Case №729/1567/23 dated 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the dismissal of the lyceum director for absenteeism as illegal, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the plaintiff was absent from work without valid reasons, which is confirmed by acts of absence from work. The courts took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the validity of the reasons for her absence. Also, the courts took into account that the plaintiff was duly notified of the recall from vacation, as evidenced by her signature on the relevant order. In addition, the courts established that the defendant lawfully issued an order to dismiss the plaintiff on the basis of paragraph 4 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, since the requirements of the law regarding the recording of the fact of absence from work and выяснения причин такой отсутствия were met. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in this assessment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case №757/29843/19-к dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the return of appeals against the investigating judge’s ruling.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the representative of the victim, concluded that the case contains issues that need to be resolved at the level of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court took into account the significant amount of work required to draw up the full text of the ruling, and was guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allow limiting the announcement of the operative part. The panel of judges decided that in order to ensure the uniformity of judicial practice and the final resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to transfer the criminal proceedings to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration. Such a decision is обусловлено необходимостью формирования единого подхода к применению норм криминального процесуального права в подобных делах.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to transfer the criminal proceedings to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration.
Case №752/17521/18 dated 09/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the defense attorney’s appeal against the first instance court’s ruling on the closure of criminal proceedings.
The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly returned the defense attorney’s appeal, considering that the срок на оскарження пропущено. The Supreme Court emphasized,
that the ruling of the court of first instance was issued without the participation of the defender, and the case file does not contain evidence of his proper notification of the date of the court hearing. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the term for appealing in such a case is calculated from the date of receipt of a copy of the court decision, and the defender filed an appeal within this term. Thus, the appellate court did not properly verify the circumstances regarding compliance with the terms of appeal, which is a significant violation of the criminal procedure law.
The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case №404/6076/21 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding a person accused of attempted rape.
2. The Supreme Court granted the defender’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances and closing the criminal proceedings on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the court established the absence of a criminal offense in the act. In fact, the cassation court concluded that the person’s actions, although they could be considered immoral or unacceptable, did not reach the point where they could be qualified as an attempted crime under Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (rape). The court took into account the defender’s arguments regarding the incorrect assessment of evidence by the previous courts and the lack of sufficient grounds for concluding that the person had intent to commit rape. Also, the court took into account that all doubts regarding the proof of guilt of the person must be interpreted in his favor.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruling of the previous instances and closed the criminal proceedings against the person, releasing him from custody.
Case №581/409/22 dated 28/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of land plots in the order of inheritance by law.
2. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal, as the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when reviewing the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The court took into account that the cancellation of a court decision that was the basis for the adoption of the previous decision is a newly discovered circumstance that entails a review of the case. An important factor was that the existing valid state act on the right of ownership of land issued to another person makes it impossible to recognize the right of ownership in the order of inheritance, as this will create a legal conflict. The court also noted that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of ownership
that the chosen method of protecting civil rights and interests (property rights) is ineffective, as it will not lead to the restoration of violated rights due to the existence of a valid state act for land issued to another person.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 488/479/19 dated 03/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the application of compulsory educational measures to a minor for committing socially dangerous acts that fall under the elements of criminal offenses under Part 2 of Article 125, Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain a justification of the court’s position. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defender’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 385/1219/23 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a court verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal logging that caused significant damage to the state.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances properly examined and evaluated the evidence, including witness testimony, the scene inspection report, expert opinions, and other case materials, which indicated the person’s guilt in the illegal felling of trees. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, violation of the right to defense, and incorrect determination of the victim, noting that the scene inspection was conducted in compliance with legal requirements, the defendant’s rights were not violated, and the prosecutor had the right to represent the interests of the state in court. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, but only checks the correct application of the law by the courts of previous instances.
3. Court decision: The verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_8 were upheld, and the defender’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 629/5220/24 dated 03/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim or serious bodily injury).
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, dismissing the cassation appeal of the injured party. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the court of cassation was guided by from the given operative part, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. Usually, when considering such cases
av, the court of cassation reviews the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by lower courts, in particular, assesses the evidence provided by the parties and verifies whether the convicted person’s right to a fair trial was observed. Also, the court could take into account mitigating circumstances, the identity of the perpetrator, the severity of the consequences, etc. Without the full text of the decision, it is difficult to say which arguments prevailed in the decision-making.
The court decided to uphold the appellate court’s ruling and dismiss the victim’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 501/664/24 dated 01/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions for the sale of a residential building and land plot as invalid, as well as the recovery of this property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which granted the application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the disputed property and prohibiting any construction work or registration actions regarding it. The court proceeded from the fact that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision if the claim is satisfied, since the defendant may alienate the property or change its characteristics. The court also took into account that the imposition of an arrest on the property before the resolution of the dispute on the merits will not lead to a restriction of the defendant’s rights, but will serve as a measure to prevent possible violations of the plaintiff’s rights. The court emphasized the need to ensure a balance of interests of the parties and the adequacy of the measures to secure the claim to the stated claims. The court also took into account the established practice of the ECHR regarding the need for courts to provide reasoned answers to the essential aspects of the parties’ arguments.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 914/69/25 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Farm Enterprise against the Lviv Court of Appeal and the State of Ukraine for compensation for material and moral damages caused, in the plaintiff’s opinion, by the illegal ruling of the appellate court.
2. The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, noted that in order to satisfy a claim for compensation for damages caused by illegal decisions of a state authority, it is necessary to prove the existence of all elements of the offense, namely: damage, illegal act, and causal relationship between them. The court emphasized that the burden of proving these circumstances rests with the plaintiff. In this case, the Farm Enterprise was unable to prove how the actions of the appellate court damaged its business reputation as a legal entity, and also did not substantiate the causal relationship between the actions
and the alleged damages. The court also took into account that the annulment of the appellate court’s ruling by the cassation court is already sufficient satisfaction for the plaintiff. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the motion to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as it did not concern the interpretation of the norms of the Constitution, but rather the resolution of the dispute on its merits.
3. The court of cassation instance left the cassation appeal of the Farm Enterprise without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 904/2043/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Dnipro Heat and Power Plant” against the actions of a private enforcement agent regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt in favor of the Department of Communal Property, Land Relations and Registration of Property Rights to Immovable Property of the Kamianske City Council.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the private enforcement agent acted lawfully, since JSC “Dnipro Heat and Power Plant” is not an enterprise in the authorized capital of which the state directly owns a share of more than 25%. The court noted that although the shares of JSC “Dnipro Heat and Power Plant” were transferred to the authorized capital of JSC “NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine”, this does not mean that the state directly owns a share in JSC “Dnipro Heat and Power Plant”. JSC “NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” is an independent legal entity of private law, and not a state body or state company within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court also took into account that in the Register of Corporate Rights of the State, JSC “Dnipro Heat and Power Plant” is not listed as an enterprise whose corporate rights belong to the state. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned other legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of JSC “Dnipro Thermal Power Plant” without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance – without changes.
Case No. 569/23758/18 dated 09/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel of the convicted PERSON_6 against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the imposition of punishment for committing crimes under Articles 185 part 3 and 289 part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, namely, it did not apply the provisions of Article 70 part 4 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which regulates the imposition of punishment if, after the verdict is issued, it is established that the convicted person is guilty of another crime committed before the previous verdict was issued. The court of cassation instance took into account that at the time of the case consideration, PERSON_6 had already been convicted under other verdicts issued after the commission of the crimes for which he was tried in this case, but before the issuance
consideration of the sentence by the appellate court. The Supreme Court took into account the legal conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the crediting of pre-trial detention towards the term of punishment, according to which Article 72, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the wording of Law No. 838-VIII is subject to application if the crime was committed up to and including December 23, 2015. The court also took into account the periods of pre-trial detention that had already been credited to PERSON_6 under other court decisions.
4. The Supreme Court granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, amended the appellate court’s sentence, imposed a final sentence on PERSON_6 taking into account the provisions of Article 70, Part 4 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and crediting pre-trial detention, and recognized that he had fully served the sentence.
Case No. 630/1162/24 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal in cassation proceedings against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing criminal offenses related to justifying, recognizing as legitimate, denying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 916/3042/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a state act for the right of permanent land use and the obligation to transfer the land plot.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that the plaintiff (Saratska Settlement Council) had not proven the illegality of the transfer of the land plot for permanent use to the defendant (Consumer Cooperation Enterprise) at the time of the issuance of the state act in 1997, and referred to circumstances that arose after the defendant acquired this right, such as a change of name, registration actions with real estate, etc. The court noted that the basis for invalidating a state act must be violations that existed at the time of its issuance, and not consequences that arose later. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had not appealed the decision of the settlement council’s executive committee, on the basis of which the state act was issued. In addition, the court referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the acquisition of ownership of real estate located on a land plot granted to another person for permanent use does not require the consent of the permanent land user for the registration of land use by the new owner of the real estate. The court emphasized that the issue of termination of the right of use and the legality of land use as a whole has a different subject of proof than challenging the legality of acquiring the right of permanent use.
3. The court of cassation
left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 755/12775/23 dated 09/03/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129932877](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129932877)
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_8 of committing criminal offenses under Part 4 of Article 185, Part 2 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the arguments of the court.
3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, as well as imposed a preventive measure on the accused PERSON_8 in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
**Case No. 908/1897/24 dated 09/01/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129961596](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129961596)
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closure of appellate proceedings opened upon the appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kharkiv region against the ruling of the court of first instance in the case of bankruptcy of Travel Retail Ukraine LLC.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that the right to judicial protection is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, but is implemented in the manner prescribed by procedural rules. In bankruptcy cases, creditors have the right to appeal court rulings, but the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP) establishes certain restrictions. In particular, a ruling on the consideration of the claims of an individual creditor (the so-called “individual” ruling) cannot be appealed separately from the ruling issued following the preliminary hearing. In this case, the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kharkiv region appealed only the ruling following the preliminary hearing, which contained a reference to the rejection of their claims, but did not appeal the “individual” ruling by which these claims were rejected. Given that the appeal concerned disagreement precisely with the “individual” ruling, and not with the ruling following the preliminary hearing, the court of appeal concluded that it was impossible to review the ruling of the preliminary hearing without reviewing the “individual” ruling.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of appellate proceedings – without changes.
**Case No. 913/266/20(913/111/21) dated 08/07/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129961551](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129961551)
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the bank to transfer the rights of claim under loan agreements to another company, which, according to the court of first instance, is the same bank, but with a different name.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the case, since it found that the plaintiff (PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company”) and the defendant (PJSC “Ukrainian …
same legal entity, which excludes the existence of a dispute between them. The court noted that changes to the charter of the company are not a reorganization within the meaning of banking legislation and do not affect the scope of rights and obligations of this legal entity. The court also took into account the previous legal position of the Supreme Court in case No. 913/266/20, which concluded that PJSC “Ukrinbank” and PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company” are the same legal entity with the same identification code. The court emphasized that procedural law does not provide for the possibility of combining parties to a court case in one person, as this makes a dispute impossible. The appellate court did not take these circumstances into account and erroneously concluded that there was a dispute between different legal entities.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s ruling to close the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 914/1314/24 dated 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the purchase and sale agreement and the recovery of UAH 800,000.00 due to an allegedly material breach of the terms of the agreement.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim. The court of cassation stated that a material breach of the terms of the agreement had not been proven, as the delivery date of the goods had not yet arrived. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly assessed the evidence and established the circumstances of the case, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to disagreement with the assessment of the evidence, which is not a basis for cassation review. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that it cannot take into account the appellant’s arguments that the commercial court of appeal, when making the appealed decision, did not comply with the instructions of the Supreme Court set out in the decision of February 11, 2025 in this case, since the content of the appealed decision indicates that the court made decisions in compliance with the provisions of procedural law, including part 5 of Article 310 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court also supported the decision to recover legal aid costs, as the defendant’s representative participated in the court hearing, and the services provided were confirmed by the act.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 915/792/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the absence of legal succession for debt obligations and the recognition of the illegality of the refusal to consider the issue of concluding a natural gas supply agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, as the condominium association chose an ineffective way to protect its rights, namely the requirements for recognition
