**Case No. 910/22855/17 dated 08/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Joint Stock Company “K.Energo” of damages in the amount of UAH 54,179,613.40, caused to the State Budget of Ukraine in connection with the payment of compensation to LLC “Zolotoy Mandarin Oil” in execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the claim of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, since the presence of all elements of a civil offense necessary for the recovery of damages was not proven. The court noted that the payment of funds to LLC “Zolotoy Mandarin Oil” was the result of a friendly settlement between the Government of Ukraine and LLC “Zolotoy Mandarin Oil” in the ECHR, and not directly the result of the inaction of JSC “K.Energo” in failing to comply with the court decision. The court also emphasized that for the regress recovery of damages, a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the damage caused is necessary, which is absent in this case. In addition, the court took into account that the voluntary acceptance by the Government of Ukraine of obligations to enforce the decisions of national courts in case No. 41/207 and the subsequent payment by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of funds in favor of LLC “Zolotoy Mandarin Oil” with reference to the relevant ECHR decision of 20.10.2015 is a direct consequence of the actions of the Government of Ukraine in the ECHR regarding a friendly settlement on the application of LLC “Zolotoy Mandarin Oil” No. 63403/13, but is not a consequence of the inaction of AEC “Kyivenergo” (legal successor of JSC “K.Energo”), namely: its failure to comply with the court decision in case No. 41/407. The court of cassation instance also emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the inadmissibility of re-examining already resolved disputes.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 924/1334/23 dated 08/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Dorbud Service Group” in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the application of LLC “Dorbud Service Group”, considering that the activity of a lawyer is paid work on the basis of a contract, and the costs of legal assistance are subject to distribution based on the results of the case. The court took into account the criteria of proportionality of expenses to the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and their significance for the party. However, the court noted that at the sta
during the cassation review, the defendant’s legal position had already been formed, and there was no evidence of additional comprehensive study of the disputed legal relations. Also, the analysis of case law is covered by the service of preparing a response to the cassation appeal and is not subject to separation. Considering these factors, the court reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered.
3. The court decided to recover from the Khmelnytskyi Regional Prosecutor’s Office in favor of “Dorbud Service Group” LLC UAH 20,000 for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 918/905/23 dated August 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling refusing to exclude property from the bankruptcy liquidation estate and the closure of the insolvency proceedings of an individual.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the debtor, when initiating insolvency proceedings, must act in good faith, providing complete and reliable information about their property status. In this case, the debtor concealed information about the alienation of the car, which was her only property, and provided conflicting information about its ownership, which was regarded as bad faith conduct. The court emphasized that the debt restructuring procedure requires honesty and integrity of the debtor, and concealment of information about the property makes it impossible to reach a compromise with creditors. Also, the court indicated that the commercial court is obliged to check the circumstances that indicate the grounds for closing the proceedings in the case and provide them with a legal assessment. Considering the established facts, the court agreed with the conclusion about the debtor’s bad faith, which became the basis for closing the insolvency proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/9266/21 dated August 21, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the imposition of joint liability on the head of “YUMIN” LLC in the bankruptcy case of this company.
The decision does not provide any arguments of the court, but only indicates that the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged. The absence of a reasoning part does not allow to understand why the court came to such a conclusion. Usually, the court of cassation instance checks the correctness of the application of substantive law andthe procedural law by the courts of previous instances, but in this case, it is impossible to establish which aspects were the subject of review and which arguments were considered by the court. Considering that the case concerns bankruptcy and joint liability, it can be assumed that the court investigated the existence of grounds for holding the manager liable for the obligations of the company, in particular, whether his actions were aimed at bringing the company to bankruptcy.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/5056/22 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Credit Institution “Investment” to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against LLC “Montale” due to existing debt.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, as it established the existence of a dispute over law between the creditor and the debtor, which excludes the possibility of initiating bankruptcy proceedings. The appellate court found that the debtor denies the fact of the debt, challenges the assignment agreement on which the creditor’s claims are based, and that cases are pending in the courts regarding the appeal of the agreements on the basis of which the creditor acquired the right to claim against the debtor. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the absence of a dispute over law is a mandatory condition for initiating bankruptcy proceedings. The court also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Credit Institution “Investment” and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 911/2498/18 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling on the closure of bankruptcy proceedings of PJSC “Rosava” regarding the review of creditor claims of JV LLC “Finance and Credit Leasing” in the amount of UAH 357,840.46 under the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which closed the bankruptcy proceedings regarding the creditor’s claims, as the debt was repaid by the debtor during the new consideration of the case. The court noted that in accordance with the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the proceedingsthe case is closed due to the absence of the subject matter of the dispute. The cassation court also agreed that there are no grounds for the return of the court fee, as the creditor did not file a corresponding claim and confirmed the fact of receiving funds from the debtor. The cassation court emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of procedural law and the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”.
3. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 870/16/24 dated August 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “PolehTekhnika” LLC for the issuance of an order for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the recovery of a sum of money from “Uspikh Slobozhanshchyny” LLC.
2. The court of appeal reviews the case within the limits of the arguments of the appeal, checking the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance, while the court does not assess the legality and validity of the decision of the arbitral tribunal as a whole, but only establishes the presence or absence of grounds for refusing to issue an order for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision. The court found that a contract was concluded between the parties, which contained an arbitration agreement, and this agreement is valid and effective. It was also established that the dispute between the parties arose from economic legal relations that can be considered by an arbitral tribunal, and the defendant has already exercised its right to appeal the decision of the arbitral tribunal, but the decision remained unchanged. Considering the absence of grounds for refusing to issue an order for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, provided for by law, and the fact that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not executed voluntarily, the court concluded that the application for the issuance of an enforcement document should be granted.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of “Uspikh Slobozhanshchyny” LLC and upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the issuance of an order for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision.
Case No. 870/17/25 dated August 20, 2025
1. The dispute concerns the issuance of an order for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the recovery of funds from the farm enterprise and an individual in favor of the limited liability company.
2. The court of appeal overturned the ruling of the court of first instance, as it found violations of procedural law, namely, improper
Notification of the defendant regarding the date, time, and place of the court hearing, which deprived him of the opportunity to exercise his rights in the case. The court noted that sending a court decision is a procedural obligation of the court, and information about the delivery must be contained in the relevant documents. Considering the case on its merits, the Supreme Court found that the dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court, an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the composition of the arbitration court met the requirements of the law, and there were no grounds for refusing to issue an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision, as provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Arbitration Courts”. Considering that the decision of the arbitration court was not voluntarily executed, the court of appeal concluded that the application for the issuance of an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision should be granted.
3. The court partially granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate commercial court, and issued a new decision to grant the application for the issuance of an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision.
Case No. 918/2/24 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land sale agreement as invalid and its return to communal ownership due to violations of the sale procedure.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, which recognized the sale agreement as invalid because the sale of the land plot occurred without a land auction, which is a violation of the law, since there was only an unfinished construction object on the plot, and not a completed real estate object. The court noted that the state registration of an unfinished construction object does not change its status and does not give the right to acquire land without an auction. The court also took into account that the prosecutor appealed to the court within the statute of limitations, considering the extension of the terms due to quarantine restrictions and martial law. The court emphasized that in this case, there is a public interest in restoring legality in the transfer of communal land, and that the interference with the defendant’s property right is proportionate, since he is returned the funds paid for the land, and the violation of the sale procedure violates the rights of the territorial community. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about bona fide acquisition, as he should have known about the violation of the sale procedure.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
