Case No. 914/1555/24 of 08/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of clauses of the procurement contract as invalid and the recovery of unreasonably included VAT.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, indicating that for exemption from VAT on transactions for the supply of goods for defense, it is not enough to refer only to the mobilization preparation program or the fact of transfer of goods to a military unit. The court deviated from the previous position. It is necessary to have either a certificate of the end consumer, or to clearly define in the contract that the end recipient is a specific entity listed in the Tax Code. The absence of such documentary evidence means that the inclusion of VAT in the value of the goods is not unfounded. The court emphasized that the determining factor is the documentary confirmation of the identity of the end recipient of goods, operations for the import of which into the customs territory of Ukraine and supply in the customs territory of Ukraine are subject to exemption from VAT taxation in accordance with subparagraph 5 of paragraph 32 of subsection 2 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and cannot be a formality, because operations, in particular, regarding the supply of goods, the end recipient of which does not correspond to the defined list, excludes the possibility of exempting such operations from VAT taxation on the basis of this norm.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim for recognition of the contract clauses as invalid and recovery of VAT.
Case No. 910/1592/25 of 09/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a part of the railway rolling stock lease agreement as invalid and the obligation to recalculate the rent.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the return of the counterclaim, since the interconnection of the initial and counterclaim was not proven. The court noted that the claims under the initial and counterclaim are not mutually exclusive, they cannot be offset, and the counterclaim is not aimed at the real protection of the rights of the plaintiff under the counterclaim. The court emphasized that the interconnection of claims is a mandatory condition for joint consideration, and its absence is the basis for the return of the counterclaim. The court also took into account that the cars, regarding which claims are made in the counterclaim, are not included in the list of cars in the initial claim. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of conditions for joint consideration of the initial and counterclaim.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
and the ruling of the local commercial courts unchanged.
**Case No. 906/171/24 dated 08/28/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agency agreement, namely the principal debt, penalty, inflationary charges, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that it is not sufficient for cassation review to simply refer to the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases; the legal relations must be genuinely similar. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably considered the statement of the witness, as it was assessed in conjunction with other evidence, and the court did not find any contradictions that would raise doubts. The court of cassation also emphasized that the absence of a tax invoice for the act of completed works was correctly assessed by the appellate court as a factor that does not confirm the reality of the provision of services. Regarding the reduction of the penalty, the Supreme Court indicated that this is a discretionary right of the court, and the appellate court duly motivated its decision, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the interests of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
**Case No. 911/583/24 dated 08/28/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery from a member of a public organization of arrears in the payment of membership fees, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that a member of a public organization is obliged to pay membership fees, the amount of which is established by the general meeting, and that in the event that it is impossible to convene a general meeting, the amount of fees may be extended by a decision of the organization’s board. The court noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of challenging the decisions of the board regarding the extension of the amount of fees, and also did not prove that the courts of previous instances established the circumstances of the case based on inadmissible evidence. The court also indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. In addition, the court emphasized that the absence of a decision of the general meeting on setting the amount of fees for each year does not release a member of the organization from the obligation to pay them, and the subject matter of the dispute is precisely the recovery of debt, and not the appeal of decisions of the organization’s management bodies. The court also took into account that the defendant did not challenge the decisions of the organization’s board regarding the amount of fees in the established procedure.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case №755/2676/24 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the convict’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding his conviction for attempted murder.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the courts thoroughly examined and assessed the evidence, including the testimony of the victim, witnesses, protocols of investigative actions, and expert opinions, in their entirety. The court noted that the court of appeal reasonably agreed with the conclusion of the local court that PERSON_6’s guilt in committing the crime under Part 3 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was proven, and that there were no significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could affect the legality and validity of the court decision. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the convict’s cassation appeal, which amounted to a revaluation of the evidence and disagreement with the circumstances of the case established by the courts, as this is beyond its competence. The court also stated that the convict’s arguments regarding violations committed during the pre-trial investigation, in particular regarding the conduct of investigative actions and the obtaining of evidence, are unfounded, since no significant violations that could affect the legality of the court decisions were established.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal and dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal.
**Case №159/3139/21 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the mitigation of the sentence of the convict under Part 1 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal, in mitigating the sentence of convict PERSON_7, incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the imposition of a more lenient sentence than provided for by the sanction of the article only if there are circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of severity of the committed crime. The Supreme Court noted that the court of appeal did not substantiate how the mitigating circumstances recognized by it (sincere remorse, the presence of a minor child, participation in charitable collections in support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime against the foundations of national security. The court of cassation emphasized that participation in charitable events and the presence of a child do not relate to the circumstances of the commission of the crime and are not causally related to it, but characterize the convict only in a general social sense. In addition, the court of appeal did not substantiate why the achievement of the purpose of punishment (correction and prevention of new crimes) is possible precisely through the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
**Case №454/2459/17 dated 08/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding the improper performance by medical workers of their professional duties, which led to serious consequences for the patient, as well as the entering of false information into official documents.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of first instance violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, in particular, did not state the wording of the charge that it признал proved, but only duplicated the wording from the indictment. In addition, the court of first instance based the guilt of some defendants and the innocence of another on the same evidence, without properly analyzing it. The appellate court did not pay attention to these violations. The court of cassation emphasized that the court’s verdict must be lawful, well-founded and reasoned, which was not observed in this case. The court of cassation noted that during the new trial of the case, the court of first instance must fully and objectively investigate all the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, assess each piece of evidence from the point of view of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and their totality – from the point of view of sufficiency and interconnection, and make a lawful, well-founded and reasoned court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts regarding the conviction and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case №131/33/22 dated 08/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the amount of compensation for moral damages caused as a result of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily harm).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, reducing the amount of moral damages recovered from the accused in favor of the victim to 60,000 hryvnias. The court probably took into account the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the awarded amount with the actual circumstances of the case, the severity of the damage caused, the depth of the victim’s moral suffering, and the financial situation of the accused. Possibly, the court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding fair satisfaction. Leaving the court decisions unchanged in other parts may indicate that the previous courts correctly established the actual circumstances of the case and квалифицировали the actions of the accused.
3. The Supreme Court decided to amend the decisions of the previous courts.
and only in the part of the amount of compensation for moral damage, reducing it to 60,000 hryvnias, and left the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 617/521/21 dated August 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal of PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 249 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal engagement in fishing).
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal did not fully comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law when considering the prosecutor’s appeal. The court noted that, according to the established practice of the Supreme Court, the amount of damage caused by illegal fishing can be established on the basis of rates approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, without mandatory examination. The court also emphasized that significant damage is an evaluative concept that is determined taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, and that the courts of previous instances did not recognize the evidence on the basis of which the amount of damage was established as inadmissible. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court concluded that the court’s conclusions regarding the failure to prove the objective side of the criminal offense are premature.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 333/4539/22 dated August 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for robbery committed repeatedly, with entry into a dwelling, combined with violence dangerous to the life or health of the victim, and causing property damage in especially large amounts.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it found that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses and expert data, and reasonably rejected the arguments of the defense regarding the non-involvement of the convicted person in the crime, his alibi and the unreliability of the evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, and its task is only to verify the correct application of the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court noted that the courts of previous instances properly motivated their decisions, providing sufficient grounds for recognizing the convicted person as guilty of committing the crime he was charged with. The court of cassation also pointed out that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not contain specific indications of violations that could affect the legality of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
leaving the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person unsatisfied.
Case No. 496/5031/19 dated 08/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the cancellation of the annulment of the civil registry record of marriage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, based on the following: the person missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance; the court of appeal granted the person a deadline to provide other grounds for reinstating the deadline for appealing, since the previous grounds were deemed invalid; the person did not file an application with other grounds for reinstating the deadline within the period established by the court. The court of cassation noted that the unfounded reinstatement of the deadline for appealing a court decision that has entered into legal force is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding a fair trial in such element as legal certainty. The court of cassation also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to certain restrictions if they do not harm the very essence of the right and pursue a legitimate aim, provided that reasonable proportionality is ensured.
3. The court of cassation ruled to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 464/5967/23 dated 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a life-long maintenance agreement, where one party (the plaintiff) transferred ownership of an apartment to the other party (the defendant), and the defendant undertook to provide the plaintiff with maintenance and care for life.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, pointing out that the courts of previous instances incorrectly interpreted the terms of the agreement, since the agreement provided only for material maintenance, and not for the obligation of care, and the courts did not properly establish the fact of the existence or absence of arrears in utility payments, which were the responsibility of the defendant under the agreement. In addition, the courts did not take into account the defendant’s arguments about paying funds in a larger amount than provided for in the agreement, and did not establish the amount of overpayment and the periods for which it was made. The court also noted that the court of appeal did not contribute to a comprehensive and complete clarification of the circumstances of the case, which made it impossible to establish the actual fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the terms of the life-long maintenance agreement by the acquirer.
3. The Supreme Court decided to cancel theannul the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and to send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
**Case №761/9697/24 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the first instance court’s verdict regarding a person accused of illegal acquisition and possession of a psychotropic substance.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court formally considered the prosecutor’s appeal, without giving due assessment to the arguments regarding the incorrect qualification of the accused’s actions. In particular, the court of first instance mistakenly stated in the verdict that the person illegally acquired and possessed narcotic drugs, instead of a psychotropic substance, as indicated in the indictment. The appellate court recognized this as a clerical error, but the court of cassation disagreed, pointing out that this may indicate an incorrect application of the law on criminal liability. Also, the appellate court did not pay attention to the error in the verdict regarding the place of storage of the physical evidence. Given that the appellate court did not provide exhaustive answers to the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal and did not conduct a thorough analysis of the circumstances, the court of cassation concluded that there was a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
**Case №910/8275/24 dated 08/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of the LLC, the inheritance management agreement, and the cancellation of the state registration of the director of the LLC.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claims. The court noted that the plaintiff was not a member of the LLC at the time of the disputed decision of the general meeting, therefore her rights were not violated. Regarding the inheritance management agreement, the court indicated that the notary acted lawfully, concluding the agreement in order to preserve the hereditary property, since at that time there were no heirs who had declared their rights. The court also took into account that the inheritance management agreement terminated after the heir applied for acceptance of the inheritance. Importantly, the court of cassation emphasized that the heir only acquires the right to a share in the authorized capital, and not automatically corporate rights, for the implementation of which certain actions must be taken.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №910/12872/23 dated 08/27/2025**
