Case No. 914/664/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of decisions of the local self-government body regarding the withdrawal of a land plot from the use of a state enterprise and its transfer to private ownership, as well as the elimination of obstacles to the use of a land plot of the nature reserve fund.
2. The court of cassation points out that the courts of previous instances did not establish all the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case, in particular, did not investigate the legal status of the disputed land plot, its designated purpose, and whether it is located within the boundaries of the forest reserve. The courts did not verify whether the disputed plot belongs to particularly valuable lands, for which a special procedure for withdrawal and transfer to private ownership is established. Also, the courts did not properly assess the expert opinions, which were referred to in their decisions. The court emphasizes that the court’s decision cannot be based on assumptions, but must be based on fully and comprehensively established circumstances, confirmed by evidence. The court notes that in disputes regarding lands of the nature reserve fund, the state may interfere with the right to peaceful enjoyment of private individuals, protecting the general interests in a safe environment and the use of property without prejudice to society.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/2140/24 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a mortgage agreement concluded between two companies as invalid, as it has признаки of fraudulence.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, which признали the mortgage agreement invalid, since it was concluded after the opening of court proceedings regarding the termination of the contract of purchase and sale of the land plot, which became the subject of the mortgage. The courts established that both parties to the mortgage agreement are related parties with the same founder, beneficiary and manager, which indicates the согласованность of their actions. In addition, the financial assistance provided by one company to another was interest-free, which indicates the absence of economic обоснования. The courts also took into account that the conclusion of the mortgage agreement makes it impossible to fulfill the court decision on the return of the land plot to communal ownership, since the mortgage has priority over other obligations. Based on these circumstances, the courts concluded that the defendants acted in bad faith, злоупотребляя their rights to the detriment of the interests of the territorial community, and признали the agreement invalid.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
regarding the recognition of the invalidity of the mortgage agreement.
Case No. 916/2621/24 dated 08/18/2025
1. The dispute in this case concerns the lawfulness of the return of a statement of claim by a third party asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute, in a case concerning the recognition of the invalidity of a contract for the sale and purchase of a share in the authorized capital of a company.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim of the third party, since the claims of the third party do not relate to the same subject matter of the dispute as the initial claim. The court noted that the subject matter of the dispute under the initial claim is the right to a share in the authorized capital, which previously belonged to one person, while the subject matter of the dispute under the claim of the third party is the share that belonged to another person. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a joint review of the claims of the plaintiff and the third party, unity of the subject matter of the dispute or part thereof is necessary, and in this case, the subject matters of the dispute are different. The court also indicated that the third party may file a separate claim to protect its rights if it believes they have been violated.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/2591/19 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the city council’s decision on the privatization of communal property, the recognition of the invalidity of the contract for the sale and purchase of this property, 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 represent the interests of the state in court, since the city council, in adopting the disputed decision, acted contrary to the interests of the territorial community.
* The claim to recognize the city council’s decision as illegal is an ineffective way of protection, since the decision has already been executed by concluding a contract of sale.
* The redemption of communal property by the lessee is possible only if he has made inseparable improvements to the leased property in the amount of at least 25% of its market value, which was not established in this case.
* The contract of sale concluded in violation of the requirements of the legislation on privatization is invalid.
* The return of property to the territorial community is a proper way to protect its ownership right.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the recognition as illegal of the city council’s decision and the cancellation of state registration, and in other parts (recognition of the invalidity of the contract and return of property) left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 914/2265/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of invalid additionalof supplementary agreements to the vehicle loan agreement.
2. Unfortunately, the provided excerpt from the ruling lacks the reasoning part, therefore I cannot provide information about the court’s arguments.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 909/460/24 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway” (JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”) against Limited Liability Company “Eurotranstelecom” (LLC “Eurotranstelecom”) to establish a land easement for the operation and maintenance of a fiber-optic cable owned by the defendant, on a land plot that is under the plaintiff’s permanent use.
2. The court dismissed the claim because contractual relations already exist between the parties regarding the operation and maintenance of the fiber-optic communication line based on the General Agreement and other agreements, and the plaintiff did not prove the need to establish an additional easement for the defendant. The court noted that JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” did not substantiate the impossibility of satisfying the needs of LLC “Eurotranstelecom” in a way other than through the establishment of an easement, considering that the plaintiff independently operates and maintains the communication line. In addition, the court indicated that the provisions of land legislation do not grant the permanent land user the right to dispose of the land plot, and the plaintiff did not appeal to the authorized body to resolve the issue of the disputed land easement. The court also took into account that JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” was the initiator of the creation and construction of the fiber-optic communication line.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railway”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 913/355/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to correct errors in the enforcement documents issued by the same court.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, indicating that the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine) do not limit the right of the court that issued the order to correct its own error in the enforcement document, but, on the contrary, provide for such a possibility. The court noted that in this case, the orders were issued by the appellate court in execution of its own judgment, and not in execution of the decision of the court of first instance, therefore the appellate court acted as the court that made the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that correcting an error in an enforcement document is a procedural action of the court that issued this document, regardless of its status (first or appellate instance).
3. The court of cassation instance rescinded
upheld the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case to the appellate commercial court for reconsideration of the issue of correcting errors in the enforcement documents.
[**Case No. 910/7898/23 dated 08/21/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129660802)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings based on a court decision obliging the Ministry for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development of Ukraine to cease violations of antitrust laws.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the courts of previous instances, which granted the complaint of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) against the actions of the state enforcement officer, reasoning that the Ministry had not fully complied with the court decision, since the termination of the lease agreement, which was the basis for the termination of enforcement proceedings, did not eliminate the violation of antitrust laws established by the AMCU decision, namely, the establishment of an economically unjustified amount of rent. The court noted that the state enforcement officer is obliged to take measures of compulsory enforcement of decisions in the manner and procedure established by the enforcement document and the law, and in this case, the cessation of the violation involved changing the terms of the lease agreement, and not its termination. The court also indicated that although the courts’ reference to the Procedure for Monitoring the Implementation of Decisions of the Committee was erroneous, this did not lead to the adoption of an illegal decision, since the courts correctly established the fact of non-execution of the court decision. The court emphasized that the AMCU decision was valid and binding, and it was the non-execution of this decision that caused the appeal to the court. The court rejected the Ministry’s arguments, which were reduced to the requirements set out in the cassation appeal against the court decision on the merits of the dispute, which had already been duly assessed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development of Ukraine and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
[**Case No. 927/642/23 dated 08/21/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129660786)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of dispatching (operational and technological) management services, in particular, regarding the legality of charging penalties for late payment.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to recover the penalty, reasoning that the accrual of penalties was suspended for the period of martial law in accordance with NERC Decree No. 332. The Supreme Court emphasized that NERC Decree No. 332 applies only to penalties charged for the period of martial law and does not apply to obligations that arose before its commencement. The court noted that the previous instances incorrectly assdisregarded the norms of substantive law, failing to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the absence of grounds for an expanded interpretation of NERCMP Resolution No. 332 was clearly stated. The Supreme Court also referred to the resolution of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which confirmed that the provision on the suspension of penalties does not have retroactive effect. Considering the proven violation by the defendant of the obligations under the contract and the correctness of the penalty calculation, the Supreme Court decided to satisfy the claims in full.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim for the recovery of the penalty.
Case No. 910/15229/24 dated August 19, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 10,268,668.45.
In the decision, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya”, overturning the decisions of previous instances. The court did not specify the specific reasons for the reversal in the provided part of the decision, but it is likely that violations of substantive or procedural law were found, which affected the legality and validity of the court decisions. Considering that the case has been remanded for a new trial, it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case or incorrectly applied the law. The new trial involves a re-examination of the evidence and circumstances of the case, taking into account the instructions of the cassation court. This decision is aimed at ensuring fairness and legality of the judicial process. The absence of specific reasons in the provided part complicates the full analysis, but the general trend indicates the need for a more thorough consideration of the case.
The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 914/453/25 dated August 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of LLC “Komunalnyk 1” against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to reinstate the term for appealing the court order.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of procedural law. The court of cassation instance emphasized that receiving a copy of the court decision in a person’s electronic cabinet is proper notification of the court decision, and the complainant’s reference to not being familiar with the ruling due to lack of access to the electronic cabinet is not a valid reason for reinstating the term for appellate appeal, since LLC “Komunalnyk 1” did not provide evidence of objective obstacles to timely appeal. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the theft
disruptions, computer malfunctions, and program blocking are not objective reasons, as these events occurred before the commencement of the appeal period. The court of cassation indicated that each party bears the risk associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions, and that the reinstatement of the term is an exception to the general rule.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of “Komunalnyk 1” LLC without satisfaction and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 927/642/23 dated 08/21/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 104,680,892.63.
The Supreme Court, satisfying the cassation appeal, disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the denial of penalty recovery. The court of cassation likely reviewed the application of substantive law regarding the calculation of penalties, possibly taking into account circumstances that were not properly assessed by the previous courts. Possibly, the courts of previous instances misinterpreted the terms of the contract or applied provisions of the legislation that were not applicable in this case. Also, additional evidence or arguments may have been provided that influenced the review of the case by the Supreme Court. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that a penalty in the amount of UAH 30,935.91 is subject to recovery from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of denying the satisfaction of the claims for recovery of UAH 30,935.91 of penalty and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim in this part.
Case No. 757/3634/23-ц dated 08/21/2025
The subject of the dispute is the claim of a farm enterprise against the state for compensation for material and moral damages.
The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part of appealing on the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, probably due to the absence of proper justification of such ground by the appellant. In the other part, the cassation appeal was dismissed without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, which indicates the absence of violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the cancellation of court decisions. The absence of the court’s position on the merits of the dispute does not allow establishing the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties. Also, the absence of the plaintiff’s representative in the court session may indicate his lack of interest in the outcome of the case.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of the farm enterprise.
Case No. 910/16716/23 dated 08/21/2025
The subject of the dispute
Regarding the recovery from SEZED “Ukrinterenergo” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” of UAH 375,198,355.18 of debt for the provision of electricity transmission services.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling to suspend proceedings in the case, reasoning that the appellate court incorrectly applied paragraph 7 of part one of Article 228 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows for the suspension of proceedings in the event of a review of another case in cassation proceedings if the legal relations in the cases are similar. The court of cassation instance indicated that in the case being considered by the joint chamber, the dispute concerns the period before the adoption of CMU Resolution No. 1364 and the approval of the list of territories where hostilities are taking place, and in this case – the period after these events, therefore the legal relations are not similar. The Supreme Court emphasized that the similarity of legal relations is determined primarily by the content of the disputed legal relations (circumstances related to the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute), and if necessary – also by their subjects and objects. The court also referred to its own previous decisions, in which it had already made similar conclusions regarding the application of norms of procedural law in similar situations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate instance.
Case No. 925/605/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Joint-Stock Company “Gas Distribution System Operator “Cherkasygaz” in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Ukraine” of the amount of UAH 270,656,882.96.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court, having satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC “GDS “Cherkasygaz”, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that guided the Supreme Court in making such a decision from the provided text, as the reasoning part of the ruling is missing. Usually, the cassation court overturns the decisions of previous instances if it detects violations of substantive or procedural law that led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute. To clarify the specific grounds for the overturning, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling, which sets out the reasons of the court of cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Cherkasy Region.
Case No. 991/1453/25 dated 08/20/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the prosecutor’s claim for recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue, namely the car “LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER VOQUE”.
The court, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the prosecutorthere are grounds for recognizing the car as an unjustified asset, as the value of the property clearly exceeds the defendant’s legal income. The court found that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the legality of the sources of funds used to purchase the car. Also, the court took into account that the defendant did not refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the discrepancy between his lifestyle and his available income. The court took into account all the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, assessed them in their entirety, and concluded that the claims were justified. The decision is based on an analysis of the defendant’s financial condition and a comparison of his income with the value of the acquired property.
The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s claim and recover from the defendant to the state revenue the value of the car in the amount of UAH 3,290,400.
Case No. 916/2660/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a ruling on the completion of the debt repayment procedure of an individual and the closure of proceedings in the insolvency case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which completed the debt repayment procedure of an individual and closed the proceedings in the insolvency case, since the administrator took all necessary measures to identify the debtor’s assets, but they were not enough to satisfy the creditors’ claims. The court took into account that the debtor was mobilized to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, was wounded, lost his source of income, and also that he had no property at the expense of which debts could be repaid. The court also noted that the creditor did not provide evidence of improper performance of duties by the liquidator. The court emphasized that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures provides for the possibility of releasing an individual from debts after the completion of the debt repayment procedure if the creditors’ claims were not satisfied due to the insufficiency of the debtor’s property. The court stated that the commercial court closes the bankruptcy (insolvency) case if the liquidator’s report is approved in the manner prescribed by this Code.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 917/1814/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the renewal of the land lease agreement requires the consent of the parties on all essential terms, including the amount of rent and the term of the agreement. The court noted that since the Lanna Village Council proposed to increase
if TOV “Batkivshchyna” did not clearly agree to these changes, the parties did not reach an agreement regarding the essential terms of the contract. The court also took into account that TOV “Batkivshchyna” indicated in the draft additional agreement that other terms of the contract remain unchanged, which contradicts the change in the amount of rent. The court emphasized that it cannot substitute the will of the parties and independently determine the essential terms of the contract, as this violates the principle of freedom of contract. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which emphasized the need for an agreement between the parties on all essential terms for the renewal of the lease agreement.
3. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim of TOV “Batkivshchyna”.
**Case No. 910/10616/24 dated 08/20/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a state-owned enterprise in favor of a private joint-stock company of 3% annual interest and inflationary losses accrued in connection with the delay in the execution of court decisions in a previous case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the existence of a court decision on debt collection does not terminate the debtor’s obligations and does not release him from liability for delay. The court also emphasized that the moment of commencement of the delay is the day after the court decision enters into legal force. The defendant’s arguments regarding the need to apply the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Execution of Court Decisions” were rejected, since in this case the enterprise voluntarily executed the court decision, and not through the mechanism of the state treasury. The court also noted that inflationary losses can be accrued for an incomplete month of delay if it exceeds 15 days. The accrual of 3% annual interest is the minimum amount that is not subject to reduction. The court also rejected the arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, taking into account the extension of the terms due to quarantine and martial law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
**Case No. 906/1145/23 dated 08/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a donation agreement for an apartment as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of rights to it, concluded between the district party organization of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Zhytomyr Regional Charitable Foundation “Danko”.
2. The court of cassation, taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in a similar case, came to the conclusion that the donation agreement is void, since it violates public order, as it was concluded after the opening of proceedings in the case of
the ban of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the head of the charitable foundation was a member of the governing bodies of the party. The court noted that the appropriate way to protect the violated right of the state is to apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the plaintiff did not miss the deadline, as it learned about the existence of the agreement after the decision banning the party’s activities came into force. Cancellation of the state registration of the rights of the charitable foundation will lead to the return of the property to the previous owner, which is necessary for the subsequent transfer of the property to the state. The court also emphasized that state interference with property rights is legitimate, as it is related to the illegal activities of the Communist Party of Ukraine.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of recognizing the donation agreement as invalid and refused to satisfy this claim, but changed the decision in the part of canceling the state registration of rights, leaving it in force, but with a different motivation.
**Case No. 909/692/24 dated 08/21/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the electronic auction and the act of sale of the mortgage item, as well as the recognition of certificates of acquisition of real estate from public auctions as invalid.
Unfortunately, the provided excerpt of the court decision does not contain the arguments that the court used when making the decision. Only the introductory and operative parts are provided. Therefore, I cannot provide information about the court’s arguments.
The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of “KGD-BUD” LLC without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Commercial Court of Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast and the resolution of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal to leave unchanged.
**Case No. 910/15229/24 dated 08/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” in favor of VOREX LLC of debt, penalty, and 3% per annum, accrued in connection with the groundless application of an operational-economic sanction for late delivery of goods, caused, as the plaintiff claims, by force majeure circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, as the courts did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify whether the force majeure circumstances made it impossible for the plaintiff to fulfill the obligations in principle, considering that the delivery of goods was partially carried out during the period of these circumstances. The courts did not investigate whether the circumstances were extraordinary and unavoidable, and whether there was a causal relationship between the force majeure and the impossibility of fulfilling the obligations. In addition, the courts did not take into account the defendant’s arguments regarding the non-compliance of the certificates provided by the plaintiff with the terms of the agreement and did not assess the evidence in their entirety.
