Case №914/466/23(914/2764/23) dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of mortgage and real estate purchase and sale agreements as invalid, as well as the recovery of property within the bankruptcy case of Olimpex Coupe International LLC.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claims, based on the fact that the debtor (Olimpex Coupe International LLC) had committed a series of transactions (mortgage, factoring, purchase and sale) on the eve of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, which indicates an intention to withdraw assets in order to avoid satisfying the claims of creditors. The court took into account that the property was alienated at an understated price, and the acquirer (Grain Port LLC) is an interested party in relation to the debtor, since it has common beneficial owners. Also, the court noted that the property manager of the debtor has the right to file lawsuits to invalidate transactions and recover property. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments about violation of the rules of jurisdiction, since all property disputes within the bankruptcy case are considered by the commercial court in whose proceedings the bankruptcy case is pending. The court also found it justified to invalidate the mortgage agreement concluded by Grain Port LLC, since at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, Grain Port LLC was not the owner of the property and could not be a mortgagor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case №904/1110/24 dated 31/07/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the obligation of the Gardening Society to ensure the conduct of an audit of financial statements at the request of one of the members of the society.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff is not a party to the agreement on conducting an audit concluded between the society and the audit firm, and, accordingly, her rights were not violated by the non-performance of this agreement. The court noted that only the parties to the agreement have the right to demand its performance. In addition, the court pointed out that the plaintiff’s claim actually amounts to inducing the society to fulfill the agreement with the audit firm, which has already expired, and not to the realization of her right as a member of the society to demand an audit or the provision of documents for an independent audit. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not apply to the society with a request to conduct an audit, but only demanded the provision of financial statements. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part referring to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since it established that the legal relations in those cases are not similar to this case.
і.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/2182/24 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as partially invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the appellate court, agreed that the Branch of the AMCU had not provided sufficient evidence of the Company’s violation of competition law. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of the AMCU Branch’s compliance with the procedure for collecting and analyzing evidence, as well as the validity of the decision. Also, the court took into account the arguments of the plaintiff and the third party regarding the absence of concerted actions that would lead to restriction of competition in the market. The court noted that the appellate court fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case and properly assessed the evidence, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the AMCU Branch and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 541/2278/22 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of JSC “Poltavagaz” regarding the termination of gas supply and the recovery of material and moral damages as unlawful.
2. The court of cassation stated that the courts of previous instances incorrectly established the circumstances of the case, namely, they did not take into account that the plaintiff actually joined the natural gas distribution agreement by paying for the gas consumed. Also, the courts did not take into account that non-payment for gas supply services is not a basis for mechanically disconnecting the consumer from the gas supply. In addition, the courts did not take into account that the statement of the previous owner about disconnection from the gas supply has no legal force after the change of owner. The court emphasized that the termination of gas supply unilaterally by mechanical disconnection of the inlet to the plaintiff’s household is illegal. The court also referred to paragraph 2 of Chapter 6 of Section XI of the GRM Code, which provides for compensation for material and/or moral damage by the GRM operator in case of unjustified termination of gas supply.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims against JSC “Poltavagaz” and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 203/7774/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the exercise of the right to use and dispose of a land plot by returning it to state ownership from illegal possession.
2. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim, since a court decision had already been made on the recovery of this land plot.
from the defendant’s illegal possession in favor of the state, which effectively restored the violated rights of the state. The court indicated that the existence of a registered ownership right to the land plot by the defendant does not create obstacles to its use and disposal, since the plot had already been reclaimed from his illegal possession by a previous court decision. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s office chose an ineffective method of protection, as the vindication claim had already been satisfied. In addition, the courts agreed with the decision to recover the costs of professional legal assistance from the prosecutor’s office in favor of the defendant, since the defendant’s representative provided sufficient evidence of the scope of services provided and their cost. The court took into account that the costs of legal assistance were commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 645/989/22 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of the spouses, namely an apartment purchased with credit funds, and the determination of rights and obligations under credit and mortgage agreements.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the courts of previous instances in the part of dividing the apartment between the spouses in equal shares, since the property was acquired during the marriage and is jointly owned property. At the same time, the existence of a mortgage is not an obstacle to such a division, since the mortgage remains valid, and the new co-owner becomes a co-mortgagor. At the same time, the court of cassation did not agree with the decisions of the previous instances in the part of determining the rights and obligations under credit and mortgage agreements, since this effectively leads to the replacement of the debtor in the obligation without the creditor’s consent, which contradicts the provisions of civil law. The court noted that the transfer of debt from one of the spouses to another cannot take place automatically and without the creditor’s consent based only on a court decision on the division of property of the spouses. The creditor, in this case the bank, did not consent to such a replacement, therefore the claims in this part are not subject to satisfaction.
3. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of determining the rights and obligations under credit and mortgage agreements, refusing to satisfy the claim in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the part of dividing the apartment.
Case No. 335/7130/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of director of a municipal enterprise due to long-term disability.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, considering the dismissal illegal, since the plaintiff was suspended from work, which negates the basis dto dismissal for failure to appear at work due to temporary disability, and there was no operational necessity for dismissal. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, noting that the dismissal under paragraph 5 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was lawful, since the continuous four-month period of the plaintiff’s incapacity for work was observed, and the suspension did not relieve him of the obligation to comply with labor regulations. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal, stating that since the employment relationship was terminated under paragraph 4 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, and during the period of forced absence, PERSON_1 was on sick leave, this made it impossible to terminate the employment relationship at the employer’s initiative while the employee was on forced absence.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 711/171/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the conviction of a person for fraud, aiding and abetting the forgery of documents, and the use of forged documents to obtain state social assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment without changes, as it established that the notice of suspicion was served properly, although not in writing, but with video recording of the refusal to receive it and the announcement of the content of the suspicion aloud. The court noted that the purpose of the notice is to bring information to the addressee, and the video recording is a sufficient means of recording proper notification. The court also disagreed with the defense’s arguments about the absence of intent in the convicted person’s actions, since she submitted applications for social benefits based on forged certificates, which she could not have been unaware of, considering the totality of false information in these certificates. The court emphasized that the absence of a defense counsel during the announcement of suspicion is not a violation, since the Criminal Procedure Code does not require the mandatory presence of a defense counsel at this stage.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_8, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 953/6038/22 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for treason and other crimes.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment without changes, as it established that the courts of previous instances thoroughly examined the evidence provided by the prosecution, in particular, the protocols of search, inspection of items, expert opinions, and information from the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and gave them a proper assessment in their entirety. The court noted that the defense counsel’s arguments about incompleteness
the arguments regarding the incompleteness of the judicial review and the illegality of the verdict are unfounded, as the local court properly resolved the issue of admissibility of evidence and reasonably established the guilt of PERSON_7 beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court also reviewed all arguments of the appellate complaints and provided reasoned responses to them, complying with the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence, but only checks whether the courts of previous instances complied with the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 916/506/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a limited liability company of the amount of advance payment, inflation losses, penalties, and 3% per annum under a contract agreement due to improper performance of obligations.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions that the company did not confirm with proper evidence (acts of acceptance of completed construction works and certificates of the cost of completed construction works) the use of the received advance payment within the established period. The court noted that the documents provided by the defendant (expense invoices, payment orders) only confirm the fact of purchase of materials, but do not prove their use specifically for the performance of work under the disputed contract. The court also emphasized that the company did not provide information on the location of the purchased materials and did not transfer them to the customer. The court rejected the arguments about force majeure circumstances, as they do not relieve the obligation to confirm the use of the advance within the established period. The court also noted that the agreement on termination of the contract does not affect the obligation to return the unused advance payment, which arose earlier.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 758/5555/18 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance refusing compensation for procedural expenses for legal assistance to the victim.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court did not take into account the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing. In particular, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the full text of the ruling of the court of first instance was sent to the representative of the victim in violation of the period established by law, which made it impossible totimely familiarization with the motives of the decision. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that for proper justification of an appeal, it is not enough to know only the outcome of the case, but it is necessary to know the motives of the decision made. The court of cassation referred to the fact that ignorance of the motives of the decision may be a valid reason for missing the deadline for appeal. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not clarify all the circumstances that are legally significant and unreasonably refused to reinstate the term, thereby depriving the right to appeal the court decision.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 199/5307/19 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code) and robbery involving violence (Part 2 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, despite the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defender. The court apparently agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the proof of PERSON_8’s guilt in committing the crimes imputed to him. The decision is based on the assessment of the evidence provided by the parties during the trial and its sufficiency to confirm the person’s guilt. Also, circumstances that aggravate or mitigate the punishment, and the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law, were likely taken into account. The lack of a detailed description of the arguments in the operative part makes it impossible to fully analyze the motives of the court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 367/3739/22 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the terms of pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances to close the criminal proceedings, since the prosecutor sent the indictment to the court after the expiration of the term of pre-trial investigation established by Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the notice of completion of the pre-trial investigation must be duly brought to the attention of the suspect and his defender, and simply sending a message via messenger without confirmation of its receipt is insufficient. The court also took into account that the prosecutor did not provide adequate explanations as to why the notice of completion of the pre-trial investigation was sent to an address other than the suspect’s place of residence, and that the defender was not even notified.
message was sent. The court emphasized that the term of pre-trial investigation includes not only the drafting and approval of the indictment but also its referral to the court within the established time limits. The court also took into account that the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine affected the possibility of proper performance of procedural duties by the participants in the criminal proceedings, but this does not justify violations of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Irpin City Court of the Kyiv region and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 753/15491/22 of 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the reclassification of the defendant’s actions from Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code (illegal purchase and possession of psychotropic substances for the purpose of sale) to Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code (illegal purchase and possession of psychotropic substances without the purpose of sale).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal thoroughly examined the prosecutor’s arguments and provided reasonable answers to them. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to qualify a crime related to narcotic drugs, it is important to assess the intentions and motives of the person, and a large quantity of the substance is not in itself irrefutable evidence of the intent to sell. The court took into account that the accused is a drug-dependent person, acquired the psychotropic substance for personal use, and the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of his intent to sell. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires refuting any reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s version.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 184/2418/23 of 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment for intentional grievous bodily harm (Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance regarding conditional release from serving the sentence, took into account the gravity of the crime, which belongs to the category of serious crimes, and the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, the nature of the convicted person’s actions. The court also took into account mitigating circumstances, such as sincere remorse, voluntary compensation for damages, and the presence of a minor child in his care. However, after assessing all the circumstances in their entirety, the appellate court concluded that the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes are impossible
without isolating him from society. The court noted that the opinion of the victim is not decisive when imposing a sentence, since the court exercises its discretionary powers in accordance with the law. Considering all these factors, the appellate court decided that the application of a real sentence in the form of imprisonment is necessary to achieve the purpose of the punishment.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeals of the convict and his defense counsel.
Case No. 910/13367/19 of 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the imposition of subsidiary liability on the former head and sole owner of Kimet-Plus LLC for the obligations of the company in connection with bringing it to bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court, because the appellate court did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments set forth in the appeal and the liquidator’s objections, and also did not properly verify the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the existence of a civil offense in the defendant’s actions. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account the requirements of Articles 86, 236, 269, 282 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the assessment of the arguments of the parties to the case, the available evidence, a comprehensive and objective consideration of the circumstances of the case, and also did not consider the defendant’s application for the application of the consequences of the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court of cassation also emphasized the importance of establishing a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the occurrence of negative consequences for the debtor, as well as taking into account the current conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the relevant rules of law. The court of cassation indicated that in order to impose subsidiary liability, it is necessary to prove the existence of a commercial offense in the defendant’s actions, which results in the burden of subsidiary obligation for the debtor’s obligations.
3. The court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 404/136/22 of 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of head of the consultative polyclinic department in connection with staff reduction, reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since it established that the plaintiff’s dismissal took place in compliance with the requirements of labor legislation, in particular, the plaintiff was warned about the future dismissal two months in advance, the employer offered the plaintiff all available vacancies, from transfer to anywhich the plaintiff refused. The court noted that the obligation to employ an employee rests with the owner from the day of warning about dismissal until the day of termination of the employment contract. The court also took into account that the position of deputy chief physician, which the plaintiff claimed, was not vacant at the time of dismissal. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence and has no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the established circumstances of the case.
2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 295/8823/23 dated 08/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 and PERSON_9 for crimes related to the illegal production and sale of excisable goods, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
The operative part of the decision does not contain the justification of the position of the court of cassation. It appears from the text that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, so it is currently impossible to provide information about the arguments of the court.
The decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defense attorney were left without satisfaction.
Case No. 522/16263/22 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury that caused a short-term health disorder).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as it concluded that the person’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, the expert’s opinion, and a video recording from the scene. The court noted that the courts of previous instances properly investigated and evaluated all the evidence, and also took into account the circumstances that mitigate the punishment. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the right to defense and the need to appoint a medical examination were rejected, as the court believes that the defense had the opportunity to exercise its rights, but did not use them to the full extent. The court also emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal and left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/3330/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the purchase and sale agreement, formalized by the act of realization of assets at electronic auctions, due to the
that the seller (ARMA) did not transfer the asset purchased at the auction to the buyer (Isagis LLC).
2. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not establish the actual nature of the disputed legal relationship between the parties, did not examine compliance with the procedure for the sale of seized assets at electronic auctions at each stage, and did not verify the fulfillment of their obligations by the parties. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not provide a proper legal assessment of the parties’ arguments and did not establish whether the plaintiff’s right had been violated and whether he had chosen the correct method of protection. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not investigate all the circumstances relevant to the case, in particular, whether the procedure for the sale of seized assets at electronic auctions was followed at each stage.
3. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 359/113/18 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the acquittal of PERSON_7, accused of embezzlement and forgery in office.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case. In particular, it was established that PERSON_7, when making a decision to return the car, acted on the basis of the documents provided to him, which confirmed the ownership of a citizen of Germany. The prosecutor did not provide evidence of the unreliability of these documents. The court also took into account that the car was not seized in criminal proceedings, and the prosecutor could not clearly explain which evidence needed to be re-examined and what information the witnesses could provide. In addition, the court drew attention to the fact that the prosecutor did not appeal the previous ruling of the appellate court, which also upheld the acquittal, which indicates his agreement with such a decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 646/1972/23 dated 06/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of the plaintiff, who believed that the defendant spread false information about him on the social network Facebook.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that in order to satisfy the claim for protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, it is necessary to establish the fact of dissemination of information, that this information relates to the plaintiff, is unreliable and violates his personal non-property rights. The court for
meant that a distinction should be made between factual assertions and value judgments, as value judgments are not subject to refutation. In this case, the disputed information disseminated by the defendant is his subjective opinion, criticism, and evaluation, rather than factual information, and therefore cannot be a basis for granting the claim. The court also took into account the context in which the information was disseminated and noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to reply.
4. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claim for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation.
Case No. 757/42367/24-ц dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 1,000,029.00 in material and moral damages from the Office of the Prosecutor General in favor of the Burka Vitaliy Volodymyrovych Farming Enterprise.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances returned the statement of claim, considering that the plaintiff’s representative, who is not a lawyer, does not have the right to sign the statement of claim, since the case is not a minor case, and also did not provide evidence of having the powers of a lawyer. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, noting that the representative acted in the order of self-representation of a legal entity. The Supreme Court took into account that an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Associations was attached to the appeal, which shows that the representative is authorized to perform actions on behalf of the legal entity, including signing contracts and submitting documents for state registration. The court noted that the presence of such information in the register is sufficient confirmation of the person’s right to act on behalf of the legal entity in the order of self-representation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of opening proceedings in the case.
Case No. 753/15491/22 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 on charges of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment, or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or their analogues in large quantities).
2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the court’s arguments from the provided operative part of the ruling. The text does not contain any justifications for the position of the court of cassation, as well as the motives that guided the appellate court in making the appealed decision. A complete text of the court decision is necessary to provide a complete answer.
3. The Supreme
