**Case No. 914/466/23 of 08/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of additional monetary claims of the creditor against the debtor in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the creditor’s additional monetary claims arising from the loan agreement, considering that the debtor acceded to this agreement. The court noted that the appellants’ arguments about partial repayment of the debt by foreclosing on funds in accounts and shares of another company were not supported by proper evidence. Also, the court emphasized that the creditor correctly determined the amount of secured claims, based on the value of the collateral items established in the mortgage and pledge agreements. The court of cassation rejected the arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases differed. The court of cassation emphasized that re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 904/3786/24 of 08/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the closure of appellate proceedings on the defendant’s complaint against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to return the statement of claim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that the list of rulings of the court of first instance that can be appealed separately from the court’s decision is exhaustive and does not include a ruling refusing to return the statement of claim; the restriction of the right to appeal some rulings is established for the purpose of effective administration of justice; the right to appeal can be exercised in the manner determined by the procedural law, without abuse of procedural rights; the appellant’s references to the ECHR practice are not taken into account, since the right to access to court is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, and also because the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine referred to by the appellant relate to the versions of procedural codes in force until 2017. The court also noted that although the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine does not directly provide for the closure of appellate proceedings on the grounds of discovering that the ruling is not subject to appeal, the appellate court will not act as a “court established by law” if it carries out an appellate review of such a ruling.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 461/2241/23 of 08/20/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the investigating judge on obliging the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to…
to conduct an on-site documentary audit of the state registrar’s actions.
The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, citing that the current Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for the possibility of appealing the investigating judge’s ruling on ordering an on-site documentary audit. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, one of the fundamental principles of legal proceedings is ensuring the right to an appellate review of the case. The court also noted that in the event that the investigating judge issues a ruling not provided for by criminal procedural rules, the court of appeal is not entitled to refuse to verify its legality. The right to appeal such a judicial decision must be ensured on the basis of the general principles of criminal proceedings, which guarantee the right to appeal procedural decisions.
The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 922/4464/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of “Alpha-Capital-Invest” LLC at the initiative of creditor PERSON_1.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances to open bankruptcy proceedings, as it found the existence of a monetary obligation of the debtor to the initiating creditor, which was not fulfilled on time, and the absence of a dispute over the right to the claimed demands. The arguments of the appellant, JSC CB “PrivatBank”, regarding the creditor’s interest and the lack of evidence of accounting for the debt in the debtor’s financial statements were rejected, as they did not refute the existence of the debt. The court also noted that the absence of pre-trial claim settlement work on compulsory debt collection is not an obstacle to opening bankruptcy proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the initiating creditor has the obligation to prove the existence of a monetary obligation, and the debtor has the right to refute these circumstances, which was not done in this case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC CB “PrivatBank” and left the appellate court’s decision and the first instance court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 357/2707/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for inflicting grievous bodily harm, where the defense counsel requests to mitigate the punishment and release from serving it on probation.
2. The court of cassation, leaving the verdict unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the imposed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime (a serious crime), the person of the convicted (previously served sentences for violent crimes), mitigating circumstances were taken into account (sincere remorse, sfacilitating the disclosure of the crime, marital status), as well as the position of the victim, who had no complaints. The court also took into account the probation authority’s conclusion about the high risk of recidivism and the impossibility of correction without round-the-clock supervision. The appellate court reasonably excluded the aggravating circumstance (commission of the crime under martial law), but found no grounds for mitigating the punishment. The Cassation Court agreed that the imposed punishment is fair, necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convict and the prevention of new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 2609/23854/12 of 08/26/2025
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_2 against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of October 8, 2024 in criminal case No. 2609/23854/12.
The judge of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court ruled to request the criminal case for review in cassation proceedings. Having established that there were no obstacles to setting the case for hearing, the judge, guided by Part 4 of Article 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, scheduled the cassation hearing for October 22, 2025. The court ruled to notify the prosecutor and other participants in the trial of the place and time of the hearing, in accordance with Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960. The judge noted that the ruling is not subject to appeal.
The court decided to schedule a cassation hearing in the criminal case.
Case No. 636/204/24 of 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s decision to revoke the release from serving the sentence on probation of a person convicted of illegal acquisition, manufacture and storage of narcotic drugs in especially large quantities without the purpose of distribution.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that the appellate court reasonably took into account the severity of the crime (a grave crime, especially large quantities of narcotic drugs), the specific circumstances of the case, information about the identity of the perpetrator (previously not convicted, pleaded guilty), and came to the conclusion that it was impossible to achieve the purpose of punishment without isolating the convict from society. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court reasonably applied the punishment in the form of actual imprisonment, since the circumstances of the case indicate an increased public danger of the committed act, and the convict’s arguments about the presence of sick dependents are not an unconditional ground for release from serving the sentence on probation. At the same time, the appellate court imposed the punishment within the minimum limits of the sanction of the article, taking into account mitigating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
the convict’s argument – without satisfaction.
**Case №296/723/23 dated 21/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for treason and desertion.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, since the person’s guilt in treason and desertion was proven by a set of investigated evidence, including witness testimony, video recordings, and expert opinions, which confirmed the person’s voluntary defection to the enemy and evasion of military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court noted that the implementation of a special judicial proceeding (in absentia) did not violate the right to defense, since all possible measures were taken to inform the accused about the criminal proceedings, and the defense counsel participated in the process. The court also took into account the ECHR’s practice regarding in absentia proceedings, which allows such a procedure, provided that the right to review the case is ensured after the person’s ability to participate in the trial is restored.
3. The Supreme Court amended the court decisions by excluding confiscation of property as an additional punishment, since at the time of the commission of the crime, such a sanction was not provided for by the relevant version of the article of the Criminal Code, and the rest of the verdict remained unchanged.
**Case №711/166/24 dated 21/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment imposed on the convicted person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance in the part regarding the imposition of punishment, since it considered that the local court did not fully take into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the severity of the consequences and the position of the victim, who insisted on a severe punishment. The court of appeal emphasized that when imposing punishment, it is necessary to take into account the nature and degree of public danger of the committed offense. The court noted that the punishment must be necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes, as well as comply with the principles of proportionality and individualization. The appellate court decided that the correction of the convicted person is possible only in conditions of isolation from society, taking into account the severity of the consequences and the position of the victim. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, finding no grounds for mitigating the punishment.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
**Case №752/14877/22 dated 21/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the release of a person from serving a sentence with probation for crimes related to the illegal seizure of narcotic drugs.
by fraud.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance on the release of a person from serving a sentence with probation. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering the person’s previous convictions and numerous episodes of crimes in the field of illegal drug trafficking. The Supreme Court noted that the mitigating circumstances were taken into account when imposing the sentence, and they are not sufficient to conclude that the person can be corrected without actual imprisonment. The court also pointed to the formal approach of the appellate court to assessing the sincerity of the person’s repentance, considering the repeated commission of crimes. As a result, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a more thorough assessment of information about the identity of the perpetrator and the circumstances that affect the imposition of the sentence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 501/3344/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, namely, it conducted the trial in the absence of the accused, who was not properly notified of the date, time, and place of the appellate hearing. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not verify whether the defense was notified at all about the appellate hearing, which took place on March 4, 2025, instead of the scheduled date of March 14, 2025. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not take appropriate measures to ensure the possibility for the defense to participate personally and defend its position in court, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and justified court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that everyone has the right to participate in the consideration in court of any instance of a case that concerns their rights and obligations.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 636/204/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale, committed in large quantities).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain the arguments of the court that it relied on.
in making the decision, as only the operative part has been announced, and the full text of the ruling will be announced later. Accordingly, it is impossible to establish the motives for which the court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s judgment. Analysis will be possible after the full text of the decision is announced.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the judgment of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of November 20, 2024, regarding PERSON_7 without changes, and to dismiss the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 466/2601/22 dated July 30, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of the invalidity of the marriage concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in the Republic of Poland.
The court of cassation established that the case has a foreign element, since the marriage was concluded between a citizen of Poland and a citizen of Ukraine on the territory of Poland, however, taking into account the defendant’s place of residence in Ukraine and the parties’ consent to the consideration of the case by the Ukrainian court, the case is subject to the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts. The court also noted that since the parties did not have a common personal law, and the marital relations between them were terminated, the legislation of Ukraine is subject to application, which corresponds to the conflict-of-laws connection to the law of the court that is considering the dispute. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the decision of the court of first instance directly affects the rights and obligations of a third party who was not involved in the case, since such a person must prove the existence of a legal connection with the parties to the dispute or directly with the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have verified the circumstances indicated by the third party in the appeal, in particular, whether the decision of the court of first instance actually affects the resolution of another case and whether negative consequences will occur for it.
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/18499/20 dated August 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the courts of previous instances to declare Khimreaktyv LLC bankrupt, to initiate liquidation proceedings, and to approve the reports of the insolvency receiver.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts did not establish the debtor’s insolvency by properly analyzing its assets and liabilities, and also did not check the completeness of the measures taken by the property manager. The court noted that the existence of a decision by the creditors’ meeting on liquidation is not an unconditional basis for such a decision, and the courts should have investigated the debtor’s financial condition and the possibility of applying other procedures. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed to the formal approach of the courts to the approval of the insolvency receiver’s reports, without a proper assessment of their validity. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper notice.
Notification of the members of the creditors’ committee regarding the meeting where decisions are made concerning the further progress of the bankruptcy case, emphasizing the principle of audiatur et altera pars.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 1/3381/12 dated 08/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a motion by the defense counsel to transfer the case file from one court to another.
2. The Supreme Court denied the defense counsel’s motion to transfer the case file from the Chechelnitsky District Court of Vinnytsia Oblast to another court. The court was guided by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the specific reasons for the denial were not stated in the operative part of the ruling. The ruling stated that the full text would be announced later, which makes it impossible to establish the court’s full reasoning at this time. The absence of justification in the operative part makes it difficult to understand the reasons why the court did not grant the defense counsel’s motion.
3. The court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion.
Case No. 991/1453/25 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a car as an unjustified asset and the recovery of its value to the state revenue from an official who, according to the prosecutor, actually used it.
2. The court found that the official acquired the car through his daughter, who did not have sufficient legal income for such a purchase. The court took into account the witness’s testimony about the real value of the car, which significantly exceeded the value stated in the purchase and sale agreement, as well as the actual use of the car by the official, which is confirmed by video surveillance data, insurance contracts, and car maintenance. The court also took into account that the daughter did not provide convincing evidence of having sufficient funds to purchase the car, and that the car was sold after the start of the investigation into the official’s possible acquisition of unjustified assets. The court concluded that the difference between the value of the car and the official’s legal income exceeds the statutory minimum threshold, which gives grounds for recognizing the asset as unjustified.
3. The court decided to grant the claim and recover the value of the car in the amount of UAH 3,290,400 from the official to the state revenue.
Case No. 910/24368/14 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the results of the auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property and the purchase and sale agreements concluded as a result of the auction.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances because the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the preparation and conduct of the auction, in particular, did not properly verify the valuation of the bankrupt’s property for compliance with the law.
did not clarify the issue of possible interest of auction participants in relation to the debtor’s creditors, and also did not assess the effectiveness of the method of protection of the violated right chosen by the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of taking into account the nature of the legal relationship between the parties and the need to establish whether the satisfaction of the claim will lead to the restoration of violated rights. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the instructions set out in the previous resolution of the Supreme Court in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/7699/23 dated 06/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance and the постановa of the court of appeal in the part of recognizing the monetary claims of Khmelnytske Upravlinnya No. 13 “Elektro” LLC against Ltava Grad LLC in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the arguments of the initiating creditor about the absence of a violated right of Khmelnytske Upravlinnya No. 13 “Elektro” LLC, since the legal consequences under the contract of sale of a share in the authorized capital for the creditor did not occur due to non-payment of funds by the debtor. The court also noted that the recognition of creditor claims of Khmelnytske Upravlinnya No. 13 “Elektro” LLC may lead to a double violation of the debtor’s right, since the creditor will receive funds and remain the owner of a share in the authorized capital. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a detailed verification of the grounds for the emergence of monetary claims of creditors in bankruptcy cases in order to avoid the recognition of fictitious creditor debt. The court of cassation pointed to the violation by the court of appeal of the norms of procedural law, in particular, regarding the obligation to assess all arguments of the participants in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the постановa of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and sent the case in the overturned part for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 522/17636/18 dated 13/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of a non-residential basement from someone else’s illegal possession, the removal of obstacles to use by eviction, the cancellation of the record of state registration of ownership, and the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, the application of which was filed by the defendant. The court of appeal established that the plaintiff should have known about the violation of his rights to the disputed premises back in 2008, when the sales contract was concluded, or in 2011, when the previous claim was filed, but applied to the court
only in 2018. The court took into account that the violation of a right and the confirmation of such violation by a court decision are not identical concepts, and the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment when a person knew or could have known about the violation of their right. The court also noted that the statute of limitations applies only if there is a violation of a person’s right, and if such right is violated, but the statute of limitations has expired, the court dismisses the claim in the absence of valid reasons for its omission.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 188/2319/24 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a sentence and a ruling regarding the conviction of a serviceman for inflicting grievous bodily harm.
2. The court of cassation upheld the sentence, as the punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including mitigating and aggravating factors. The court noted that it does not see grounds for exemption from serving the sentence on probation, since the crime was committed under the influence of alcohol and poses a threat to society. The appellate court also noted that it took into account all the circumstances stated in the appeal, and the imposed punishment is legal, fair and will contribute to the correction of the convicted person. The court of cassation emphasized that the defender’s statements about the convicted person’s desire to perform military service instead of serving the sentence do not affect the objectivity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but do not deprive the convicted person of the right to apply to the court with a petition for parole to perform military service.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 728/704/24 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription for military service during mobilization.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, supporting the conclusion that the person’s guilt in evading mobilization was proven, since the person was liable for military service, was found fit for military service, received summonses, but did not appear at the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support without valid reasons. The appellate court reasonably referred to the testimony of witnesses, copies of the military ID, medical documents and receipts for receiving summonses, which confirm the person’s guilt. The court also took into account that the certificate of unfitness for military service provided to the appellate court was not confirmed in accordance with the procedure established by law. The arguments of the defense about the unsatisfactory health of the convicted person’s mother were not supported by documents on the need for constant care.
