors cannot be corrected at the expense of the persons they concern. At the same time, the court of cassation drew attention to the violation by the courts of previous instances of the rules of jurisdiction of general courts, since the dispute between the local self-government body and a legal entity (SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”) is a land dispute that falls under the economic jurisdiction.
3. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 916/4559/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Jacksonville” in favor of the Department of Communal Property of the Odesa City Council of arrears in rent, penalties, and late payment penalties for overdue return of the leased object.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to recover the late payment penalty, as the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 785 and 614 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulate the tenant’s liability for untimely return of property. The judges of previous instances did not check whether the defendant had complied with the terms of the contract and the requirements for the return of the leased object, whether the tenant had taken appropriate measures for this, and whether the plaintiff’s actions were aimed at evading the acceptance of the property. In addition, the courts did not establish the presence or absence of the defendant’s fault in the failure to return the property, which is a necessary condition for bringing to liability. The court emphasized the need to take into account the principle of good faith when considering the case, as well as the court’s obligation to assess all the circumstances of the case in accordance with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to recover the late payment penalty and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 916/437/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of
regarding the recovery from the defendants of damages in the amount of UAH 6,650,000.00, caused to the plaintiff in connection with creating obstacles in the use of land and garages built by members of the public organization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the closure of proceedings in the part of the claims against the Pivdenne City Council and Private Enterprise “Pivdenparkservice,” since the dispute actually concerns the protection of the interests of the members of the public organization, and not its own interests as a legal entity, and there are no commercial relations between the plaintiff and these defendants. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the closure of proceedings in the part of the claims against the Main Department of the National Police in Odesa Oblast, since the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff had already filed a similar claim with a court of civil jurisdiction, where they were refused the opening of proceedings with an explanation of the need to apply to the commercial court. The court of cassation emphasized the need to ensure the plaintiff’s right to access to justice and an effective remedy, taking into account the jurisdictional conflict, and pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the circumstances of the previous appeal to the court of civil jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the closure of proceedings regarding the claims against the Main Department of the National Police in Odesa Oblast and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 520/14792/24 dated 08/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the defendant regarding the incomplete indication of the components of monetary allowance in the certificate for recalculation of pension.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not request evidence regarding the actual amounts of the allowance for the specifics of service and bonuses that were paid to the plaintiff or in a similar position in January 2023, which is important for correctly determining the amount of the pension. The court noted that the courts should have actively clarified all the circumstances of the case, and their conclusions cannot be based on assumptions. Also, the court took into account the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which monthly payments, such as the allowance for the specifics of service and bonuses, should be indicated in the certificates on the amount of monetary allowance in the average amounts actually paid for the month in which the right to recalculate the pension arose.
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. 362/7978/23 dated July 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the village council’s decision to transfer a land plot into private ownership, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot, and the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts because the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect her right, namely the claims for cancellation of decisions and state registration, which in themselves do not restore her possession of the land plot. The court noted that the proper way to protect in such a case is a vindication claim (claiming property from someone else’s illegal possession) or a claim to eliminate obstacles to the use of property if the plaintiff is hindered in the exercise of her rights to the land. The court emphasized that satisfying the claims for cancellation of decisions and state registration will not lead to the return of the land plot to the plaintiff’s possession and, therefore, will require additional means of judicial protection. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates the ineffectiveness of appealing decisions of authorities and transactions instead of claiming property from someone else’s possession.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 932/3819/24 dated July 24, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, where the court of first instance dismissed the claim, and the appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings due to the missed deadline for appeal.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, stating that the appellate court should have checked whether a copy of the default judgment was sent by the court of first instance to the plaintiff, as the absence of evidence of such sending makes the conclusion about the missed deadline for appeal erroneous. The court of cassation instance emphasized that ensuring the right to appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of justice. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court could independently request information from the Central Database of the Automated Document Management System of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine regarding the sending of the court decision to the party. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that the filing of an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the full court decision is a sufficient basis for restoring the missed deadline. The Supreme Court also drew attention to the presence in the “Electronic Court” system of data on the receipt of a copy of the default judgment in the plaintiff’s electronic account, which the appellate court ignored.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and rem
