Case №342/900/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the employee’s dismissal from work by agreement of the parties as illegal, reinstatement to work and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which established that the plaintiff voluntarily wrote a statement of dismissal by agreement of the parties and signed the relevant agreement, did not declare the annulment of the agreement, and did not provide evidence of psychological pressure or coercion when signing the documents. The appellate court reasonably noted that writing an application according to the established sample does not indicate the absence of will to dismiss, since the plaintiff could refuse to do so. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff did not apply to the employer with a request to withdraw the application for dismissal. The arguments of the cassation appeal that the plaintiff is a single mother do not disprove the fact of dismissal by agreement of the parties. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are 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.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case №904/3199/24 (904/4313/24) dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the commercial court of appeal on the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who was not a party to the case, but believed that the decision of the court of first instance violated his rights.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that the person who filed the appeal was not a party to the case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not directly concern his rights and obligations, since the mention of him was only in the descriptive part of the decision when stating the position of the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that joining the appeal does not give a person the right to make independent claims, and the limits of the review of the case are determined by the arguments of the appeal. Also, the court of cassation noted that the complainant had already tried to appeal the decision of the court of first instance, but he was refused to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appeal, and this decision entered into legal force. The court of cassation emphasized that the principle of disposition places an obligation on the court to resolve only those issues that the participants in the disputed legal relationship ask it to resolve.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case №732/651/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement concluded between an individual (landlord) and an agro-industrial
cooperative (tenant) due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to close the proceedings in the case, as the agro-industrial cooperative was declared bankrupt and liquidation proceedings were initiated. The court noted that, according to procedural law, all property disputes in which the debtor in a bankruptcy case is a party must be considered by the commercial court within the bankruptcy case. The court also took into account changes in land legislation that allow the tenant to alienate the lease right without the consent of the owner, which makes the lease right an asset of the liquidation estate. The court noted that the consideration of the case on termination of the lease agreement in a civil court, and not in a commercial court, would lead to a violation of jurisdiction and would not be considered a “court established by law”.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal, confirming that the dispute should be considered within the framework of the bankruptcy proceedings in the commercial court.
Case No. 592/6459/15-ц dated 30/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the party of the claimant in the enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the appeal was filed after the expiration of one year from the date of the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that the appellant had been duly notified of the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, since the summons was sent to the address indicated by her in the contract and returned with the note “addressee not at the indicated address,” which, according to the CPC of Ukraine, is considered due notification. The court also noted that the appellant had not provided evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances that would have prevented her from filing an appeal in a timely manner. The court of cassation emphasized that ensuring the proper administration of justice and legal certainty requires compliance with the deadlines for filing complaints.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 922/2005/23 dated 29/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the nullity of the mortgage agreement concluded between JSC “Megabank” and LLC “Royal Pay Europe”.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, as the court of appeal re-examined the case on appeal by a person who did not participate in the initial appellate review, but whose arguments had already been the subject of review in the courts of all instances during the initial review of the case, which is a violation of Article 272 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that for a repeated appeal, it is necessary to have different arguments that have not been considered before, as well as a clear
an inherent and unconditional legal connection of the person filing the complaint with the parties to the dispute or directly with the court decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the repeated review of a court decision based on motives that have already been considered contradicts the principle of legal certainty. The court also noted that the appellate court did not substantiate how the decision of the court of first instance affects the rights and obligations of the mortgagee, which is a necessary condition for appellate review based on a complaint by a person who did not participate in the case.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 753/19295/23 dated 07/29/2025
1. The dispute arose regarding the recognition of ownership of property in the order of division of jointly owned property of spouses and in the order of inheritance, as well as making changes to certificates of inheritance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that a garden house built during the marriage is the joint property of the spouses, even if the land plot was privatized by one of the spouses. The court noted that if there is a house on a privatized land plot that is jointly owned property, then upon the division of the house, the right to this land passes to the person who did not have ownership of the land in proportion to their share in the house. Also, the court confirmed the wife’s right to a mandatory share in the inheritance, as she was incapacitated at the time of her husband’s death. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding unauthorized construction, since the house was built before 1992 and has a technical passport. The court also indicated that the requirement to recognize property as jointly owned property of spouses is not an effective way of protection if one of the spouses has died, but this does not affect the legitimacy of the claims for division of property and inheritance.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 824/142/22 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the enforcement proceedings based on the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim.
2. The court of appeal granted the application for the replacement of the claimant, based on the fact that the replacement of the creditor in the obligation is allowed at any stage of the judicial process, and the current legislation does not link the replacement of the party in the enforcement proceedings with the fact of the opening of the enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that the legitimacy of the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim was not challenged in court, and therefore the court must proceed from the principle of the legitimacy of the transaction. The defendant’s arguments about the connection of the new claimant with the aggressor country were not supported by proper evidence. The court also emphasized that the absence of open enforcement proceedings means that the claimant in the writ of execution is subject to replacement, not the party in theof enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 385/1724/17 dated July 31, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for official forgery (Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the person’s guilt in entering deliberately false information into an official document, namely, into the order for the inventory and seizure of property, where false information was indicated regarding the presence of witnesses and the warning about the responsibility of the property custodian, was proven. The court noted that the convict’s arguments about the absence of a crime, the inadmissibility of evidence, and violations of procedural rights were carefully checked by the courts of previous instances and reasonably rejected. The court of cassation emphasized that the expert’s opinion, witness testimony, and other case materials confirm the fact of entering deliberately false information into an official document. The court also noted that arguments about violations of the procedure for collecting samples for examination are not significant, since the person was informed of their rights as a witness. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly qualified the person’s actions under Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as official forgery.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 546/796/23 dated July 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property (land plot) for the plaintiff, who considers himself a dependent of the testator.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he was dependent on the testator for at least one year before his death, as provided for in Article 531 of the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR. The court noted that the act of cohabitation and housekeeping provided by the plaintiff is not sufficient evidence, as it is not certified by an authorized official of the local government body. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff’s father also participated in her maintenance. The appellate court emphasized that the defendants’ recognition of the claim cannot be a legal basis for its satisfaction if there are no legal grounds for recognizing the plaintiff as an heir. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of being dependent on the testator, and therefore there are no grounds for recognizing her as an heir.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 450/484/19 dated July 30, 2025Case No. 908/1419/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the real estate (checkpoint building) sale and purchase agreement between two companies, since the Zaporizhzhia City Council considers this agreement to be a fraudulent transaction.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim of the Zaporizhzhia City Council, reasoning that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of damage to its property interests, which would directly result from the conclusion of the disputed agreement, and there is no evidence of the impossibility of fulfilling obligations by defendant 1. The court noted that the mere fact of the conclusion of the agreement by the debtor in the presence of obligations is not an automatic basis for declaring it invalid, if there are no signs of abuse of rights or the purpose of causing damage to the creditor. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the appellant did not prove the fact that the court of appeal established circumstances of significant importance based on inadmissible evidence, since it did not substantiate in what specific way the norms of procedural law were violated during the receipt and evaluation of evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is beyond its powers.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Zaporizhzhia City Council and to leave the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 278/3717/21 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_3 for the adoption of an additional court decision regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the courts of first and appellate instances.
2. The Supreme Court, partially granting the application of PERSON_3, was guided by the following arguments:
* Відпоregarding the principle of reimbursement of court costs, the party in whose favor the decision is made has the right to reimbursement of expenses incurred for professional legal assistance.
* PERSON_3 provided evidence of incurring expenses for legal assistance in the appellate instance, namely a contract with a lawyer, a protocol of agreement on the fee, and a response to the appeal with a calculation of expenses.
* PERSON_1 did not object to the amount of attorney fees claimed by PERSON_3 in the appellate instance.
* The Cassation Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which was made not in favor of PERSON_3, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which was made in his favor.
* Regarding the appeal of PERSON_3 against the additional decision of the court of first instance, the cassation court had no grounds for its review, since PERSON_3 did not provide any reasons regarding the amount of expenses for legal assistance in the court of first instance in the cassation appeals.
3. The court decided to recover from PERSON_1 in favor of PERSON_3 reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of appeal in the amount of UAH 20,000.00, and to refuse the rest of the application.
Case №447/2538/24 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance on leaving the claim without consideration and the decision of the appellate court, which left the ruling unchanged, in the case of obliging to carry out indexation, compensation, recalculation of debt, recovery of moral damage and funds.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court considered the case in the absence of the plaintiff, without duly notifying him of the date, time and place of the court hearing. The court of appeal notified the plaintiff of the court hearing by SMS message, but did not take into account that such notification is possible only if there is a corresponding written application from the participant in the case, which was not in the case file. Improper notification of a participant in the case about the consideration of the case is a violation of his procedural rights and the principle of openness of the trial. Taking into account these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case №761/44002/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by SE NNEGC Energoatom in connection with the review of the case in the courts of appeal and cassation after the cancellation of previous decisions and the adoption of a new decision to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application of SE NNEGC Energoatom for an additional decision, was guided by the norms of the CPC of Ukraine, which provide for the possibility of making an additional decision on the distribution of court costs.
that the issue was not resolved by the main decision. The court took into account that the cassation appeal of SE NNEGC Energoatom was satisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were overturned with the adoption of a new decision to dismiss the claim. According to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, the court fee is imposed on the parties in proportion to the amount of satisfied claims, and in case of dismissal of the claim – on the plaintiff. Since the cassation court rendered a new decision dismissing the claim, it accordingly changed the distribution of court costs, placing them on the plaintiff. The court also took into account the amount of court fee rates established by the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee” and applied a coefficient of 0.8 to reduce the amount of the court fee rate, since the appeal and cassation appeals were filed in electronic form.
3. The court partially granted the application of SE NNEGC Energoatom and ordered PERSON_1 to pay SE NNEGC Energoatom the court fee for filing an appeal and cassation appeal in the amount of UAH 5,026.93.
Case No. 921/600/23 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the decision of the commercial court on the recognition of additional monetary claims of the former head to the bankrupt enterprise and their inclusion in the register of creditors’ claims.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the former head was entitled to receive wages, compensation for unused leave and severance pay, as he was in labor relations with the enterprise until the time of dismissal. The court took into account the evidence provided, in particular, certificates of wage arrears, a contract, time sheets and an order of dismissal. The court also noted that the payment of severance pay is provided for by law in connection with the termination of the employment contract in the event of bankruptcy of the enterprise. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the fictitiousness of the debt and the lack of grounds for paying severance pay, as they were not supported by proper evidence. The court also pointed out that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 560/9501/24 dated 06/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Urban Planning Conditions and Restrictions and the permit for the execution of construction works issued for the reconstruction of an unfinished multi-apartment building.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing to the incompleteness of clarifying the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not properly investigate the issue of the individual entrepreneur’s ownership of the foundations of the lost historical buildings, did not verify the accuracy of the declaration on the commencement of construction works, and also
did not assess court decisions in other cases that concerned the same foundations. The court of appeal mistakenly considered that failure to submit documents confirming the ownership or use of the land plot is not a basis for refusing to issue urban planning conditions and restrictions. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the need to strictly comply with the requirements of the law regarding the confirmation of ownership of objects subject to reconstruction.
3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 308/16230/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the defendants from an apartment, the ownership of which was acquired by the bank as a result of foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim for eviction, because the bank did not prove that the disputed apartment was purchased with credit funds secured by a mortgage. According to the Housing Code of Ukraine, if housing was not purchased with credit funds, eviction is possible only with the simultaneous provision of other permanent housing, which the bank did not provide. The court also noted that the bank did not provide proper evidence of the defendants having other housing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the validity of its claims, in particular the existence of conditions for eviction without providing other housing, rests with the plaintiff. Evidence attached to the appeal was not taken into account, as it was not submitted to the court of first instance without proper justification. Arguments regarding the defendants’ settling in the apartment after the conclusion of the mortgage agreement were not the basis of the claim, therefore they could not be taken into account.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 756/19178/21 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of non-residential premises donation agreements concluded between the defendant and his mother, which, according to the plaintiff, were committed in order to avoid fulfilling monetary obligations to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding fraudulent transactions. In particular, the courts did not pay attention to the fact that for the qualification of a transaction as fraudulent, it is not necessary that the debtor’s obligation be confirmed by a court decision at the time of the transaction, it is sufficient to have a subjective right of claim by the creditor. The court also indicated that the courts did not investigate the circumstances that would allow the disputed contract to be qualified as fraudulent, in particular, whether private tools were used contrary to their purpose and the principle of good faith to reduce the amount of property
of the debtor. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the consolidation of the disputed non-residential premises is not an obstacle to the application of the construction of a fraudulent transaction, and to return the property to the debtor, challenging subsequent transactions is not required. Also, the court pointed out the erroneousness of simultaneous qualification of the disputed transaction as fictitious and fraudulent.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 917/869/23 dated July 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of decisions of the local self-government body regarding the approval of land management technical documentation, cancellation of state registration of land plots, and recovery of land plots from illegal possession.
2. In this case, the prosecutor appealed to the court, claiming that forest land plots were illegally transferred to the private ownership of Kairos Svit LLC and to communal ownership, and their designated purpose was also changed. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim, recognizing the decisions of the village council as illegal, canceling the state registration of the plots, and recovering them in favor of the state represented by the Poltava Regional State Administration. The courts found that there was an illegal seizure of land from state ownership and a change in their designated purpose, which is a violation of land and forest legislation. The Supreme Court, reviewing the case in cassation proceedings, noted that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances are based on a proper assessment of the evidence and correspond to the circumstances of the case. The court also rejected the arguments of Kairos Svit LLC that it is a bona fide acquirer, since the fact of illegal change of ownership and designated purpose of the land was established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Kairos Svit LLC, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged, confirming the legality of the recovery of land plots in favor of the state.
Case No. 359/9012/23 dated August 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, motivating this by the fact that the appellate court did not take into account that copies of the legal aid agreement and additional agreement to it were submitted by the defendant’s representative before the decision in the case was made, and the act of acceptance and transfer of services provided and a detailed description thereof were drawn up after the appellate court’s decision, therefore, could not be submitted by the defendant before the end of the court debate. The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant made a relevant statement regarding the preliminary calculation of court costs and submitted evidence confirming such costs within five days after the appellate court’s decision, as provided for by procedural law.
The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the evidence confirming the final amount of the incurred expenses for professional legal assistance did not exist at the time of the case review in the appellate procedure, therefore, could not be submitted by the defendant before the end of the court debates in the case. Considering the absence of objections regarding the amount of expenses, the Supreme Court decided to recover from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant UAH 13,200.00 of expenses for professional legal assistance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and issued a new decision to satisfy the application for recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/11419/22 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages and penalties from the electricity supplier who terminated the electricity supply to the consumer unilaterally.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the electricity supplier unreasonably terminated the electricity supply to the consumer, since the consumer did not express an intention to terminate the contract, but only refused the proposed changes regarding the increase in the price of electricity, which is not a basis for unilateral termination of the contract by the supplier. The court also indicated that the supplier, as a business entity, bears the risks of price changes in the market and must take them into account when concluding the contract. In addition, the court noted that the accrual of penalties is lawful, since the supplier’s breach of obligations occurred before the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, and therefore, the restrictions on the accrual of penalties established for the period of martial law do not apply to this case. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to other court decisions, as the circumstances of these cases are not similar to the circumstances of this case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances on satisfying the claim for the recovery of damages and penalties – without changes.
Case No. 911/3333/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of leased property by evicting a religious community from a complex of buildings leased by the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the suspension of proceedings in the case, since the appellate court did not substantiate the objective impossibility of considering the case on the elimination of obstacles in the use of property until the resolution of another case on the recognition of the invalidity of the lease agreement for this property. The court of cassation instance emphasized the presumption of validity of the transaction, enshrined in the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which the contract is considered valid until proven otherwise in court, and the appellate court did not take into account that the existence of a dispute about the validity of the lease agreement does not make it impossible to consider the case on the protection of the rights of the lessee. Also
that the court of cassation instance pointed out the inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights and delay in the consideration of the case, which violates the right to a fair trial.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate instance.
Case No. 916/3317/23 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the electronic auction result, the lease agreement, and the recovery of funds, as the plaintiff believes that the object of lease cannot be used for its intended purpose due to inaccurate data indicated in the auction announcement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, justifying this by the fact that the requirement to recognize the auction result as invalid is not an effective way of protection, and the plaintiff did not prove violations of the law during the auction and the non-conformity of the condition of the property. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of assessing the plaintiff’s claims about the failure to provide reliable information regarding the object of lease and its impact on the possibility of using the property for its intended purpose. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need to assess the expert opinion on the impossibility of using the leased property for its intended purpose, which the appellate court did not take into account. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not provide a legal qualification of the disputed legal relations and did not establish all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims for recognizing the lease agreement as invalid and recovering funds, and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the appellate court, and left the rest of the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 360/662/15-ц dated 06/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for an additional decision, considering that the defendant incurred expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance, which is confirmed by the relevant documents, in particular the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, a detailed description of the work performed, and the act of acceptance and transfer of the provided legal assistance. The court also took into account that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed, as well as the proportionality of the amount of expenses for the payment of the lawyer’s services with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the importance of the case for the party. At the same time, considering the objections of the prosecutor’s office and the criteria of reasonableness and reality of expenses, the court reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 5,000. The court restored the defendant’s term for submitting evidence, as it considered the reasons for missing the term to be valid.
3. The court decided to recover UAH 5,000 from the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office in favor of the defendant as compensation.
denying the rest of the claim.
**Case №280/9536/23 dated 08/06/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the court of appeal to distribute court costs for professional legal assistance in favor of the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court noted that the court of appeal misinterpreted the plaintiff’s claim, as the plaintiff requested to recover the costs of legal assistance incurred in the court of first instance, and not in the court of appeal. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal violated procedural rules by issuing an additional ruling instead of a decision to dismiss the application for recovery of legal aid costs. Considering the existence of evidence confirming the expenses incurred by the plaintiff for legal assistance in the court of first instance, and the partial satisfaction of the claims, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to satisfy the plaintiff’s application for the distribution of court costs. The court emphasized that only those expenses that were incurred in the court of first instance are subject to satisfaction, since this is what the plaintiff’s application concerned.
The court overturned the additional ruling of the appellate court and issued a new decision to satisfy the plaintiff’s application for the recovery of professional legal assistance costs.
**Case №756/4833/21 dated 07/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the apartment sale contract, concluded between individuals, in order to avoid fulfilling debt obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The appellate court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the disputed apartment sale contract, court proceedings had already been initiated to recover the debt under the loan agreement from the debtor, which indicates the objective existence of an obligation to pay the debt. The court took into account that the alienation of property took place during the court proceedings, and the subsequent transfer of the apartment as a gift to the defendant’s daughter indicates the fraudulent nature of the transaction. An additional argument was that the alienation of the apartment was carried out unilaterally, although part of the apartment belonged to another person. The court also noted that the plaintiff chose a proper method of protection, combining the claim for recognition of the contract as invalid with the claim for restoration of the situation that existed before the violation. The appellate court reasonably rejected the arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the plaintiff was not a party to the disputed contract and did not have to have information about its conclusion from the moment it was concluded.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, recognizing as justified the decision to recognize the apartment sale contract as invalid and restore the situation that existed before the violation.
**Case №204/6338/24 dated 07/30/2025****Case №129373698 dated 08/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from work due to staff reduction as illegal, reinstatement to work, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, compensation for unused vacation days, and compensation for moral damage.
2. The court dismissed the claim because it found that changes in the organization of production and labor did indeed occur at the enterprise, which led to a staff reduction, of which the plaintiff was warned two months in advance. The court also found that the plaintiff was offered all available vacancies, but she refused them. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff is not a single mother, as the child’s father participates in her maintenance, and therefore she is not subject to additional guarantees of protection against dismissal provided for single mothers. The court noted that the defendant complied with all legal requirements regarding the dismissal procedure, and therefore there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №466/11802/21 dated 08/07/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family for more than five years with the testator in order to obtain the right to inherit by law.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating this by the fact that the testator was in a registered marriage during the period when the plaintiff claimed their cohabitation as a family, which contradicts the principle of monogamy. The court also took into account the contradictory statements of the plaintiff regarding the nature of her relationship with the testator, in particular, her previous statements about de facto marital relations. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that for inheritance under Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to establish the fact of living together as a family, and not just cohabitation. The court indicated that it was not proven that the plaintiff and the testator lived on other grounds than de facto marital relations during his registered marriage. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case №910/15125/24 dated 08/06/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms of delivery of goods under a state contract between a military unit and a company.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the military unit against the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which reduced the amount of penalty to be recovered from the company for delaying the delivery of defense goods. The courts of previous instances, applying Articles 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, reduced the amount of the penalty, taking into account
Considering the circumstances of the case, in particular, the full performance of the main obligation by the company, the absence of losses in the military unit, a minor delay in delivery, as well as a fire at the company’s production facility and the state of war in the country. The Supreme Court emphasized that reducing the amount of penalty is the right of the court, which depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and the courts must ensure a balance of interests of the parties. The court of cassation instance noted that determining the specific amount of reduction of penalties belongs to the discretionary powers of the court, and in this case, the courts of previous instances exercised these powers reasonably.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 910/6662/24 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Rekonis” in favor of the Kyiv City Council of UAH 5,050,369.95 of unreasonably retained funds for the use of a land plot without proper legal grounds.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that the actual user of the land plot, who has not оформлювати the right to use it and does not pay for its use, saves funds at the expense of the owner, which is the basis for recovering these funds as unreasonably retained. The court noted that the owner of real estate located on a land plot becomes the actual user of this plot from the moment of acquiring ownership of the real estate, and from this moment the obligation to pay for the land arises. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court mistakenly took into account the defendant’s promise to pay double the rent in the future, since the court’s decision cannot be based on assumptions. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the court’s conclusions must be supported by proper evidence, and not probabilities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 910/11268/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a unilateral transaction of the bank on refusing to service the account of an individual entrepreneur and the obligation to restore the service.
2. The court of appeal, the decision of which was upheld by the Supreme Court, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the claim of the individual entrepreneur, motivating this by the fact that the bank did not prove the validity of the decision to refuse to maintain business relations and close the account. The court noted that the bank did not identify a specific counterparty of the client, regarding which the bank has negative information, as provided for in paragraph 29 of Appendix 20 to Regulation No. 65. Also, the bank did not properly check the client and monitor her financial transactions, and also did not exercise the right to exchange information with other banks regarding the reasons for refusing to serve the client. The Supreme Court emphasized that the bank’s right to terminate the contract isThe burden of proof is absolute and must be substantiated.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 917/1827/24 dated 08/05/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129375754](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129375754)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of cooperation agreements as sham transactions, the recognition of their invalidity in the part of determining the price, and the recovery of unjust enrichment.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove that the cooperation agreements were disguised land sublease agreements, as they did not contain essential terms of a sublease agreement, such as the cadastral number and area of the land plot, the term of the lease agreement, and the amount of rent. The court noted that the cooperation agreements clearly define the purpose of the cooperation as increasing parking spaces for vehicles and creating proper conditions for vehicle storage, and not the transfer of land plots for use. The court also took into account that the plaintiff voluntarily undertook to pay fees under the cooperation agreements and signed additional agreements, which indicates the bad faith of his behavior in filing the claim. The court of cassation emphasized that the analysis of agreements is carried out taking into account the specific circumstances of each case and the evidence submitted by the parties.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 201/10351/23 dated 08/05/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129373514](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129373514)
1. The subject of the dispute is an employee’s claim against JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” to recognize as illegal the orders on termination of downtime and suspension of the employment contract, reinstatement to work, and recovery of wages for the period of forced absence.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff was in the occupied territory, which made it impossible for him to perform his labor duties, and the defendant could not provide him with working conditions at the location of the regional branch, which was also located in the occupied territory. The court indicated that the very fact of military aggression is not an unconditional basis for suspending the employment contract, but in this case, due to the employer’s inability to provide work and the employee’s inability to perform it, the suspension of the employment contract was lawful. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff’s disagreement with the conclusions stated in the acts may constitute the content and essence of his arguments in the dispute regarding the termination of his downtime and suspension of the employment contract, and not be a separate subject of the claim. The court also took into account that reinstatement to work is a consequence of illegal dismissal or transfer, which was not the case here.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the employee’s claim.
**Case No. 927/424/23 dated 08/05/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129375731](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129375731)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of court costs incurred by LLC “AR Kozelets” in connection with the consideration of the case on invalidating the decision of JSC “OGS “Chernihivgaz” regarding the recalculation of the volume of natural gas.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the application of LLC “AR Kozelets” for the recovery of court costs, since the courts took into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided by the attorney, and concluded that the claimed amount of legal aid costs does not meet the criteria of reality and reasonableness, and its recovery from the defendant would be an excessive burden. The court of cassation emphasized that the decision on the distribution of attorney’s fees is the discretion of the court considering the case, taking into account the specific circumstances and the evaluation of the evidence provided. Also, the court of cassation noted that the reimbursement of legal aid costs should not be a way for a party to enrich themselves excessively. The court of cassation agreed that the courts of previous instances reasonably reduced the amount of compensation, taking into account the non-property nature of the dispute and the defendant’s objections.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the partial satisfaction of the application of LLC “AR Kozelets” for the recovery of court costs.
**Case №910/430/22 (910/17536/23) dated 05/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the loan agreement concluded between LLC “Trading House “Agroimport LTD” and JSC “VCIF “Future Investments”, within the framework of the bankruptcy case of LLC “Trading House “Agroimport LTD”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not clarify the financial condition of the debtor at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, did not investigate the ratio of the interest rate under the agreement to the NBU discount rate, did not establish whether LLC “TD “Agroimport LTD” became insolvent as a result of the conclusion of the disputed agreement, and also did not investigate the issue of the officials who made the decision to conclude the agreement on behalf of JSC “VCIF “Future Investments”. In addition, the courts did not pay attention to the fact that under the disputed transaction, the debtor assumed obligations not only to repay the loan, but also to pay interest. The court of cassation also pointed out the need to clarify whether the arbitration manager filed the lawsuit specifically as a property manager in the interests of the debtor. Considering the mentioned shortcomings, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
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 №560/9501/24 dated 05/08**
