**Case No. 200/5212/23 dated 09/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation, compensation for the delay in payment of indexation, and average earnings for the time of delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances erroneously applied the norms of substantive law in determining the amount of average earnings for the time of delay in settlement upon dismissal, in particular, incorrectly applied the principle of proportionality to the period after July 19, 2022, when the amendments to Article 117 of the Labor Code came into force, which limit the payment of average earnings to six months. The court emphasized that it is necessary to distinguish between the periods before and after July 19, 2022, applying the previous version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine to the period before this date, and the new version to the period after, which limits the payment of average earnings to six months. The court also indicated that for calculating average earnings for the period up to July 19, 2022, it is necessary to establish the amount of average earnings for the entire period of delay, the total amount of payments due upon dismissal, the share of paid and unpaid funds, and then award a percentage of the amount of average earnings that corresponds to the percentage of the untimely paid amount. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take all measures to establish the actual circumstances of the case, which made it impossible to properly resolve the dispute.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 440/13425/24 dated 09/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Kyiv District Court of Poltava, namely, the plaintiff requested to recognize the absence of state registration of the court and to cancel all registration actions regarding it, as well as to recover moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to return the statement of claim, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the court. The court noted that the plaintiff should have learned about the possible violation of his rights back in 1999, when he first became a party to a court process in the Kyiv District Court of Poltava. The Supreme Court emphasized that ignorance of the violation due to indifference to one’s rights is not a valid reason for renewing the term. Appealing to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine does not change the moment of the beginning of the term for appealing to the court. The court also indicated that the plaintiff did not eliminate the shortcomings of the statement of claim, in particular, did not specify which actions of the court he considers illegal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the moment of calculation of the term for appealing to the administrative court.
left in force the decision to return the statement of claim.
Case No. 580/2282/23 dated 09/05/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery from a former cadet of the military academy of expenses related to his maintenance during training, in connection with the termination of the contract due to unwillingness to continue training.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which dismissed the claim without consideration due to the missed deadline for applying to the court. The court noted that although cases regarding public service have a one-month deadline for applying to the court, this period begins to run from the moment the cadet refuses to voluntarily reimburse the expenses. In this case, the cadet was informed of the need to reimburse the expenses back in 2019, and a deadline for voluntary payment was determined at the same time. Sending a repeated demand after a few years does not renew the deadline for applying to the court. The court emphasized that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court, and his continued passive behavior does not indicate the existence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. The court also indicated that the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff are not similar to the circumstances in other cases he referred to, therefore the conclusions of the Supreme Court in those cases cannot be applied in this case.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Military Academy without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court without changes.
Case No. 334/5326/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding a person accused of committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Article 121 (intentional grievous bodily harm) and Part 1 of Article 309 (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the verdict of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
Case No. 908/54/23(908/930/23) dated 09/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the refusal to terminate enforcement proceedings after the cancellation of a court decision, on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued, provided that the writ of execution has already been returned to the recovery claimant.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that the return of the writ of execution to the recovery claimant (Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”) and the termination of enforcement proceedings (Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”) are different procedures with different consequences. Return of execution
The return of an enforcement document does not constitute a final action, as it allows for the possibility of re-presentation of the enforcement document for execution, whereas the termination of enforcement proceedings is of a more irreversible nature. The court emphasized that the special rule governing the actions of the executor in the event that, after the return of the enforcement document, it is established that it is not subject to execution, is Part 4 of Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” which does not provide for the issuance of a resolution on the termination of enforcement proceedings, but provides for actions to cancel enforcement measures. The court also noted that the executor’s failure to take actions aimed at canceling the enforcement measures of the decision was not the subject of appeal in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s decision, refusing to satisfy the complaint against the private executor’s actions.
Case No. 914/1887/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement 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 overturned the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the land auctions were conducted in violation of the requirements of the law, since at the time of their conduct there was no technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of the land plot, which is a mandatory condition for the sale of the lease right. The court noted that LLC “Idyllia Park,” participating in the auctions, should have known about the absence of such documentation. The court also emphasized that the correct application of the law is in the public interest, and in this case, this interest lies in ensuring the economic interests of the state and the possibility of proper budget replenishment. The court indicated that the interference with the right of LLC “Idyllia Park” to the peaceful enjoyment of property is justified, as it is carried out to satisfy the public interest. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the claim for the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, considering this method of protection ineffective.
3. The court of cassation recognized the land lease agreement as invalid and obliged LLC “Idyllia Park” to return the land plot to the Lviv City Council.
Case No. 908/54/23(908/930/23) dated 09/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of orders of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Oblast as not subject to execution.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which dismissed the application of LLC “Land Log” to recognize the orders as not subject to execution, since at the time of consideration of the application by the court of first instance, these orders had already been recognized and
that are not subject to execution by another court order that has entered into legal force; the court of cassation noted that Article 328 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for a specific procedural action that the commercial court must take if, at the time of consideration of the filed application, the relevant issue has already been resolved, and according to the general rule, the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not allow the consideration of an application, the procedural issue of which has already been resolved by the court, in the absence of other grounds or new circumstances; the court of cassation rejected the applicant’s arguments that the case was considered by an unauthorized composition of the court, since the cancellation of the ruling in the bankruptcy case and the transfer of the case to another composition of the court does not prevent the judge who considered the case before the cancellation of the ruling from considering the separate claim proceedings considered within the bankruptcy case; the court of cassation did not agree with the applicant’s arguments that the local commercial court should have closed the proceedings in the case on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 231 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, taking into account paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 175 of the specified Code, since the recognition of the order as not subject to execution relates to procedural issues related to the execution of a court decision, and the consideration of the application provided for in Article 328 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine is not a separate type of court proceedings, a separate stage of the commercial process.
4. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Land Log LLC, and left the decision of the appellate commercial court and the ruling of the local commercial court unchanged.
**Case No. 922/3343/24 dated 05/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the cost of products transferred for storage due to the custodian’s failure to fulfill its obligation to preserve and return them.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the university’s claims. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that, according to the terms of the agreement, the custodian was obliged to return the property after the storage period and at the request of the depositor, and the burden of initiating the return procedure lies with the custodian. The court found that the custodian did not provide any evidence of initiating the procedure for returning the goods, in particular, did not inform the depositor of the location of the warehouse, which made it impossible to return the goods. The court also noted that the failure to return the goods resulted in losses for the plaintiff, and the defendant did not prove the absence of its fault in this. The court of cassation emphasized that no evidence of storage of property in the territory of temporary occupation was provided, which could be the basis for exemption from liability.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court.
court decision satisfying the claim.
Case №922/3575/21 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the city council’s decision on the privatization of non-residential premises through redemption, invalidation of the sale and purchase agreement, and return of the property to the territorial community, given the violation of the procedure for the privatization of communal property.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that for the redemption of leased property, the tenant needs to confirm the implementation of inseparable improvements in the amount of at least 25% of the market value of the property, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of Small State Enterprises (Small Privatization).” The court emphasized that such confirmation must be carried out through an independent assessment in accordance with the Procedure for the Assessment of Leased Real Estate Containing Inseparable Improvements, and not through an independent assessment by the court of the scope of work performed. Also, the court noted that repair costs are not identical to the value of inseparable improvements, which should increase the market value of the object. The court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the need for the tenant to provide an independent appraisal report that would confirm the value of the improvements and their compliance with the requirements of the law. In addition, the court drew attention to the fact that the assessment of the legality of privatization should be carried out at the time of its implementation, and not on the date of the lease agreement.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №922/2593/19 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the sale and purchase agreement of non-residential premises, concluded between the Department of Communal Property and Benedict Business LLC, and the return of these premises to the territorial community of the city of Kharkiv.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the prosecutor rightfully applied to the court in the interests of the state, since the Kharkiv City Council, which should have protected the interests of the community, itself violated them by making a decision on the alienation of communal property. The court emphasized that the redemption of leased premises is possible only if the tenant has made inseparable improvements to the property in the amount of at least 25% of its market value, which was not established in this case. Also, the court took into account the bad faith behavior of Benedict Business LLC, which applied for privatization without legal grounds for this. The court noted that the return of property to communal ownership is a proportionate interference with property rights, as it is due to the illegal behavior of the acquirer and meets the interests of the territorial community. The court ca
The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as “Benedict Business” LLC acted in bad faith.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the appellate court’s decision on invalidating the sale and purchase agreement and returning the property to the territorial community.
Case No. 922/220/21 dated 08/27/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recognition of the city council’s decision on privatization as illegal, invalidation of the sale and purchase agreement of non-residential premises, and obligation to return these premises to the territorial community due to alleged violation of the privatization procedure.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which had refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, pointing out that the previous instances had not taken into account important aspects of the privatization procedure, namely: the fact that the lessee had made inseparable improvements to the leased property, which would give the right to purchase this property, had not been duly established; the courts did not ascertain whether an independent valuation of the property was carried out taking into account these improvements, whether a corresponding report was submitted, and whether the lessor had agreed to such improvements; the courts mistakenly equated the costs of repairs with the value of inseparable improvements, which are different concepts. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to confirm the fact of improvements, a report from a valuation entity, drawn up in accordance with the established requirements, is necessary, and not only an assessment by the court of the evidence provided on repair work. The court also indicated that the legitimacy of the privatization procedure should be assessed as of the date of its implementation, and not as of the date of the lease agreement. The court of cassation also emphasized the need to take into account the good faith of the parties in the implementation of privatization.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 752/16655/22 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use the apartment by restoring electricity, water supply, the validity of access control system cards, and maintenance of engineering networks.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff has arrears to the Homeowners Association (HOA), and the HOA rules provide for the possibility of restricting access to the territory in the presence of arrears; the courts of previous instances indicated that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to use the apartment and the car; the HOA only provides services for managing the building, and utility services are provided by other organizations; the plaintiff did not prove that the lack of electricity was caused by the actions of the HOA.
regarding water supply, the plaintiff consumed water during the disputed period. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the conclusions of the courts do not contradict the practice of the Supreme Court, since in this case the Homeowners Association (HOA) acted on the basis of an agreement with the Association of HOAs and the Rules of Residence approved by the constituent meeting, which provide for the possibility of restricting access in the presence of debt.
4. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 554/11940/23 dated 08/09/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130025711](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130025711)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of real estate and funds in the order of inheritance by law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the proper defendants in inheritance cases are the heirs who accepted the inheritance, and in their absence – the relevant bodies of local self-government. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the court, indicating the executive committees of local councils as defendants, which are separate legal entities, and not the councils themselves, which represent the interests of territorial communities. The court noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a claim against the proper defendant. Also, the court of appeal correctly excluded from the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance the conclusions about the groundlessness of the claims, since such conclusions should be made with the proper subject composition of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 990/216/25 dated 01/09/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130048057](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130048057)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the candidate’s failure to pass the first stage of qualification assessment for the position of judge of the court of appeal.
2. The court recognized the decision of the HQCJU as illegal, since the Commission did not provide sufficiently detailed information about the assessment of the candidate’s practical task, which made it impossible to verify compliance with the approved criteria and the validity of the scores. The court emphasized that the assessment should be objective, transparent and comprehensive, taking into account all the elements defined by the Methodological Guidelines. The lack of detail in the examination sheets does not allow establishing whether the examination commission acted within its powers, and whether it was an arbitrary decision. The court also noted that the principle of good governance requires state bodies to act in a timely, consistent and transparent manner, especially when it comes to issues of general interest and fundamental human rights. It is important that decisions are motivated and provide an opportunity to assess the Commission’s compliance with the established requirements.
3. The court partially satisfied
