Case №910/13129/24 dated 09/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the lease agreement and the obligation of the lessee to return the premises in proper condition, as well as the recovery of a penalty for delay in return.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the following:
* The Bank did not prove the circumstances that would indicate the impossibility of using the leased premises in March 2022, and therefore there are no grounds for exemption from paying rent on the basis of part six of Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* The Bank did not provide proper evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances that would make it impossible to fulfill obligations under the lease agreement, in particular, it did not provide a certificate from the Ukrainian CCI (Chamber of Commerce and Industry).
* The appellate court reasonably refused to recover the penalty from the Bank, since it is in the process of liquidation, and the accrual of penalties contradicts the provisions of special legislation governing the liquidation of banks, namely the Law of Ukraine “On the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals.”
* The court of cassation emphasized that in disputes related to the performance by a bank undergoing liquidation of its obligations to its creditors, the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals” are special and take precedence over other legislative acts.
* The court of cassation noted that the arguments of the cassation appeals come down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence by the courts of previous instances, which is not a basis for overturning court decisions.
3. The court of cassation ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals and uphold the decisions of the previous instances.
Case №922/3185/24 dated 09/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the State Enterprise “Novopokrovsky Grain Processing Plant” (SE “Novopokrovsky GPP”) from the illegal possession of the Joint-Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” (JSC “Kharkivoblenergo”) of the transformer substation PS 110/10 kV “Novopokrovka” together with a one-story building.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account that a court decision made in a case in which a person did not participate cannot be opposed to this person. The court also emphasized that if property left the possession of the owner against his will on the basis of a court decision made without the participation of this owner, then the property can be reclaimed from a bona fide purchaser. The court indicated that the appellate court did not refute the reasonable conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the ouster of th
proprietary property from the state’s ownership against the will of the person to whom this property was transferred into possession, and the existence of legal grounds for the plaintiff to claim this property in accordance with Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that a ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings is not a court decision in a commercial case, and the court of cassation instance does not have the authority to confirm the correct establishment of the circumstances in the case by the lower courts.
3. The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeals of the State Enterprise “Novopokrovsky Grain Processing Plant” and the Deputy Head of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office: to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and uphold the first instance court’s decision to grant the claim.
Case No. 916/2984/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the procurement contract as invalid and the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms of delivery of goods.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of previous instances, emphasized that making changes to the essential terms of the procurement contract, in particular regarding the extension of its term, is possible only if there are documented objective circumstances that arose after the conclusion of the contract and could not have been foreseen by the parties at the time of its conclusion. In this case, the blocking of the Polish-Ukrainian border, to which the defendant referred, was known even before the signing of the additional agreement, and therefore cannot be considered a circumstance that caused the need to extend the terms. The court also noted that the mere existence of force majeure circumstances is not a sufficient basis for making changes to the essential terms of the contract, but may only be a basis for exemption from liability for violation of obligations. In addition, the court pointed to the lack of proper documentary evidence of the objective impossibility of fulfilling the obligations within the period specified in the contract. Regarding the claims for recovery of penalties, the court agreed with the conclusions of previous instances regarding the failure to prove the fact of delay in the delivery of goods.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of refusing to recognize the additional agreement as invalid and rendered a new decision to grant the claim in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 916/3156/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land plot lease agreement with a water body as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, and the obligation to return the land plot.
2. The court of cassation instance
canceled the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that the transfer of a water body for lease for agricultural needs (irrigation) contradicts the requirements of water legislation, which does not provide for such a possibility, and the actual purpose of the water body according to the passport is fish farming. The court noted that obtaining a permit for special water use does not obligate the lessee to lease the land plot and the water body, and the legal regimes of lease of the water body and special water use are different. The court pointed out the violation by the defendants of both land (failure to comply with the competitive procedure) and water legislation (impossibility of leasing a water body for the purpose specified in the contract). At the same time, the court agreed with the refusal to cancel the decision of the state registrar, considering this method of protection ineffective. The court also reallocated court costs, assigning them to the defendants due to their unlawful actions.
2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the claim: recognized the lease agreement as invalid and obliged to return the land plot, but left unchanged the decision to refuse the cancellation of state registration.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129927904](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129927904) **Case No. 909/460/24 dated 09/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Eurotranstelecom” for reimbursement of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
2. The court satisfied the application of LLC “Eurotranstelecom,” motivating this by the fact that the costs for professional legal assistance were documented, justified, and meet the criteria of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness. The court took into account the scope of services actually provided by the lawyer, as well as the outcome of the case review in cassation proceedings. It is important that JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” did not exercise the right to file objections against the amount of claimed court costs, which also influenced the court’s decision. The court emphasized that a reduction in the amount of court costs is possible only on the basis of a motion by the other party, which must prove the disproportion of costs. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the compensation of court costs, which provides for proving the factuality, inevitability, and justification of such costs.
3. The court ruled to recover from JSC “Ukrainian Railway” in favor of LLC “Eurotranstelecom” 8,500 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129927859](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129927859) **Case No. 921/415/24 dated 08/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the city council’s decision to approve the land management project for the allocation of a land plot, the recognition as invalid of the agreement on the establishment of a land easement, obligatingregarding the return of the land plot and the cancellation of the state registration of the right to use the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the agreement on the establishment of a land easement is actually a lease agreement, since it provides for the transfer of powers regarding the possession and use of the land plot for the arrangement of an eco-parking lot for the purpose of making a profit, which contradicts the requirements of land legislation. The court noted that a land easement is established in exceptional cases when it is impossible to satisfy a person’s needs in another way, but in this case, I.T.-Berezovytsia LLC did not prove the impossibility of placing a parking lot on an adjacent land plot that is leased by this company, or obtaining a land plot for lease on a competitive basis. The court also took into account that the land management project approved by the city council does not comply with urban planning documentation, since the disputed land plot is located within the subzone of green spaces for special purposes. At the same time, the court of cassation pointed out the error of the first instance court in stating the termination of the agreement on the establishment of a land easement in the future, since the agreement is recognized as invalid from the moment of its conclusion, and not terminated in the future.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part regarding the termination of the agreement on the establishment of a land easement in the future and dismissed the claim in this part, and left the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
**Case No. 911/1538/24 dated 08/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by DS Prom Group LLC in connection with the consideration of a cassation appeal in a commercial case.
2. The court granted the application of DS Prom Group LLC, motivating it by the fact that the company complied with the deadlines for applying for the distribution of legal costs and submitted proper evidence to confirm the incurred costs for professional legal assistance. The court took into account the criteria of the reality of attorneys’ fees, their necessity and reasonableness of the amount, as well as the scope of services provided by the attorney, the complexity of the case, and the absence of a motion from the defendant to reduce costs. The court also referred to established case law regarding the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the applicant has the right to compensation for legal costs if they were actual, unavoidable and justified.
3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 15,000.00 from the “Motor Transport Company” in favor of “DS Prom Group” LLC for expenses for professional legal assistance.
u.
**Case No. 907/100/25 dated 01/09/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract of purchase and sale of a complex of buildings, concluded between two companies, and the obligation to return this property to the first owner.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the appellate court’s decision, emphasized that securing a claim is an important tool for protecting the plaintiff’s property interests and guarantees the real execution of a court decision. The court noted that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the stated claims and consistent with the subject matter and grounds of the claim. In this case, the plaintiff argued that the contract of purchase and sale was concluded to evade the execution of a previous court decision on the recovery of funds, which has signs of a fraudulent transaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the seizure of property alienated under such a transaction is an adequate measure to secure the claim, as it allows the property to be preserved in the defendant’s ownership until the end of the case and ensures the possibility of executing the court decision if the claim is satisfied. The court also noted that the appellate court prematurely assessed the claim for recognition of the contract as invalid as non-property-related, since in the case of a fraudulent transaction, the consequences of invalidity may be applied, in particular, the return of property to the debtor.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s ruling on securing the claim by seizing the disputed property.
**Case No. 904/703/23 dated 28/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the management bodies of the “Tiahynka” Gardening Association regarding the exclusion of a person from the members of the association and the disconnection of his land plot from communications, as well as the obligation of the association to restore the connection.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeal, established that the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify the plaintiff’s membership in the “Tiahynka” SA, did not properly assess the arguments of the parties and the available evidence, in particular, the decision of the general meeting of members of the “Tiahynka” SA dated December 2, 2016 on excluding the plaintiff from the membership of the “Tiahynka” SA, and also did not substantiate the need to store such a decision in the registration file of the defendant. The court of cassation instance emphasized the court’s obligation, when considering the case, to comply with the requirements for comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of the circumstances of the case and assessment of evidence, as well as to take into account the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms set out in the resolutions of the Supreme
of the Supreme Court. Also, the court of cassation instance pointed out that the right to a fair trial, provided for in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, includes the right of a person to a reasoned decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the satisfaction of the claims and the additional decision, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/9950/24 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract of sale of electricity between LLC “Sonnenenergi” and SE “Guaranteed Buyer”.
2. The Supreme Court, when deciding to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer”, could have been guided by the following arguments: the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute; the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the evidence submitted by the parties; the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law governing the disputed legal relations; the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which led to an incorrect resolution of the case; it is necessary to establish the volume of electricity actually supplied, its cost, and the existence of grounds for releasing the defendant from liability for breach of obligations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part being appealed and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/685/25 dated 08/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of services to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claims of LLC “Odesa Regional Energy Supply Company” against PJSC “Ukrenergo” for the recovery of debt, inflation losses, and 3% per annum, since PJSC “Ukrenergo” improperly fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The court noted that the cost of the services provided was confirmed by acceptance certificates and approved by resolutions of the NEURC. The court also indicated that there are no legislative restrictions on the sources of financing for payment for the services provided, in particular, there is no imperative norm that would oblige PJSC “Ukrenergo” to make payments exclusively from a current account with a special usage regime. The court also took into account that the accrual of inflation losses and 3% per annum is lawful, since it is a way to protect the property right of the creditor.
