**Case No. 686/3121/24 dated 08/06/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129373639](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129373639)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the upbringing and free communication of the father with the child, as well as the determination of the ways in which the father participates in the upbringing of the child.
2. The court partially granted the claim, based on the following arguments: the father expresses a desire to communicate with the child, and such communication will contribute to her full upbringing and development; no circumstances have been established that would make it impossible for the father to communicate with his son or indicate a negative impact of such communication on the child; the court took into account the father’s attitude to the fulfillment of his duties, the age and health of the child, her affection for the father, as well as the opinion of the guardianship authority; the communication procedure determined by the court is in the interests of the child and does not violate the rights of both parents. The Court of Appeal agreed with these conclusions, noting that the established procedure ensures a fair balance between the interests of the child and the parents, and also promotes the establishment of trusting relationships. The court of cassation also emphasized that the father’s right to communicate with the child is his inalienable right, and the child’s communication with the father is in her best interests.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 760/25164/24 dated 08/07/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129403492](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129403492)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Solomyanskyi District State Administration in the city of Kyiv regarding the determination of the ways in which the father participates in the upbringing and communication with the child.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the appealed order became invalid, and there is no evidence of its execution or negative impact on the rights of the plaintiff and the child; the court noted that the task of civil proceedings is to effectively protect violated rights, and in the absence of violations of rights and interests, and contentious issues, there is no reason to continue the consideration of the case; the court also emphasized the importance of the conscientious use of procedural rights and the inadmissibility of abusing them; the court took into account that the regulation of family relations should be carried out taking into account the interests of the child and on the principles of fairness, good faith and reasonableness; the court indicated that the general principles of private law are norms of direct effect, which must be taken into account when interpreting the norms of family legislation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 922/2050/23 dated 08/08/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129405075](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129405075)
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the nullity of the mortgage agreement, namely the cancellation of decisions on state registration of rights.
and their encumbrances on non-residential premises that were the subject of the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the appellate court’s ruling because the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, namely Article 272 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure for considering an appeal filed after the completion of the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the arguments of the appeal of a person who did not participate in the initial appellate review must be different from those already considered by the court. In addition, the appellate court did not establish how the appealed decision of the court of first instance directly affects the rights, interests, or obligations of this person as a mortgagee. The court of cassation instance emphasized that a repeated review of a court decision on grounds that have already been considered contradicts the principle of legal certainty. Also, the court of cassation instance referred to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the legal mechanism for protecting the rights of the mortgagee, defined by the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage”. Considering that the appellate proceedings were opened by mistake, the court of cassation instance decided to close them.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and closed the appellate proceedings.
Case No. 910/12100/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the additional ruling of the appellate court regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the additional ruling of the appellate court, noting that the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance must be proven, documented, and justified, and must meet the criterion of reasonable necessity, as well as the criteria of proportionality with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent. The court agreed with the appellate court, which partially reduced the amount of expenses, taking into account the excessive time spent on preparing appeals and the duplication of services. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that there are no grounds to disagree with the conclusion of the appellate court, since the plaintiffs did not prove that the appellate court did not take into account the criteria of proportionality and reasonableness when deciding on the issue of reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance. The court of cassation instance rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the appeal of an additional court decision is not a separate judicial review of the dispute on the merits, since there is a later legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which allows reimbursement of court costs incurred during the appellate or cassation review of an additional court decision on the distribution of court costs.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the additional ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/6579/24 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision on registration of ownership of the bank protection structure, termination of the right to possess the bank protection structure, and return of the land plot of the water fund.
2. The court of cassation instance, partially overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that a hydraulic structure is not an independent object of civil law relations, but is an accessory of the main thing (land plot) and cannot exist separately from it. According to the law, real rights to an accessory of the main thing are not subject to state registration. Therefore, according to the court, the right of ownership of a hydraulic structure cannot be registered to anyone, since a hydraulic structure as a separate object of ownership does not actually exist. In this case, the appropriate method of protection is the claim for termination of possession of the corresponding right, and not the cancellation of the decision on state registration. The court also noted that the illegality of the construction of the bank protection structure was not established, therefore, the claim for the return of the land plot is not subject to satisfaction.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of the claims regarding the termination of the right to possess immovable property, and amended the decision of the court of first instance, excluding the word “right” from the phrase “right of possession” in the operative part.
Case No. 922/4357/19 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of purchase and sale of communal property, the cancellation of the city council’s decision on its alienation, and the return of the property to the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of recognizing as illegal the decision of the city council on the alienation of property, motivating this by the fact that at the time of the consideration of the case, the decision had already been executed, and therefore, the cancellation of the decision is not an effective way to protect the violated right. At the same time, the court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court regarding the illegality of the buyout of property by the lessee, since the latter’s implementation of non-separable improvements to the leased property was not proven, which is a necessary condition for such a buyout. The court of cassation instance also noted that the appellate court did not consider the petition of the Department of Communal Property on the application of the statute of limitations regarding all declared claims, which is a violation of procedural law. In view of this, the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance to clarify the circumstances regarding the beginning/end of the statute of limitations for all claims. The court of cassation instance refused to satisfy the petition to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration, since no weighty arguments were presented for deviating from previous conclusions.
of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the city council’s decision as illegal, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance regarding other claims.
Case No. 922/2523/22 dated 07/29/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recognition of monetary claims of “Lozivskyi Forging-Mechanical Plant” LLC against “Kharkiv Bearing Plant” PJSC in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially refused to recognize the monetary claims of “Lozivskyi Forging-Mechanical Plant” LLC, since the creditor did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the debt under the assignment agreements, provision of services and commission agreements. The court noted that in bankruptcy cases, it is the creditor who has the burden of proving the validity of their claims, and the evidence provided must meet the criteria of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and credibility. The court also emphasized that an increase in the amount of monetary claims is not allowed after the expiration of the term established by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. At the same time, the court of cassation confirmed that the amounts of inflation losses and 3% per annum are not independent claims, but are included in the amount of the monetary obligation. The court also noted that the reconciliation statement cannot replace the primary documents that confirm the fact of business transactions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Lozivskyi Forging-Mechanical Plant” LLC, and left the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/14479/23 (910/5872/24) dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Efe Beton” LLC in favor of “Gran Komplekt” LLC of debt under the supply agreement, which includes penalty, fine, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which reduced the amount of penalty and fine by 50%, since the appellate court did not take into account the purpose of the bankruptcy procedure, which is to maximize the satisfaction of creditors’ claims, and did not substantiate how the reduction of penalties would contribute to the balance of interests of the parties and prevent negative consequences. The Supreme Court emphasized that the consideration of disputes within the framework of a bankruptcy case should take into account the interests of all creditors, and not only the debtor, and that reducing the amount of recovery may negatively affect the filling of the liquidation estate and the satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not analyze the actual circumstances of the case and did not provide a proper assessment of the evidence that would confirm the need to reduce penalties. The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the appeal with a claim for recovery
transfer of funds is aimed at increasing the debtor’s assets in the bankruptcy case, which may subsequently affect the filling of the liquidation estate or allow for the satisfaction of creditors’ claims in the rehabilitation procedure.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the reduction of the amount of penalty and fine and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
Case No. 910/5627/23 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer of a share in the authorized capital of a limited liability company in connection with the violation of the participant’s preemptive right to purchase this share.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case, in particular, regarding the actual price of the share being sold and the conformity of this price to the market value. The Court pointed out the importance of assessing the evidence in its entirety, including the acceptance certificates of the share, and the behavior of the parties to the case regarding the change in position regarding the payment for the share. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to take into account the principle of good faith and the inadmissibility of abuse of rights, especially in cases where the price of the share may be overstated in order to make it impossible for another participant to exercise the preemptive right. The Court emphasized that for an effective resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish an objective market price of the share, which will ensure a fair balance of interests of all participants. To clarify these circumstances, the court of first instance had the right to order an expert examination on its own initiative.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial to establish the actual circumstances that are relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
Case No. 927/241/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for the supply of natural gas.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the defendant (consumer) did not provide a reasoned refusal to sign the act of acceptance and transfer of natural gas, therefore the gas is considered supplied and accepted on the basis of the data of the Gas Distribution System Operator. The court took into account that the consumer did not provide evidence of settlement of discrepancies with the Gas Distribution System Operator regarding the volume of gas consumed, as provided for in the natural gas distribution agreement. Also, the defendant did not provide evidence of notification to the supplier about the actual gas consumption or termination of gas supply. The Court emphasized that, according to the natural gas distribution agreement, the volumes determined by the Gas Distribution System Operator are mandatory for use in the relationship between the consumer and the supplier until the discrepancies are resolved. The Court noted that it cannot go beyond the scope of the claims and resolve disputes that were notSubject of the claim.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 280/9117/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of a civil servant in connection with the reorganization of a state body.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that during the reorganization of a state body, the employer is obliged to offer the employee all available vacant positions that he/she can hold according to his/her qualifications, and the position offered to the plaintiff was not vacant, as it was occupied by an employee who was on childcare leave. The court emphasized that the obligation to employ an employee rests with the owner from the day of the warning of dismissal until the day of termination of the employment contract. Also, the court took into account the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the position of an employee who is on childcare leave is not vacant. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the norms of the Labor Code of Ukraine (KZoT) could not be applied to the disputed legal relations. The court also noted that the decision on reinstatement is subject to immediate execution, regardless of the results of its review on appeal.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 916/3157/24 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land lease agreement with a water body as invalid, the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision and the obligation to return the land plot.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim. The Supreme Court noted that in order to lease a land plot with a water body for fish farming needs without land auctions, the lessee must have a relevant permit for special water use for this purpose. In this case, at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement, FOP (Individual Entrepreneur) Zaplitnyi had a permit only for special water use for irrigation, and not for fish farming needs. The conclusion of an additional agreement to the lease agreement, which provided for the use of the land plot also for irrigation, confirms that the main purpose of the agreement was the use of the water body for fish farming needs, and not for irrigation. Thus, the court concluded that the lease agreement was concluded in violation of the mandatory procedure for the sale of the right to lease a land plot of the water fund on a competitive basis, provided for by Article 134 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims for the return of the land plot and obliged FOP Zaplitnyi to return the land
льну ділянку Любашівській селищній територіальній громаді.
**Case No. 916/326/23 dated 05/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement, the obligation to return the land plot, the cancellation of the order approving urban development conditions and restrictions, and the annulment of the permit for construction works.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess all the arguments of the parties. In particular, the courts did not pay attention to all the legal grounds for the claim for termination of the lease agreement, namely, violations of the terms of the agreement, and also did not take into account the specifics of the disputed legal relationship as a legal relationship for the protection of land ownership rights. The court noted that the previous courts focused on applying such a legal consequence as termination of the contract by the court precisely on the grounds of the materiality of the committed breach of the contract, defined through another evaluative category – a significant degree of deprivation of what the person expected when concluding the contract. The court also pointed out the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling of April 17, 2025, in case No. 910/127/21, regarding the delimitation of urban planning and land legislation. The court emphasized that obtaining urban development conditions and a building permit does not replace the decision of the landowner to consent to its development.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 910/10549/24 dated 06/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of funds for participation in the development of the city’s infrastructure from “BUDBILDING” LLC to the budget of the city of Kyiv.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim. The court of first instance based its decision on the fact that the prosecutor filed a claim against an improper defendant, since the construction customer is “ATP – 13057 – 7” LLC, and not “BUDBILDING” LLC, and the agreement on participation fee between the plaintiff and the defendant was not concluded. The appellate court, changing the decision of the first instance, mistakenly believed that the Department of Economy and Investments of the Kyiv City State Administration is not a proper plaintiff in such disputes. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Department of Economy and Investments of the Kyiv City State Administration is the authorized body that has the right to appeal to the court with such claims, but agreed with the court of first instance that “BUDBILDING” LLC is an improper defendant, since the construction customer is another company. The court of cassation noted that there is no evidence of the transfer of the functions of the construction customer from “ATP – 13057 – 7” LLC to “BUDBILDING” LLC in the manner prescribed by law.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision
of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case №520/25012/24 dated 07/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices regarding real estate tax, other than land, and the distribution of court costs, including legal aid expenses.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal erroneously decided that the plaintiff’s representative did not have the authority to withdraw the claim, as the legal aid agreement and warrant did not contain restrictions on such powers, and the plaintiff himself confirmed the granting of such powers. At the same time, the court of cassation upheld the lawfulness of the closure of proceedings in the case on the basis of paragraph 8 of part one of Article 238 of the CAS of Ukraine, since the cancellation of tax assessment notices occurred not due to the recognition of errors by the tax authority, but as a result of a change in the tax rate by the city council. Considering this, the court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that the legal aid expenses are subject to partial reimbursement on the basis of part eight of Article 139 of the CAS of Ukraine, since the dispute arose as a result of the incorrect actions of the defendant. The court of cassation also emphasized that expenses are subject to reimbursement regardless of whether they have already been actually paid.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but left unchanged the appellate court’s decision regarding the closure of proceedings and partial reimbursement of legal aid expenses.
Case №520/25012/24 dated 07/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices regarding real estate tax, other than land, and the distribution of court costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the appeal of these decisions.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal erroneously decided that the plaintiff’s representative did not have the authority to withdraw the claim, as the legal aid agreement and warrant did not contain restrictions on such powers, and the plaintiff himself confirmed the granting of such powers. However, the court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal to close the proceedings in the case on the basis of paragraph 8 of part one of Article 238 of the CAS of Ukraine, since the cancellation of tax assessment notices occurred not due to the recognition of errors by the tax authority, but due to a change in the tax rate by the city council. The court of cassation also agreed with the court of appeal regarding the partial reimbursement of legal aid expenses, since the dispute arose as a result of the incorrect actions of the defendant, but reduced the amount of reimbursement to UAH 2,500, taking into account the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. The court of cassation alsoof the station emphasized that expenses are subject to reimbursement regardless of whether they have already been actually paid.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left unchanged the appellate court’s decision regarding the closure of proceedings and the allocation of court costs.
**Case No. 903/329/24 (903/856/24) dated 08/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a loan agreement between individuals within the framework of a bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court indicated that in bankruptcy cases where the creditor is an individual and the claims are supported only by a promissory note, a heightened standard of proof is required, especially in the presence of reasonable doubts about the reality of the debt; courts must carefully verify the sources of funds, their use by the debtor, as well as the circumstances of the agreement’s conclusion to avoid recognition of fictitious debt; the courts of previous instances did not sufficiently investigate the circumstances regarding the reality of the obligations arising between the creditor and the debtor, in particular, the place of conclusion of the agreement, the reality of partial repayment of the loan, the directions of use of funds, and the reasons for their non-repayment; the courts did not establish the entire set of features of a fictitious transaction, although the plaintiff considers the agreement to be concluded in order to obtain a decisive vote at the creditors’ meeting; the appellate court did not fully re-examine the case, as it did not examine all the case materials, which led to a violation of the norms of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 910/9749/24 dated 08/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Condominium Association “Diplomat Hall” of debt for natural gas supplied by LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” as a supplier of “last resort”.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, proceeded from the fact that the Condominium Association, which purchases gas for the production of thermal energy for the needs of co-owners of an apartment building, is a collective domestic consumer. The court took into account the previous conclusion of the Supreme Court in a similar case No. 916/2778/24, where it was established that the Condominium Association, which independently provides heat supply, actually acts as a collective domestic consumer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the state guarantees preferential conditions, including a fixed gas price, for such heat energy producers during martial law. The court also noted that the appellate court’s reference to another ruling of the Supreme Court is erroneous, since the circumstances of that case differ from the circumstances of this case. Taking this into account, the court of cassation concluded that the Condominium Association should apply
