Case №757/9390/24-ц dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the obligation of “Kyivteploenergo” to provide a response to an attorney’s request from an attorney acting in the interests of their client in a commercial case.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as the dispute arose in connection with the provision of legal assistance to a legal entity in a commercial case, and therefore should be considered in the order of commercial procedure, and not civil procedure. The court took into account that the attorney’s request was submitted within the scope of the contract for the provision of legal assistance to a legal entity in a commercial case. The Supreme Court referred to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which disputes regarding the failure to respond to an attorney’s request in such cases are not public law disputes and are subject to resolution under the rules of commercial procedure. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the subject composition and nature of the disputed legal relations, and also did not take into account the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The appellate court should have closed the proceedings in the case, as it is not subject to consideration in the order of civil procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the dispute in the order of commercial procedure.
Case №754/12394/20 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff acquired property rights to the apartment, having fully paid its value, and therefore has the right to demand the return of this property from any other person. The court found that the alienation of the apartment took place contrary to the will of the plaintiff and in the absence of legal grounds. The contract of sale of property rights, on the basis of which “Grassa Group” LLC acquired ownership of the apartment, was concluded contrary to the will of the original investor. The court also noted that the defendant, having exercised reasonable diligence, could and should have known that the disputed property left the possession of the plaintiff in violation of the requirements of the law, which casts doubt on her good faith during the acquisition of this property into ownership. The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the protection of the rights of investors and the possibility of recovering property that was alienated against their will.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal and recovered the apartment from someone else’s illegal possession in favor of the plaintiff.
Case №910/20100/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the Kyiv City Council to lease a land plot to “P-18” LLC for the reconstruction of a non-residential building into a residential one, as well as the appeal against the lease agreement and the decision on state reregistration of the right to lease this plot.
2. The Supreme Court found that the courts of previous instances did not clarify an important circumstance: whether the disputed decision of the Kyiv City Council changed the type of designated purpose of the land plot, as the prosecutor claimed. The Court emphasized that if the prosecutor believes that the violation of the state’s interests lies in the illegal change of the land category, then the claim to invalidate the city council’s decision regarding the change of designated purpose is appropriate and effective. The Supreme Court emphasized that the method of protection must be effective and ensure the restoration of the violated right, and the court decision should not create a state of uncertainty. The Court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the procedure for changing the designated purpose of the land plot and did not take into account the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 932/14228/20 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to overturn the acquittal and close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 due to the expiration of the pre-trial investigation periods.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the criminal procedure code regarding the calculation of the terms of the pre-trial investigation, since the criminal proceedings were separated from another one, initiated before March 16, 2018, when the changes regarding the terms of the pre-trial investigation came into force. The court of cassation also noted that in such cases, the extension of the terms of the pre-trial investigation is within the competence of the prosecutor, and not the investigating judge. In addition, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the provisions of paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine apply only to criminal proceedings, information about which was entered into the ERDR after March 16, 2018. The court also emphasized the binding nature of the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the rules of law by other courts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 296/817/21 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_9 and PERSON_10, accused of receiving illegal benefits (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), due to the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the criminal proceedings, motivating this by the fact that the term of the pre-trial investigation had expired. The Supreme Court
He indicated that, according to established practice, the day of notifying a person of the completion of the pre-trial investigation and granting access to the investigation materials is included in the term of the pre-trial investigation. The court emphasized that after proper notification of the suspects about the completion of the investigation, the term is suspended, and repeated suspension of the term after notification of the defenders is not provided for by the CPC. Thus, since the suspects were notified of the completion of the investigation before the expiration of the two-month period, the conclusion of the court of first instance that the indictment was sent outside the term is erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case №372/4472/21 dated 08/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation in kind of a share of a residential building and land plot, as well as the termination of the right of joint partial ownership.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence of the technical feasibility of allocating a share of the house and land plot in kind, in particular, the expert opinion did not contain any option for allocating the disputed household, and the issue of dividing the common communications of the house (water supply, gas supply, heating, etc.) was not resolved. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not file motions for the appointment of judicial construction-technical and land-technical examinations. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that the burden of proving the validity of the claims rests on the plaintiff, and not on the defendants. The court of cassation also indicated that according to the principle of adversarial proceedings, the parties themselves must collect and prepare the factual material for resolving the dispute, and the court only evaluates the submitted materials.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case №910/11650/24 dated 08/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the refusal to review the decision in the case on the recovery of debt under a contract for work and services due to newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the circumstances referred to by the applicant are not newly discovered, since they either have already been the subject of investigation by the courts of previous instances, or could have been known to the applicant during the consideration of the case. The court noted that the review of a court decision due to newly discovered circumstances does not provide for a re-evaluation of evidence, but aims to take into account circumstances that were not known to the court at the time of the decision. Also, the court emphasized that circumstances that arose after the decision was made, or thosethat are established on the basis of evidence that was not submitted by the parties in a timely manner. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty, which stipulates that a final court decision cannot be reviewed solely for the purpose of a new trial. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the interpretation of the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 748/5192/23 dated 08/14/2025
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 3 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (dissemination of information on the location of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations for the purpose of providing it to a representative of the aggressor state).
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court groundlessly reclassified the actions of the convicted person from Part 3 to Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, excluding the qualifying element – dissemination of information for the purpose of providing it to a representative of the state that is carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court formally reviewed the proceedings, did not properly verify the claims stated in the appeals, did not properly assess the evidence in the criminal proceedings in its entirety, and reached a premature conclusion regarding the reclassification of actions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not properly take into account the content of the convicted person’s correspondence with a subscriber whose number is not serviced in Ukraine, where the latter directly indicated his affiliation with representatives of the aggressor state and requested information for launching strikes on the territory of Ukraine. Also, the appellate court did not refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person, and did not properly substantiate the decision regarding the admissibility of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 724/1782/24 dated 08/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the father’s communication with the children and the determination of ways for him to participate in their upbringing.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, partially satisfied the claim, obliging the mother not to obstruct the father’s communication with the children and determining specific ways of such communication, taking into account the father’s remote residence, the children’s educational process, their interests and wishes. The courts proceeded from the need to ensure a balance between the rights of parents and the interests of children, emphasizing that the interests of children are a priority. The court took into account the principle of equal rights of parents in raising a child, concluding that the determined days and hours of the father’s communication with the children should take place according toconsidering the wishes of the children, which does not violate the rights and interests of the children and the plaintiff, given the remoteness of the children’s place of residence from the father. The courts also took into account the conclusion of the guardianship authority, but did not agree with it in full, as they considered that the proposed schedule did not fully meet the interests of the children. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance, emphasizing that it is in the best interests of the children and ensures sufficient participation of the father in their upbringing.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 709/1954/24 dated 15/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the court’s refusal to open proceedings on an application to establish the fact that a minor child is dependent on the applicant, which is necessary to obtain a deferral from mobilization.
2. The court refused to open proceedings, as it sees a dispute about a right that must be resolved in the order of claim proceedings, considering that the issue of child support cannot be considered without regard to the obligations of both parents. The court referred to the fact that establishing the fact that a child is dependent on one of the parents may affect the rights and obligations of the other parent regarding the maintenance and upbringing of the child, and such issues should be resolved in claim proceedings, where the interests of all interested parties are taken into account. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, if there is a dispute about the participation of one of the parents in the maintenance of the child, the case cannot be considered in separate proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a corresponding claim in the order of claim proceedings. The court indicated that family obligations are inalienable, and the issue of child support should be considered taking into account the actions of both parents.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 689/22/25 dated 19/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother regarding her minor son.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the defendant’s deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities, and deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure. The court took into account that the defendant communicates with her son, is interested in his life and studies, which indicates her participation in the child’s upbringing. The court also took into account the explanations of the minor son, who confirmed communication with his mother and her visit. The court did not agree with the conclusion of the guardianship authority, as it was insufficiently substantiated and did not contain information about the threat from the mother to the child. The court emphasized that the defendant’s statement of admission of the claim cannot be the basis
for the deprivation of her parental rights, as it does not meet the best interests of the child.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 331/6793/23 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_7 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. Due to the fact that only the operative part of the resolution was announced, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the Supreme Court relied on when making the decision. The judges referred to the need for considerable time to prepare the full text. However, given that the cassation appeal was dismissed and the judgment and ruling of the courts of previous instances were upheld, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court did not find significant violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of the criminal law that could lead to the cancellation or modification of court decisions. It is likely that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly qualified the actions of the convicted person. It is also possible that the cassation appeal did not contain convincing arguments that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decisions. The defense attorney and the convicted person participated in the hearing via video conference, which indicates the guarantee of the right to defense. The representative of the victim also participated in the hearing.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed his cassation appeal.
Case No. 505/361/22 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the decisions of the Kuyalnytska Village Council regarding the granting of permission for the preparation of technical documentation on land management and the transfer of ownership of a land plot to another person, when the plaintiff already had permission to prepare such documentation for the same plot.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not verify on what basis the land plot with cadastral number was formed, considering that a land management project had already been developed on the basis of applications from the plaintiff and other persons. The court noted that the disputed land plot had already been formed before the other person applied, but the courts did not verify under what circumstances preference was given to this person who applied later. In addition, the appellate court made mistakes by confusing the plaintiffs in the case and referring to circumstances that do not relate to this case. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts did not properly assess the actions of the Kuyalnytska Village Council, which initially refused to approve the land management project for the plaintiff, and then transferred the land plot to another person.
to herself, who applied later.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 461/5247/22 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the leniency of the sentence by which a person was convicted of drug trafficking but released from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that punishment should not only be retribution but also a means of correcting the convicted person and preventing new crimes. The court took into account that the convicted person is a first-time offender, sincerely repented, actively assisted in solving the crime, is positively characterized, works, has a minor child to support and cares for a seriously ill father, and is also a volunteer. The appellate court, reviewing the case, comprehensively analyzed the circumstances of the case and information about the identity of the perpetrator, establishing that the mitigating circumstances significantly reduce the degree of severity of the crime. The court also took into account that after committing the crime, the convicted person leads a law-abiding life, and at the time of the cassation review, he stood up to defend Ukraine, being in military service.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 546/705/23 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court decision regarding the recovery of insurance compensation from the Joint Stock Company “Insurance Company “Kraina” in favor of the owner of the damaged car as a result of a traffic accident caused by the convicted person.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, guided by the fact that according to Article 30 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Owners of Land Vehicles”, a car is considered physically destroyed if its repair is economically unjustified, and in this case, the owner is compensated for the difference between the value of the vehicle before and after the traffic accident. The court noted that the expert opinion confirmed the economic impracticality of repairing the car, and the insurance amount does not exceed the insurer’s liability limit. The court also took into account that the representative of the insurance company did not exercise the right to ask the expert questions about the value of the liquid assets of the car. The court emphasized that, according to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the victim’s prior application to the insurer for payment of insurance compensation is not mandatory for the consideration of a civil lawsuit within the framework of criminal proceedings.
3. The court decided to uphold the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the representative of the civil defendant.
