Case No. 161/16296/24 of 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim, and the imposition of punishment.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel, citing that the courts of previous instances did not duly take into account a number of important circumstances. In particular, it was established that the victim also violated traffic rules, which contributed to the traffic accident, and the convicted person took measures to compensate the injured party, although after the indictment was filed. In addition, the court did not take into account the fact that the convicted person had four minor children and positive character references. Taking into account these mitigating circumstances in the aggregate, the Supreme Court concluded that the imposed punishment was excessively severe and applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, reducing the term of imprisonment. The court emphasized that the position of the victim is important, but not decisive in sentencing.
3. The Supreme Court changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, mitigating the main punishment of the convicted person to 2 years of imprisonment, while maintaining the additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years.
Case No. 676/559/21 of 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court, which convicted PERSON_9 and PERSON_8 for illegal trafficking of narcotic substances.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, noting that the appellate court reasonably found the guilt of PERSON_9 and PERSON_8 in committing the incriminated crimes to be proven, relying on relevant and admissible evidence, in particular protocols of investigative actions, covert investigative actions, expert opinions and other written evidence. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defense regarding violations of the terms of pre-trial investigation, bias of the judge, inadmissibility of evidence and lack of proper control over the procurer. At the same time, the Supreme Court changed the qualification of PERSON_9’s actions, believing that his actions should be qualified only under Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since all actions were committed with a single intent, and the size of the narcotic drugs was especially large. The court of cassation noted that the mere fact of drawing up a protocol of covert investigative actions outside the term defined by the provisions of Part 3 of Article 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a basis for recognizing evidence as inadmissible.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, while changing the verdict of the appellate court in the part of qualification of PERSON_9’s actions and the punishment imposed on him.
Case No. 700/560/24 of 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional killing (Article
Art. 115 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), with cassation appeals regarding the requalification of actions as murder committed in excess of the limits of necessary defense (Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court, upholding the verdict, was guided by the following arguments:
* The court of first instance properly examined and assessed the evidence, including witness testimonies, scene examination protocols, expert opinions, and established that the convict’s actions were intentional and aimed at depriving the victim of life based on hostile relations.
* The court noted that for the actions to be qualified as necessary defense, it is necessary to establish the existence of a socially dangerous encroachment and the correspondence of the defense to the danger of the encroachment, which was not established in this case.
* The court took into account the number and nature of the inflicted bodily injuries (six stab wounds, one of which was in the back), which indicates the convict’s intent to kill.
* The court of appeal reviewed the arguments of the appeal and found them unfounded, agreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
* The court of cassation did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would call into question the validity of the conclusions of the previous courts.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the victim and the defender.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129801762](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129801762)
**Case No. 503/1855/19 of 08/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Art. 115 (intentional homicide) and Part 1 of Art. 129 (threat of murder) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the resolution does not contain any arguments of the court. To analyze them, the full text of the court decision is needed.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of the convict and his defender, and to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129801691](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129801691)
**Case No. 944/648/25 of 08/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment for hooliganism (Part 1 of Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, since the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the imposition of a fine, taking into account the audacity of the crime, its commission against a serviceman, as well as PERSON_6’s previous convictions for criminal and administrative offenses. The appellate court, in imposing a sentence of restriction of liberty, adhered to the principle of proportionality and individualization, choosing the minimum term of punishment provided for by the sanction of the article. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the right to defense were also rejected, since the participation of the defender
Defense counsel was not mandatory, and the convicted person was informed of his right to defense, which he exercised in the previous stages of the proceedings. The court of cassation did not establish any significant violations of the criminal law that could be grounds for overturning or amending the appellate court’s ruling.
2. The Court decided to uphold the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal and dismiss the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 159/3139/21 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal in cassation of the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of encroaching on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance, however, the reasons for such a decision are not stated in the operative part. The full text of the decision, which will state the court’s arguments, will be announced later. It is important to note that it is currently unknown whether the court is deviating from any previous legal position, as only the operative part of the decision is available.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 130/3082/24 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of inviolability of dwelling).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s judgment, which indicates that the court of cassation agrees with the decision of the court of appeal. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments that the court relied on, however, upholding the judgment may indicate that the court agreed with the assessment of the evidence, the classification of the convicted person’s actions, and the appellate court’s compliance with the rules of procedural law. The defense counsel likely appealed the judgment, citing the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, the incorrect application of the criminal law, or significant violations of the criminal procedure law. The prosecutor, participating in the court hearing, obviously insisted on the legality and validity of the appellate court’s judgment. The lack of a detailed description of the court’s arguments in the operative part is due to the fact that the full text of the decision will be announced later.
3. The Court ruled: to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, and to uphold the judgment of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7.
**Case No. 953/16700/21 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the convicted PERSON_7 for drug-related crimes.
boats.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, as it believes that the appellate court did not fully take into account the circumstances of the case and the prosecutor’s arguments. The court took into account the severity of the crimes with which PERSON_7 is charged and the risks associated with possible evasion of justice. Given this, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to choose a preventive measure in the form of detention to ensure proper behavior of the accused during the new appeal hearing. The court emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation of all the circumstances of the case by the appellate court to ensure a fair trial.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for PERSON_7 in the form of detention.
Case No. 589/717/24 dated 08/25/2025
5. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s complaint against the first instance court’s ruling on the extension of the accused’s detention period and the determination of an alternative bail.
6. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that the appellate court misinterpreted the norms of the CPC. The court of first instance extended the detention and determined bail as an alternative preventive measure. The prosecutor appealed only part of the ruling regarding bail. The appellate court closed the proceedings, considering that appealing bail separately is not provided for by law. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the CPC, during martial law, the court has the right not to determine the amount of bail in cases of crimes against national security, and bail in such a case is part of the preventive measure, and not a separate measure. Therefore, appealing a ruling on the extension of detention, even if it concerns only the part regarding bail, is legitimate. The appellate court had to consider the prosecutor’s appeal on the merits, and not close the proceedings.
7. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 507/1765/23 dated 08/26/2025
8. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding a serviceman convicted of illegal possession of ammunition (Article 263, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
9. The court of first instance found PERSON_6 guilty on the basis of evidence, including a search protocol, an examination of ammunition, and letters from the military unit, which confirmed that the ammunition was stored illegally. The appellate court upheld the verdict, rejecting arguments about the legality of storing ammunition as a serviceman and the existence of a permit for weapons of a different caliber. The Supreme Court partiallySatisfied the cassation appeal, noting that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the positive characteristics of PERSON_6 as a serviceman, his participation in the defense of the country, and the possibility of his correction without actual imprisonment. The court took into account that the continuation of military service will allow PERSON_6 to effectively fulfill his civic duty. **** The Supreme Court decided that in this particular case there are grounds for release from serving the sentence with probation, entrusting supervision of the convicted person to the commander of the military unit.
3. The Supreme Court amended the court decisions, releasing PERSON_6 from serving the sentence with probation on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, establishing a probationary period and entrusting supervision to the commander of the military unit.
Case No. 331/5074/17 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person acquitted of charges of unlawful appropriation of authority and other crimes.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments. It is only clear from the text that the cassation court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, where the reasons for the decision will be stated. For now, it can only be assumed that the courts of previous instances did not find sufficient evidence of the person’s guilt in committing the crimes imputed to him under Articles 353, 356, 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is possible that circumstances were established that exclude criminal liability, or that significant violations of the criminal procedural law were committed during the pre-trial investigation or trial. To make a final conclusion, it is necessary to read the full text of the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 363/2937/23 dated 08/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_8 for committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 28, Part 1 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of sanitary rules and norms regarding the prevention of infectious diseases and mass poisoning).
The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances. By making such a decision, the Supreme Court apparently established certain violations of procedural law committed by the courts of first and appellate instances in considering the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of their decisions. It is possible that the courts did not fully examine the evidence provided by the parties, or incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. So
possibly, the rights of participants in the proceedings were violated, which became the basis for the cancellation of decisions. For a more accurate understanding of the motives of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the resolution, where the arguments of the court of cassation instance will be detailed.
The court decided to cancel the rulings of the Vyshhorod District Court of the Kyiv Oblast and the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_8 and to order a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 372/3005/23 dated August 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Joint Stock Company “Ukrtransnafta” in favor of the plaintiff of unpaid annual bonus and average earnings for the entire period of delay in payment of the amounts due to the dismissed employee.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the bonus is not a mandatory component of wages and is paid on the basis of an order on bonuses, taking into account the employee’s personal contribution to the overall results of work. The court found that the plaintiff was accrued and paid a bonus for 2021 in the amount determined based on the assessment of his individual goals and key results, which corresponds to the internal regulations of the company. The court also noted that at the time of the plaintiff’s dismissal, there were no documents regulating the payment of the annual bonus, and the assessment of his achievements had not yet been carried out. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff was informed of the amount of payments due to him upon dismissal and did not express any objections.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 357/5156/23 dated August 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to satisfy the defendant’s motion for the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the consideration of the case on the recognition of the will as invalid, the proceedings in which were closed at the request of the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the defendant’s motion for compensation of legal aid expenses. The court noted that, according to procedural law, the recovery of court costs from the plaintiff is possible only if the groundlessness of his actions is established. Applying to the court with a lawsuit is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and filing an application to leave the claim unconsidered is a dispositive right of the plaintiff, which does not contain restrictions in its implementation, and in itself does not indicate the groundlessness of actions. In order to recover costs, the defendant must prove what specific unreasonable actions were taken by the plaintiff during the consideration of the case, whether the plaintiff acted in bad faith, whether he systematically opposed the resolution of the dispute, whether he had an illegal purpose, and the degree of his guilt. The courts of previous instances found that the defendant did not prove the groundlessness of the plaintiff’s actions, and her connection
