Case No. 991/1196/24 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_12 of inciting an attempted unlawful benefit and misappropriation of property by deception.
2. The court, analyzing the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had not proven the fact that PERSON_12 incited the provision of unlawful benefit, since there is no evidence of the accused’s active role in inducing the applicant to transfer funds, and the applicant’s testimony is contradictory and not supported by other evidence. The court also disagreed with the qualification of PERSON_12’s actions as fraud, since the accused’s intention to misappropriate funds by deception was not established, and significant damage to the victim was not proven. Instead, the court found that PERSON_12, being the head of the State Judicial Administration, received unlawful benefit for influencing the decision-making by judges, which constitutes a crime under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of influence). The court took into account that PERSON_12 had communication with representatives of the judiciary and created the impression for the applicant that he could influence the court’s decision. The court also noted that for the qualification of actions under Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it does not matter whether the influence was realized or whether the unlawful benefit was transferred to third parties.
3. The court found PERSON_12 guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold positions in state authorities and local self-government for a term of 3 years.
Case No. 389/2099/20 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of abuse of power accompanied by violence.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances comprehensively examined the evidence, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and video materials, which confirm the guilt of the convicted person in abuse of power with the use of violence against the victim. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court. Also, the court of cassation did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could affect the legality and validity of court decisions, in particular, regarding the limitation of the defense’s time during the court debates and the refusal to re-examine the video file. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the imposed punishment is fair, taking into account the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the verdicts of the courts of previous instances –
Case №910/15790/23 dated 08/08/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the protection of the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights to the invention “Substituted Oxazolidinones and Their Use for Preventing Blood Clotting” under Ukrainian Patent No. 73339.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court failed to consider that the measures to secure the claim correlate with the stated claims, since the issuance of conclusions and recommendations regarding the state registration of a medicinal product is part of the procedure for placing a medicinal product into civil circulation. The court also noted that these measures are aimed at stopping the likely infringement of the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that prohibiting a person from performing certain actions does not interfere with the Center’s powers, but is a reasonable restriction to ensure the enforcement of the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that when considering a motion to cancel the measures to secure a claim, the court does not assess the legality of such measures, but only ascertains whether the need for securing the claim has disappeared or whether the circumstances have changed. The court also took into account that the defendant did not prove the existence of circumstances that could be grounds for canceling the applied measures to secure the claim.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case №740/2968/16-к dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict, which convicted PERSON_7 under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (acceptance of unlawful benefit by an official holding a responsible position).
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, emphasizing that the appellate court thoroughly examined the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, conducted a partial judicial investigation, questioned witnesses, examined and analyzed the evidence, assessed its admissibility and sufficiency to confirm the charges. The Supreme Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the illegality of the composition of the court, the inadmissibility of evidence (records of covert investigative (search) actions, search), violations of the requirements of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the absence of a decision on involving a person in confidential cooperation, and provocation of a crime. The court of cassation noted that non-compliance with the deadlines for drawing up the record of covert investigative (search) actions is not a significant violation that entails the recognition of evidence as inadmissible, and also indicated that the absence of a separate decision on involving a person in confidential cooperation does not indicate a violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also took into account that PERSON_7 had the authority to develop vacation schedules, and no signs of provocation of a crime were detected.
3. The court decided on cassation
to dismiss the appeals of the defense counsel and the convicted person, and to uphold the judgment of the appellate court.
**Case №941/1790/20 dated 08/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court, by which the prosecutor was found guilty of receiving undue advantage (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, emphasizing that the pre-trial investigation was conducted by an authorized body, namely the SBI, and that the fact that the investigation was conducted by another territorial unit of the SBI does not affect the admissibility of evidence. The court also noted that the search of the prosecutor’s office did not require prior permission from the investigating judge, and that receiving a bribe does not depend on the actual influence of the actions of the briber on the outcome of another person’s case. In addition, the court rejected arguments regarding the violation of the right to defense due to the remoteness of the investigating body, since there are opportunities for remote participation in court hearings and submission of documents. The court also emphasized that the appellate court properly examined the evidence, in particular audio and video materials, and reached a reasonable conclusion about the prosecutor’s guilt.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the convicted person.
**Case №333/2538/22 dated 07/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid and the cancellation of the certificate of acquisition of real estate from public auctions.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove violations of the procedure for conducting electronic auctions that would lead to their invalidity. The court noted that the actions of a state or private enforcement officer that do not relate to the rules of electronic auctions have an independent method of appeal and cannot be the basis for recognizing electronic auctions as invalid. Appealing the information in the application of a private enforcement officer, in particular, regarding the determined value of the property transferred for sale, must be carried out according to the rules of Article 447 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” which the plaintiff did not do. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the erroneous determination of the market value of the apartment, since the value was determined by an independent appraiser and it was at this value that the apartment was put up for auction. In addition, the court emphasized that disagreement with the actions of a private enforcement officer has a separate method of procedural protection, which the plaintiff did not use.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 208/8358/18 dated July 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of a share from property in common shared ownership, namely an auxiliary complex for servicing a cafe-bistro.
2. The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s ruling because the appellate court failed to consider that the defendant did not object to the allocation of the plaintiff’s share in kind, and also that the first instance court’s decision on the allocation of the plaintiff’s share did not resolve issues regarding the rights and obligations of the defendant’s minor children, who were not involved in the case. In addition, the appellate court did not clarify whether the minor children had acquired new rights or obligations in connection with the court decision. The court of cassation also took into account the bad faith behavior of the defendant, who failed to inform the court about the conclusion of a gift agreement transferring a portion of his share in the joint property to the children during the trial in the court of first instance. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not review the decision of the local court in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, dismissing the claim solely on the grounds of non-involvement of individuals in the case at the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 916/1403/25 dated August 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the arrest of a sea vessel as security for a maritime claim under a charter agreement.
2. The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s ruling, which denied the motion for the arrest of the vessel, arguing that the case was subject to review by the appellate court at the location of the arbitration, as arbitration proceedings had been initiated. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) empowers the commercial court to consider applications for the arrest of a sea vessel, regardless of jurisdiction over the merits of the maritime claim. The court also noted that the CPC does not contain reservations regarding the jurisdiction of such applications to the appellate instance. In addition, the court of cassation took into account that at the time of filing the application for securing the claim, arbitration proceedings against one of the debtor companies had not yet commenced. The court emphasized that the provisions on securing a claim are a separate type of judicial proceeding, and the provisions applicable in claim proceedings do not apply to such applications.
3. The court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
**Case No. 761/21322/25 dated August 12, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the develop
transfer of criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The Supreme Court granted the motion of the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and the motion of the defense attorney, taking into account the need to ensure an objective and impartial consideration of the case. The court was guided by Articles 32, 33-1, 34, 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the issue of directing criminal proceedings from one court to another. This decision was made in view of circumstances that may affect the impartiality of the court, in particular, the place of commission of the crime, the place of residence of the accused or victim, or other circumstances that complicate the consideration of the case in this court. The court also took into account the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the need to change jurisdiction to ensure the right to a fair trial.
3. The court ordered that the materials of the criminal proceedings be sent from the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv to the Halytskyi District Court of Lviv for consideration.
Case No. 914/2246/24 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 3,054,529.24.
2. The decision does not provide the court’s arguments on which it based its decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. The full text of the court decision is required to provide a complete answer.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/3349/22(914/1858/24) dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of shareholders of PrJSC “Velykoanadolskyi Refractory Plant” regarding the election of members of the supervisory board, since shareholder PERSON_1 was illegally denied the inclusion of his proposals for candidates on the agenda of the meeting.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which found that PrJSC “Velykoanadolskyi Refractory Plant” violated the procedure for preparing and holding the general meeting by not including the proposals of shareholder PERSON_1 regarding candidates for the supervisory board, which were submitted within the established deadline. The courts noted that the shareholder rightfully sent the proposals by mail, since neither the law nor the internal documents of the company require that such proposals be sent exclusively by e-mail. Also, the courts indicated that the company must ensure receipt of postal correspondence at its legal address, and a delay in receipt cannot be the basis for refusing to include the shareholder’s proposals. The court of appeal additionally emphasized that the placement of the ballot for cumulative voting before considering the shareholders’ proposals violates their right to submit candidatures to the supervisory board.
of the council. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of PrJSC “Velykoanadolsky Refractory Plant” regarding the need to take into account the balance of interests of all shareholders, as it was not proven that the satisfaction of the claim of PERSON_1 violates the rights of other shareholders.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Velykoanadolsky Refractory Plant” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 912/3030/19 dated 07/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the issue of prohibiting an individual entrepreneur from using the trademark for goods and services “UKRZOLOTO”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that sole proprietor Lymarenko V.V. illegally used the trademark “UKRZOLOTO”. The court noted that the involvement of “Markholder” LLC as a third party was justified, as the decision in the case could affect their rights and obligations, considering the transfer of rights to the trademark. The court also took into account that “Markholder” LLC was the plaintiff at the time of filing the claim and incurred court costs that are subject to reimbursement. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the arbitrary involvement of “Markholder” LLC, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances acted within the law, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the specifics of legal regulation. The court also referred to the principle of res judicata, emphasizing the need to respect final court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of sole proprietor Lymarenko V.V. and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 947/2285/20 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decisions of the state registrar and the private notary regarding the state registration of ownership of an apartment for the bank, which was the subject of a mortgage.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which satisfied the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff is not the mortgagor under the mortgage agreement, although he is the debtor under the loan agreement secured by this mortgage. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff did not dispute the terms of the mortgage agreement and did not claim the recovery of the apartment, and therefore chose an inappropriate method of protection. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, indicating that the appellate court did not properly verify the circumstances on which the claims are based, in particular, the plaintiff’s status as a mortgagor, and did not examine the evidence that would confirm this. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court made mutually exclusive conclusions about the refusal of the claim, without properly establishing whether the plaintiff’s rights were violated.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case
