Case No. 904/11028/15 (904/3365/24) dated 08/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of the appeal filed by the arbitration manager in the bankruptcy case due to non-payment of the court fee.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the arbitration manager, acting in the interests of the debtor in the bankruptcy case, acts as his representative, and not as an individual who protects the interests of other persons, therefore, the benefits regarding the payment of the court fee, provided for such individuals, do not apply to him. The court also indicated that the debtor’s stay in the bankruptcy procedure does not exempt him from paying the court fee, and the relevant expenses must be reimbursed in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. In addition, the court emphasized that reducing the amount of the court fee is the right, not the obligation of the court, and the appellate court rightfully refused to satisfy the motion of the arbitration manager to reduce the amount of the court fee. The court of cassation agreed that since the deficiencies of the appeal were not eliminated, the appeal was rightfully returned. The court of cassation also noted that the provisions of subparagraph 3 of part one of Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee” can be applied to a legal entity if there is a property criterion, but only in cases where the subject of the claim is the protection of social, labor, family, housing rights, compensation for damage to health.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 991/2100/24 dated 08/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_8 of inciting an attempted bribery and fraud on a particularly large scale.
2. The court, finding PERSON_8 guilty, was guided by the following arguments:
* Testimony of the victim PERSON_10, who described in detail the circumstances of the extortion of a bribe and the transfer of funds.
* Analysis of the correspondence between PERSON_8 and PERSON_10, which confirms the agreements on the transfer of money for resolving the issue of non-prosecution.
* Protocols of covert investigative (search) actions, in particular audio and video control, which recorded meetings and conversations between PERSON_8 and PERSON_10 regarding the transfer of funds.
* The fact that PERSON_8 received money from PERSON_10, which is confirmed by the protocols of inspection and delivery of funds, as well as the protocol of detention.
* Seizure from PERSON_8 of a receipt from PERSON_10 for the return of a debt in the amount of 30,000 euros, which indicates an attempt to hide the fact of the transfer of a bribe.
* The court rejected the defense’s version about* The court also took into account that PERSON_8 did not intend to transfer the received funds to an official but planned to embezzle them, which qualifies as fraud.
* The court emphasized that PERSON_8 had committed all the actions he deemed necessary to bring the crime to completion, but the crime was not completed for reasons beyond his control, and therefore, there is a completed attempt to commit a crime in his actions.
* The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the provocation of the crime, as PERSON_8 showed active conscious behavior, without which the commission of the crime would have been impossible.
3. The court found PERSON_8 guilty and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
**Case No. 916/3404/24 dated 08/13/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute is recognition of the land lease agreement as renewed and recognition of an additional agreement (contract) as concluded.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision, noting that for the renewal of a land lease agreement, it is necessary to strictly adhere to the deadlines for notifying the lessor of the intention to extend the contractual relations, established by both law and the agreement. Failure to comply with these deadlines, even by one day, is a violation that excludes the possibility of renewing the agreement. The court emphasized that the provisions of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” are imperative and do not provide for the possibility of ignoring or mitigating them, and the court’s assessment of the missed deadline based on the criterion of its “materiality” or “immateriality” is inadmissible. Also, the court of cassation pointed out the erroneous application by the previous courts of the version of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” in force at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, instead of the version in force at the time of the disputed legal relations. In addition, the court took into account the bad faith behavior of the lessee, who deliberately ignored the clearly defined requirements of the law and the agreement.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 904/937/25 dated 08/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the first instance court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Sports Club “Dnipro-1” at the initiative of LLC “Football Club “Shakhtar” (Donetsk)” based on the debtor’s failure to fulfill obligations under the transfer contract.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the first instance court,
pointing to the formal approach of the court of first instance in determining the existence of a dispute about the law, which is limited only to the debtor’s objections to the amount of debt, without proper investigation of the circumstances of the case and the terms of the transfer agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that the existence of a dispute about the law must be confirmed by proper evidence, and not based solely on the debtor’s assumptions. The court also noted that the issue of opening proceedings in a bankruptcy case is under the jurisdiction of the courts of Ukraine, since the debtor is a legal entity of private law, created in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine. The appellate court reasonably pointed out the need to assess the terms of the transfer agreement, primary documents and other circumstances relevant to resolving the issue of opening proceedings in a bankruptcy case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Sports Club “Dnipro-1” LLC without satisfaction, and the decision of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case №1-349/11 dated 18/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defender’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the district court and the decision of the appellate court.
2. The court refused to request the case, since the cassation appeal does not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, namely, it does not specify what significant violations of the criminal procedure law were committed by the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the justification of the cassation appeal cannot be based on formal statements about the improper behavior of certain persons. The court indicated that the case may be requested in the event of a repeated receipt of a cassation appeal, provided that the specified deficiencies are eliminated within the established period. The court also refers to the fact that the cassation appeal must meet the requirements specified in Art. 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, and the grounds for canceling or changing a verdict are only a significant violation of the criminal procedure law, incorrect application of the criminal law, or non-compliance of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person.
3. The court ruled to refuse the request for the case based on the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case №904/2688/24 dated 06/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of ownership and cancellation of the state registration of ownership of a parking lot, on the grounds of unauthorized occupation of a land plot of communal ownership and obstruction of its use by the territorial community, as well as the actual absence of property.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, as the courts did not establish
failed to investigate important circumstances, namely: whether the disputed property belongs to real estate objects, whether it is a temporary structure, the ownership of which is not subject to state registration. The court noted that the courts limited themselves to stating that the prosecutor had chosen an ineffective method of protection, without giving due assessment to the submitted evidence and without establishing the nature of the disputed property. The court indicated that the courts should have given a comprehensive and complete assessment of the arguments of the prosecutor and the plaintiff regarding the identity of the land plots, checking whether the information stated in the survey reports is consistent with the data of the State Land Cadastre, the State Register of Property Rights, technical documentation on land management, cadastral plans, excerpts and materials of technical inventory. The court also emphasized that in the event of proving the absence of grounds for state registration of rights, in particular in the case of the actual absence of property, the request to cancel state registration is an independent method of protection.
3. The court ruled to cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 908/1390/19(908/290/22-908/3258/20) dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the invalidation of the agreement on settlements and renewal of the mortgage within the bankruptcy case of Megapolis DKS LLC.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the agreement on settlements and additional agreements to it meet the characteristics of a novation agreement, since the bill of exchange obligation between the parties was terminated by agreement of the parties and replaced with an obligation to transfer funds. The court also took into account that Alliance VV LLC chose an improper method of protecting the violated right, demanding the renewal of the mortgage, instead of recognizing the right of the mortgagee, which is the basis for refusing to satisfy the claims. The court of cassation referred to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the appropriate method of protection in such disputes. The court of cassation noted that there are no grounds for termination of the mortgage, however, due to the choice of an improper method of protection, the claim is not subject to satisfaction.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 922/4789/24 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of Kharkivoblenergo JSC to charge the cost of unaccounted electricity to Individual Entrepreneur Kuchko O.O. due to unauthorized connection to the power grid.
2. The court of cassation
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that Private Entrepreneur Kuchko O.O. had made an unauthorized connection of electrical receivers to the power grid, which is a violation of the Rules of the Retail Electricity Market. The court stated that the act of violation was drawn up in compliance with the requirements, contained all the necessary data for calculation, and was also signed by Private Entrepreneur Kuchko O.O. without any remarks. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of initial data in calculating the cost of unaccounted electricity, emphasizing that the calculation was carried out according to the established methodology and using appropriate indicators. The court also noted that the appellant’s references to previous decisions of the Supreme Court are irrelevant, as they relate to other types of violations and factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Private Entrepreneur Kuchko O.O., and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 1-349/11 dated 08/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is a cassation appeal filed by the defender and the accused against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
The Supreme Court judge refused to request the case file, as the cassation appeal does not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960. In particular, the appeal does not specify the significant violations of the criminal procedure law committed by the previous courts, and it is also based on formal allegations of improper conduct of certain individuals. In addition, the cassation appeal does not contain the signature of the accused. The judge noted that the case file may be requested only in the event of a repeated submission of the cassation appeal after the specified deficiencies have been corrected. The judge also refers to the fact that the justification for the cassation appeal cannot be based on formal allegations of improper conduct of certain individuals.
The court ruled to refuse the request for the case file.
Case No. 922/1399/20 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the city council’s decision on the alienation of communal property through redemption as illegal, the recognition of the sale and purchase agreement as invalid, and the return of the property to the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals, based on the following:
* The prosecutor had the right to appeal to the court, as the city council, in adopting the challenged decision, acted against the interests of the territorial community.
* The claim for recognition of the city council’s decision as illegal is not an effective remedy, as the decision has already been implemented through the conclusion of a sale and purchase agreement.
* Redemption of leased property is possible only if the lessee has made improvements.
property for an amount not less than 25% of its market value, which was not the case here.
* The invalidation of the sale and purchase agreement is justified because it contradicts the requirements of the law.
* The return of the property to the territorial community is a proper way to protect its property rights.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the recognition of the city council’s decision as illegal, but upheld the decision on the invalidation of the sale and purchase agreement and the return of the property to the territorial community.
Case No. 904/949/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a fine, the cost of the expert examination, the cost of the estimate and restoration of the leased object, as well as the recognition of the fact of violation of the lease agreement terms by the defendant.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence that the defendant violated the terms of the lease agreement, in particular, carrying out reconstruction without coordination. The court found that the plaintiff gave written consent to the reconstruction and did not make any claims regarding violations of the terms of the agreement for a long time. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove that the premises were returned in a worse condition than they were received for rent, and also did not provide evidence regarding the cost of the equipment, which, according to him, was dismantled. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not give the defendant the opportunity to prepare a new technical passport for the premises.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 990/14/25 dated 08/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on the dismissal of a judge and the ruling on dismissing his application for resignation without consideration.
The court justified its decision by the fact that the initial decision of the HCJ to dismiss the judge was based on the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber, which was subsequently overturned, and the disciplinary proceedings were closed. After the annulment of the Disciplinary Chamber’s decision, the judge is considered not to have been brought to disciplinary responsibility, which eliminates the grounds for his dismissal. The court noted that the HCJ did not review its decision to dismiss after the annulment of the Disciplinary Chamber’s decision, which violates the judge’s right to resign. The court also took into account that the absence of a legislative mechanism for reviewing such decisions should not deprive the judge of the right to defense. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the judge had legitimate expectations that the grounds for dismissal would be corrected after the closure of the disciplinary proceedings, but the HCJ did not take appropriate action.
The court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the prinvalidating the HQCJ’s decision to dismiss the judge, but refused to invalidate the ruling on leaving the application for resignation unconsidered.
**Case No. 954/745/23 dated 08/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open appellate proceedings on the defendant’s appeal against the decision of the court of first instance on the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, reasoning that access to the court is not an absolute right and may be restricted by law if it does not harm the essence of the right and is proportionate. The court noted that the deadlines for filing complaints should ensure proper administration of justice and legal certainty. In this case, the defendant missed the deadline for appealing, and the appellate court reasonably found the reasons for missing the deadline to be invalid, since the defendant did not provide convincing evidence that the circumstances related to the martial law objectively prevented him from filing an appeal in a timely manner. In addition, the court took into account that the defendant received a copy of the decision of the court of first instance in September 2024, but filed an appeal only in December 2024, without providing justifications for the validity of missing the deadline in relation to these time intervals.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 560/3797/24 dated 08/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff for the period from 2016 to 2018.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim due to missing the deadline for applying to the court, based on the fact that at the time of the disputed legal relations (2016-2018), the wording of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was in force, which did not limit the deadline for applying to the court in cases on recovery of wages. The court emphasized that the amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code, introduced by Law No. 2352-IX, came into force on July 19, 2022 and do not have retroactive effect, therefore, they cannot be applied to legal relations that arose earlier. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the statute of limitations does not apply to claims for the recovery of wages for the period until July 19, 2022. Given that the plaintiff applied to the court with a claim for payment of indexation for the period until July 19, 2022, the courts of previous instances had no grounds to dismiss the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned thedecisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for continued consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 520/852/17 dated 15/08/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the apartment sale and purchase agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as invalid, on the grounds of the plaintiff’s inability to understand the meaning of her actions and control them at the time of the conclusion of the agreement.
2. The court granted the claim, relying on the conclusions of forensic psychiatric examinations, which established that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the plaintiff suffered from a mental disorder that deprived her of the ability to understand the meaning of her actions and control them; the courts took into account both expert opinions provided in the case and recognized them as relevant evidence, considering the mandatory nature of the appointment of a forensic psychiatric examination in such cases; the courts also took into account the absence of evidence from the defendant that would refute the conclusions of the examinations or prove the plaintiff’s ability to understand her actions; the courts referred to Article 225 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which provides for the possibility of recognizing as invalid a transaction performed by a capable person who did not understand the meaning of their actions; the courts applied the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of restitution, obliging the plaintiff to return the received funds to the defendant.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 523/12255/23 dated 13/08/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the cancellation of the dismissal order, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, as the plaintiff considered his dismissal illegal.
2. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, considering that the employer had taken sufficient measures to clarify the reasons for the plaintiff’s absence from work, and the medical certificate provided by the plaintiff from Poland is not proper evidence of temporary disability, as it is not apostilled. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that a medical certificate from Poland does not require apostille, and absence from work due to illness is a valid reason, therefore the dismissal was illegal. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court erroneously assessed the evidence and circumstances of the case, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the validity of the reasons for his absence from work. The Supreme Court also noted that during the period of martial law, the consent of the trade union for dismissal is not required if the employee is not a member of an elected trade union body.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld
