Case №927/997/23 of 22/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the validity of the closing of appellate proceedings due to a clerical error in the name of the company in the representative’s documents.
2. The court of appeal closed the appellate proceedings, considering that the appeal was signed by a person who did not have the right to sign it, since a clerical error was made in the name of the appellant in the legal aid agreement and the warrant to provide legal assistance (instead of “Ukragro NPK”, “Ukagro NPK” was indicated). The Supreme Court did not agree with this decision, pointing out that this is a manifestation of excessive formalism, since the EDRPOU code (Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine) specified in the agreement coincides with the EDRPOU code of PrJSC “Ukragro NPK”, and the court of appeal could have verified this. In addition, the court of appeal did not assess the power of attorney in the name of the representative, attached to the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that excessive formalism does not contribute to the real resolution of the dispute and contradicts the tasks of commercial court proceedings, and also leads to a violation of the right to access justice, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case №743/1041/18 of 19/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_7 of receiving illegal benefits (bribe) while holding the position of director of SE “Ripkyraiagrolisgosp” for the sale of timber products.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The appellate court did not fully comply with the instructions of the cassation court, set out in the previous постанова (ruling/resolution), regarding the need to assess the evidence that the court of first instance признав (recognized/deemed) inadmissible. In particular, the appellate court did not analyze directly the evidence признані (recognized/deemed) inadmissible by the court of first instance, and did not give its own assessment of them, both separately and in combination with other evidence. Also, the appellate court did not provide exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, did not conduct a comprehensive and complete analysis of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, and did not properly assess the evidence according to the criteria of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This, according to the cassation court, prevented the appellate court from making a lawful and justified decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated September 16, 2024 regarding PERSON_7 and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case №904/4325/24 of 21/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of “It-Estates” LLC against the ruling of the appellate court on securing the claim by arrest
regarding monetary funds and a ruling refusing to cancel this security in a case on the recovery of a penalty for the untimely return of leased property.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that securing a claim is an important tool for guaranteeing the enforcement of a future court decision, and the appellate court reasonably took security measures, considering the risk of complicating the enforcement of the decision in the absence of an arrest of funds. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the existence of reasonable risks, and the defendant did not refute these risks and did not prove that the arrest of funds would significantly violate its rights. Also, the Supreme Court noted that when considering an application for the cancellation of security measures, the court does not assess the legality of the measures themselves, but only checks whether the need for security has disappeared, which the defendant did not prove. Although the appellate court violated the terms for considering the application for cancellation of security, this did not lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. The court of cassation emphasized that there is no absolute algorithm for applying measures to secure a claim, since their application (or refusal thereof) is directly dependent on the actual circumstances of each specific commercial dispute.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “IT-Estates” LLC, and the rulings of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/15480/24 dated 08/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties from the contractor for alleged violation of the terms of performance of work under the contract.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering a penalty and fine from the defendant, but in a smaller amount than the plaintiff requested, since the courts proceeded from the fact that penalties are accrued for violation of the final term of performance of work under the contract as a whole, and not for delay in individual stages of work, unless otherwise expressly provided by the contract. The court of cassation emphasized that the terms of the contract do not contain a reference to the contractor’s violation of individual stages of work, and therefore, there are no grounds for recovering a penalty for violation of the terms of performance of individual stages of work. The court also noted that cassation proceedings depend on the arguments and claims of the cassation appeal, and the appellant did not substantiate the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations. The court of cassation rejected the plaintiff’s request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as it does not see an exceptional legal problem in the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, because the defendant missed the deadline for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance on the appointment of an expert examination. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the reasons for missing the deadline are not valid, since the defendant, being a party to the case, should have been interested in its progress, and was also aware of the existence of the appealed ruling, as evidenced by the sending to him of the appellate court’s ruling on the opening of appellate proceedings based on the complaint of another defendant. The Supreme Court noted that although the court of first instance did not notify the defendant about the court hearing, this is not an absolute ground for renewing the term, since the defendant did not provide convincing evidence that he could not find out about the status of the case. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and established procedural deadlines.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 906/453/19 dated 22/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the possibility of appealing in appellate procedure the ruling of the commercial court of first instance on leaving the plaintiff’s application to leave the statement of claim without consideration.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, stating that the appellate court unreasonably returned the appeal, as it did not take into account the constitutional right to judicial protection and ensuring the right to appellate review of the case. The court of cassation emphasized that restrictions on appealing rulings are not absolute, and a ruling can be appealed separately if it is necessary to protect a person’s procedural rights. The Supreme Court stressed that in this case, leaving the plaintiff’s application to withdraw the claim without consideration actually deprives the defendant of the opportunity to protect his rights, since the court’s decision will be made in the absence of claims. The court also noted that the assessment of the correctness of the plaintiff’s exercise of the right to withdraw the claim should be carried out by the appellate court when considering the complaint against the ruling of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 272/770/24 dated 19/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the leniency of the sentence imposed on PERSON_7 for
intentional aggravated murder of one’s own mother.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the imposed sentence of 15 years of imprisonment is too lenient, considering the exceptional cruelty of the murder. The court emphasized the particular physical and mental suffering inflicted on the victim, the duration of the crime, the use of various instruments, the forcing of alcohol consumption, and the perpetrator’s awareness of the victim’s condition. The court also took into account the expert opinion that the victim experienced severe physical pain and particular suffering, as well as the presence of three aggravating circumstances: committing a crime against an elderly person, a person with whom the perpetrator is in a family relationship, and committing a crime by a person who was in a state of alcohol intoxication. The court emphasized that the punishment must be necessary and sufficient for the correction of the person and the prevention of new crimes, as well as proportional to the nature of the committed acts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 909/692/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the electronic auction and the act of realization of the subject of the mortgage, the recognition of certificates of acquisition of real estate from public auctions as invalid.
2. The court of cassation left the claim without consideration, as the plaintiff’s representative did not appear at the court hearing, although he was duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing, and the court did not recognize the reasons for non-appearance as valid. The court noted that the plaintiff is not limited in the choice of representatives and has repeatedly requested to postpone the consideration of the case due to the representative’s involvement in other proceedings. The court took into account that the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine allow leaving the claim without consideration if the plaintiff did not appear at the hearing and did not report valid reasons for non-appearance, and also that the imperative provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine clearly indicate the prohibition of continuing the consideration of the case under such circumstances. The court also noted that the assessment of the possibility of resolving the dispute in the absence of the plaintiff’s representative should be provided by the courts in the event that the plaintiff did not appear in response to a court summons, but applied for the case to be considered in his absence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 461/2241/23 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the applicant’s representative.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the appellate court, in refusing to open the proceedings, did not take into account all the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the complaint. The court of cassation pointed out the need for a thorough verification of the mate
of proceedings and proper assessment of the applicant’s arguments regarding the existence of grounds for appellate review. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to appeal court decisions, which is one of the guarantees of a fair trial. It should be noted that the appellate court must examine all the arguments of the appeal and make a reasoned decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 914/1875/16(914/348/24) dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of real estate from a bona fide purchaser, which was alienated at auction in bankruptcy proceedings, the results of which were subsequently declared invalid.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, motivating this by the fact that, although the interference with the property rights of a bona fide purchaser (PERSON_1) is prescribed by law and has a legitimate aim, it does not meet the proportionality criterion established by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court noted that depriving PERSON_1 of ownership based on violations committed by third parties during the sale of property at auction would place an individual and excessive burden on her, since she is a bona fide purchaser who acquired the property under a contract for consideration and has owned it for a long time. The court also took into account that the will of the property owner (bankrupt) is already limited when bankruptcy proceedings are opened, and the insolvency receiver is a special entity responsible for the disposal of property. Taking these circumstances into account, the court concluded that the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser in this case is not fair and proportionate.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and issued a new decision refusing to satisfy the claims for the recovery of property.
Case No. 354/621/15-ц dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a state act of ownership of a land plot as invalid and the recovery of this plot from someone else’s illegal possession to the ownership of the state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for recognition of the state act as invalid, since at the time of the consideration of the case the plot was already owned by LLC “Bukovel”, and the cancellation of the act of the primary acquirer will not restore the right of the state. The court noted that the proper way to protect in this case is a vindication claim, that is, the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. Also, the court agreed with the closure of proceedings in the part of the claims for the recovery of the land plot, since the dispute between the state and LLC
“Bukovel” is commercial, and therefore, subject to consideration in the commercial court. The court took into account that LLC “Bukovel” uses the disputed land in its economic activity, which confirms the commercial nature of the dispute. The court emphasized that the claim for cancellation of the state act is not inextricably linked to the claim for recovery of the land plot, therefore, they can be considered in different types of legal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 757/15432/24-ц dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the mortgage and encumbrance.
2. The court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the apartment, which is the subject of the mortgage, and prohibiting any registration actions regarding it. The courts proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff considers the mortgage terminated due to the death of the main debtor, but the defendant intends to foreclose on the subject of the mortgage in an extrajudicial procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that securing a claim is temporary in nature and is aimed at protecting the interests of the plaintiff from possible bad faith actions of the defendant, as well as ensuring the real enforcement of the court decision if the claim is satisfied. The court noted that the type of securing the claim chosen by the plaintiff is proportionate to the stated requirements, since the decision to recognize the mortgage as terminated will affect the further legal regime of the immovable property. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which allows securing a claim even in cases where the decision is not subject to compulsory execution, if this will contribute to the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 902/16/24 dated 08/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Double V” in favor of the state represented by Liubar Professional Lyceum of UAH 2,886,811.56 of funds saved without sufficient legal basis, which the defendant received as a result of using land plots granted to the lyceum, on the basis of an agreement recognized by the court as invalid.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court prematurely agreed that the prosecutor had the right to appeal to the court in the interests of the Liubar Professional Lyceum, since the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the lyceum’s own administrative powers were not taken into account. Also, the appellate court did not establish important circumstances necessary for the correct application of Article 1214 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in particular, when exactly the defendant learned or could have learned about the illegality of possessing the property. The court of cassation
of Appeal did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the costs incurred for land cultivation and crop growing, which is important for determining the amount of income to be recovered. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal must fully and comprehensively examine all the circumstances of the case, assess all arguments of the parties, and take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 504/1357/21 dated 08/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of two persons under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in moderate bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, indicating that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. In particular, at the time of the appeal hearing, the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal responsibility for the crime under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is a minor crime, had expired. The court took into account that one of the convicts, PERSON_7, admitted his guilt and agreed to be released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. With respect to the other convict, PERSON_6, who denied his guilt, the court applied Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and released him from the imposed punishment, taking into account his position. Also, the court of cassation indicated that procedural costs for conducting examinations are not subject to recovery from a person released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and should be charged to the state.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the ruling of the court of appeal in the part concerning the conviction of PERSON_7, released him from criminal liability on the basis of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and closed the criminal proceedings against him, and also released PERSON_6 from the imposed punishment on the basis of Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 914/1875/16(914/347/24) dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of immovable property from a bona fide acquirer, since the results of the auction on the basis of which the property was sold were declared invalid.
2. The Supreme Court, reversing the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the defendant is a bona fide acquirer who acquired the property under a compensated contract and owned it for a long time. The court emphasized that depriving a bona fide acquirer of ownership due to violations committed by third parties
during the sale of property at auction, contradicts Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it imposes an individual and excessive burden on him. The court took into account that interference with the right to property must be proportionate, and in this case, a fair balance between the interests of society and the interests of the acquirer was not maintained. The court also took into account that the property was acquired at an auction, which is designed to prevent fraud, and the defendant should not be held responsible for violations committed by other persons within this procedure. The Court departed from its previous position, according to which the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer was possible if the property had left the possession of the owner against his will.
3. The Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the claim for recovery of property.
Case No. 925/605/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the gas distribution system operator of debt for natural gas supplied by the “supplier of last resort”, as well as 3% per annum, inflation losses, and penalties for late payment accrued on the amount of the debt.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as the courts did not investigate the validity of including the cost of the natural gas transportation (capacity distribution) service for the internal exit point from the gas transmission system in the gas price, which is a key issue in the case, considering the defendant’s objections and the different versions of regulatory acts governing the formation of the gas price by the “supplier of last resort”. The Court noted that ignoring the relevant arguments of the party is a violation of the right to a fair trial, and the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the evidence and did not check the plaintiff’s calculations for compliance with the established pricing formula. Also, the courts did not establish whether the Standard Agreement provides for the consumer’s obligation to pay the cost of gas transportation as a component of the price, and did not provide regulatory justification for the recovery of this amount.
3. The Court decided to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 947/21184/23 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the apartment donation agreement concluded between the defendant and her father, since the plaintiff believes that this agreement was concluded in order to avoid foreclosure on the defendant’s property in the case of recovery of funds.
2. The Court of Appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the defendant knew about the consideration of the case on the recovery of funds from her, and concluded an apartment donation agreement to her father immediately after a motion was filed to
the arrest of this apartment. The court took into account that the apartment was the respondent’s only property that could be subject to recovery, and that the gift agreement was gratuitous and concluded with a close relative. Considering these circumstances in aggregate, the appellate court concluded that the gift agreement was concluded in bad faith, with the aim of avoiding the execution of a future court decision on the recovery of funds, which constitutes an abuse of right. The court referred to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court that a transaction aimed at avoiding recovery of the debtor’s property may be declared invalid on the basis of the general principles of civil law and the inadmissibility of abuse of right.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, agreeing with the conclusion on the invalidity of the gift agreement.
Case No. 991/8039/25 dated 08/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the approval of a plea agreement in criminal proceedings regarding bribery of a judge.
2. The court approved the plea agreement, considering that it was concluded voluntarily at the initiative of the accused, complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the law on criminal liability, and its terms do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons. The court also took into account that the accused fully admitted their guilt, actively assisted in the disclosure of the crime, undertook to cooperate in exposing other persons involved in corrupt practices, and that the agreement contributes to the faster completion of the pre-trial investigation and the saving of state resources. The court took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, the absence of aggravating circumstances and their sincere repentance, as well as the fact that the agreed punishment is necessary and sufficient for their correction and prevention of new crimes. In addition, the court applied the provisions of the law on retroactive effect in time, which improves the situation of the accused, allowing release from serving the sentence with probation.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and issued a guilty verdict, by which PERSON_4 and PERSON_5 were found guilty of committing a corruption crime, and they were sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 4 years, from serving which they were released on probation for a certain period.
Case No. 918/289/25 dated 08/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the validity of the court’s return of a counterclaim filed after the established deadline and without payment of court fees.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the counterclaim of “Rivneteploenergo” LLC, since it was filed after the deadline set by the court for submitting a response to the claim, which is a violation of Part 1 of Article 180 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted
