Case No. 917/1815/24 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty for delay in fulfilling obligations under a supply contract and the return of the amount of security for the performance of this contract, paid on the basis of a bank guarantee.
2. The Supreme Court supported the decisions of the previous instances, based on the following:
* A bank guarantee is simultaneously a type of security for the performance of obligations and a financial service, but the legal relationship for the provision of a financial service exists between the bank and the principal (debtor), and not between the bank and the beneficiary (creditor).
* The fulfillment by the bank of its obligations under the guarantee to the beneficiary does not affect the rights of the principal, who has the right to demand the return of the security for the performance of the contract on the basis of the terms of the supply contract and the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement.”
* Violation of the delivery term of goods is not a non-performance of the contract, but is an improper performance, which does not deprive the supplier of the right to return the security for the performance of the contract after the full performance of obligations.
* The court rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since no reasonable grounds were provided for such a deviation.
* The specification of the methods of returning the security (return of the guarantee itself, and not cash), proposed by the appellant, is ineffective and does not lead to real protection of the principal’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 908/1612/24 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of electric power transmission services, as well as 3% per annum and inflation losses, accrued in connection with the delay in payment.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, focused on the issue of the legality of the reduction by the courts of previous instances of the amount of 3% per annum, accrued on the amount of debt. The Court emphasized that, according to Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the creditor has the right to demand payment of the debt amount taking into account the inflation index and 3% per annum of the overdue amount, unless a different interest rate is established by the contract or law. The Supreme Court drew attention to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which 3% per annum is the minimum interest rate that a creditor can expect in the event of improper performance of the obligation by the debtor, and this amount is not subject to reduction by the court. Considering that the courts of previous instances mistakenly reduced the amount of 3% per annum, the Supreme Court reversed their decision in this part and adopted a new decision to satisfy the claim in full.
3. S
The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous courts regarding the reduction of the amount of 3% annual interest and rendered a new decision to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 3% annual interest in full.
Case No. 909/747/21 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council regarding the lease and sale of a land plot as illegal, the recognition of the purchase and sale agreement of this plot as invalid, the return of the plot to communal ownership, and the cancellation of the registration of ownership.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the prosecutor actually filed a new claim under the guise of changing the subject of the claim, since the requirements and justifications of the new claim differ from the original ones; at the time the prosecutor applied to the court, the city council’s decision to sell the plot had already been executed, and its cancellation would not restore the rights of the community; the claim to recognize the purchase and sale agreement as invalid without a claim to apply the consequences of invalidity (restitution) is an ineffective method of protection; the prosecutor did not prove that the disputed plot belongs to the lands of the water fund; the appellate court accepted additional evidence, namely the decision of the executive committee of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council, since it existed at the time the case was considered by the court of first instance, but was not submitted by any of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance, since the appellate court did not refute the conclusions of the local commercial court regarding the unsuitability of the expert’s opinion, actually presumed the referral of the water body to the settling basin, guided only by the expert’s opinion, without specifying any other arguments and legal norms, and did not establish from what time the water body belongs to the settling basin, and did not provide grounds for rejecting the prosecutor’s evidence.
Case No. 910/13291/24 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection against unfair competition and the imposition of a fine on “Veldu” LLC.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the AMCU, noting that the AMCU acted within its competence, and “Veldu” LLC did not refute the circumstances established by the AMCU. The court indicated that printouts of electronic correspondence are electronic evidence, which the court evaluates in conjunction with other evidence, and the absence of an electronic digital signature does not make them inadmissible. The court also noted that “Veldu” LLC did not provide evidence to refute the information it disseminated about “KRS Trade” LLC. The court emphasized that the assessment of evidence by the AMCU is not identical to the assessment of evidence in commercial proceedings.
and the proof of violation under Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection against Unfair Competition” has its own qualification. The court also took into account that the notarized translation of the documents provided by KRS Trade LLC is contained in the case file.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of Veldu LLC and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 916/5677/23 dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection of economic competition and the imposition of a fine on Kaniv-Sgem LLC.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim of Kaniv-Sgem LLC, recognizing the decision of the AMCU as invalid. The courts found that the AMCU violated the statute of limitations for bringing to justice established by the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition,” as the case had been pending for almost 6 years, and no objective and valid reasons for such a lengthy review had been established. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the AMCU must act in a timely and consistent manner, and the lengthy review of the case created an excessive burden for the plaintiff, depriving it of legal certainty. The court also noted that although the legislation does not establish specific deadlines for reviewing an antimonopoly case, the AMCU must comply with the statute of limitations for bringing to justice. The AMCU’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the limitation of the timeframes for reviewing cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation were rejected, as the AMCU did not provide sufficient justification for such a deviation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 925/511/24 dated 02/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of termination of labor relations and the recovery of wage arrears in favor of the plaintiff, who considered himself illegally dismissed from the position of member of the board of a joint-stock company.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not take into account that the information posted by the joint-stock company on its website about the election of the plaintiff as a member of the board is reliable if it has not been refuted in the established manner. Also, the courts did not take into account the presumption of legality of the transaction, according to which the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the company is lawful, unless its invalidity is established by the court. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the evidence provided by the plaintiff.
and confirmation of the existence of labor relations, such as an entry in the work record book, a certificate of salary payment, and individual information about the insured person. The court of cassation also pointed out the violation by the courts of previous instances of the principle of adversarial proceedings, as they shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 914/2220/24 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land lease agreements between BINP LTD LLC and the Lviv City Council as concluded for a new term.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the courts did not take into account the decision of the Lviv City Council to refuse to conclude lease agreements for a new term, did not assess the City Council’s references to violations by BINP LTD LLC regarding the placement of a summer площадкa (terrace), and also did not verify the validity of the claims, taking into account the will of the lessor. The court emphasized that to resolve the dispute, it is important to establish the procedure for renewing contracts and whether this procedure was followed. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to take into account the legal position regarding the impossibility of the court substituting the will of the local self-government body when resolving issues within its competence. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and the uniformity of judicial practice, as well as the need to take into account the presumption of good faith of the parties. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease.”
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Lviv Oblast.
Case No. 911/153/24 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the mortgagee’s right to a residential building built on a land plot that was mortgaged.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute arose in connection with a mortgage agreement that secures the fulfillment of a loan agreement, the parties to which are legal entities. The court emphasized that, according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, disputes regarding transactions concluded to ensure the fulfillment of obligations between legal entities are subject to consideration in commercial courts, regardless of the subject composition of the parties in the security transaction. The court noted that the purpose of the claim for recognition of the mortgagee’s right is to confirm the property interest in the real estate that is the subject of the mortgage. The court also took into account that the dispute arose between the mortgagee and the person who
who acquired ownership of the property that is considered the subject of the mortgage, and this dispute is not subject to consideration under the rules of civil procedure, since the subject matter of the main obligation falls under the jurisdiction of commercial courts. The court indicated that the absence of direct contractual relations between the plaintiff and the defendant does not change the jurisdiction of the dispute, as it is related to security legal relations, where the parties to the main obligation are legal entities.
3. The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 924/1351/20 (924/214/22) dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by KP “Agrofirma “Proskuriv” in connection with the consideration of a complaint against the actions of state enforcement officers.
2. The court of cassation instance, reversing the decisions of the previous instances, indicated that the courts should have taken into account that the distribution of court costs is carried out by the court that makes the final decision in the case after a new trial, and not on the basis of previous decisions. The court noted that the courts must examine and evaluate the provided evidence for relevance, admissibility, and reliability, taking into account the principles of proportionality and fairness. The court also took into account that part of the services included in the expenses for legal assistance was not actually provided by the lawyer, and also that some services are covered by other, more general services. The court emphasized that the amount of the fee is determined by agreement between the lawyer and the client, but the court may limit the amount of reimbursement, taking into account the criteria of reasonableness, rationality, and commensurability with the complexity of the case. The court noted that in the absence of a party’s motion to reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, the court does not reduce the expenses on its own initiative, but determines the proven amount and carries out the distribution.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the previous instances and recovering from the Department of the State Enforcement Service in favor of KP “Agrofirma “Proskuriv” UAH 65,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/11996/23 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of members of the Auto-Garage Cooperative.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 to invalidate the decision of the general meeting of the cooperative and recovered from him part of the expenses for professional legal assistance in favor of the defendant. The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court lawfully carried out a new distribution of court costs, since the decision of the court of first instance was overturned, and the defendant acquired the right to reimbursement.
Reimbursement of expenses. The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no reason to believe that the dispute arose as a result of the defendant’s improper actions or that the defendant abused procedural rights. The Supreme Court also took into account that the Appellant exercised the right to file objections to the Defendant’s claims for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, and the appellate court gave them appropriate assessment. The court of cassation also noted that it does not have the right to establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established in the decision or ruling of the court or rejected by it, to decide on the reliability of one or another piece of evidence, on the advantage of some evidence over others, to collect or accept new evidence for consideration or additionally verify evidence.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 910/4543/24 dated 09/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the russian federation of damages in the form of lost profits caused by armed aggression against Ukraine.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all elements of the tort necessary to recover damages, in particular, did not prove the causal connection between the damages and the defendant’s actions, and also did not provide proper evidence of the amount of lost profits. The court noted that the general decline of the economy in Ukraine affected the financial results of many companies, and the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant’s actions were the sole cause of its losses. Also, the court pointed to the inconsistency of the damage assessment report with the requirements of Methodology No. 3904/1223, which is mandatory for application in such cases. The court emphasized that International Valuation Standards cannot be applied without regard to Procedure No. 326 and Methodology No. 3904/1223. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the real possibility of receiving income, which he considers to be lost profit, and that these incomes are not abstract.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
**Case No. 904/6706/23 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the cancellation of the decision of the commission regarding the review of the act on violation, drawn up by protocol.
2. The Supreme Court, leaving unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed with their conclusions. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case, assessed the evidence presented by the parties, and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law. It is possible that the courts found that the violation on the part of the plaintiff did indeed take place, and the procedure for reviewing the act on violation complied with the requirements of the law. Also, the courts could take into account the arg
Defendant’s documents regarding the legality of the commission’s decision and the absence of grounds for its cancellation. The lack of satisfaction of the cassation appeal indicates that the Supreme Court did not find grounds for reviewing the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Ob`ednannia Novomykolaivskyi Kar`ier” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 753/4989/23 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for unauthorized construction and acquittal for the use of a forged document, as well as resolving the issue of the fate of material evidence.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeals of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, reached the following conclusions:
* Regarding the conviction for unauthorized construction (Article 197-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), the court confirmed that it is not necessary to establish the fact of causing significant damage to qualify this crime.
* The court rejected the defense attorney’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence collected by the prosecutor, as the prosecutor acted within the scope of his authority.
* The court also recognized as justified the consideration by the courts of previous instances of the protocols of inspection of data from Internet resources, as they were obtained from publicly available sources.
* The court did not agree with the defense attorney’s arguments that the conviction for unauthorized construction contradicts the acquittal for the use of a forged document, as these are different elements of crimes.
* At the same time, the court of cassation instance agreed with the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the incorrect resolution of the issue of the fate of the material evidence, namely, the obligation to demolish the illegally constructed property, as this does not meet the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
* Regarding the acquittal for the use of a forged document (Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), the court of cassation instance agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court did not fully verify the validity of the acquittal verdict, in particular, did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence and did not investigate all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amending the court decisions regarding the resolution of the fate of the material evidence and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance regarding the acquittal for the use of a forged document.
Case No. 991/1681/25 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the court of appellate instance to open appellate proceedings on the defense attorney’s appeal against the ruling of the investigating judge refusing to satisfy the complaint against the detective’s decision to suspend the pre-trial investigation.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeaof first instance unchanged, motivating this by the fact that the investigative judge’s ruling on the refusal to satisfy the complaint against the detective’s decision to suspend the pre-trial investigation is not subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of Articles 303, 307, 309, 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also rejected the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the illegality of the composition of the panel of judges of the appellate instance, noting that the automated distribution of the complaint took place in compliance with the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Principles of Using the Automated Document Management System in the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. The court stated that it did not establish significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that would have prevented the court from making a lawful and well-reasoned court decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, and to leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 200/4426/24 dated 09/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation left the decisions of previous instances unchanged, supporting the position that the calculation of monetary allowance from 05/20/2023 to 04/30/2024 was lawfully carried out on the basis of a fixed amount established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and not the subsistence minimum, since at the time of accrual of payments there was a corresponding resolution of the Government in effect. The court noted that appealing against the actions of the defendant, which are based on a current regulatory legal act, is not a proper method of protection in the case of disagreement with the act itself. The court emphasized that state authorities must act within the limits of their powers and in the manner prescribed by law, and cannot arbitrarily change the established rules. The court also took into account the principle of dispositiveness in administrative proceedings, according to which the court considers the case within the limits of the stated claims, and cannot independently change the subject of the claim. The court also noted that the cancellation of a regulatory legal act does not affect the legality of the defendant’s actions, committed on the basis of this act during its validity.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.
Case No. 402/625/21 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim, as well as the court’s decision regarding a civil claim for compensation for material and moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, confirming the guilt of the convicted person, since the courts of previous instances reasonably established a causal relationship between the convicted person’s violations of traffic rules
victim’s death, based on witness testimonies, expert opinions, and other evidence. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, as the case file contains documents confirming the investigator’s authority. At the same time, the victim’s cassation appeal was partially granted, as the courts of previous instances did not take into account the new power of attorney granted to the victim when considering the civil claim for damages, which led to the unjustified dismissal of the claim in the part of material damage and lost profits. The court noted that the courts did not assess the arguments of the claim on the merits in full, assessing the validity of only some of them.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of dismissal of the civil claim and ordered a new consideration of this part of the claim in the court of first instance, and in the rest left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 1-114/2009 dated 08/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the courts of first and appellate instances to review the verdict regarding PERSON_6 based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the circumstances referred to by the convicted person are not newly discovered within the meaning of the criminal procedure law, as they are reduced to disagreement with the assessment of evidence that has already been provided by the courts, and do not indicate the existence of facts that were not known to the court during the consideration of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances is not a retrial of the case on the merits, but is an extraordinary institution for reviewing court decisions in exceptional cases. The court also noted that the convicted person did not provide any evidence to confirm the fact of forgery of evidence or giving false testimony by a witness. In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the convicted person’s arguments about the violation of her right to defense, as she was duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing in the appellate instance, and her interests were represented by a defender.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 753/4751/23 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute 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 Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as legitimate of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely: it did not properly verify the arguments of the defense’s appeal, unreasonably refused to re-examine
the review of the material evidence (mobile phone) and appointment of a telecommunications expertise, failed to assess the arguments regarding the absence of PERSON_7 during the inspection of the phone and his signing of blank sheets. The court noted that the appellate court should have examined the evidence directly, which was not done, and also did not take into account the specialist’s conclusions regarding the possibility of verifying the content of the posts by conducting an expertise. These violations are considered significant, as their resolution could have affected the legality and validity of the court decision.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 904/4484/24 dated 09/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
In this case, the courts of previous instances considered the issue of an additional decision, and the Supreme Court verified the legality and validity of these decisions. The court of cassation investigated the arguments of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal but found no grounds for its satisfaction. The defendant did not appear in the court session, which did not prevent the consideration of the case on the merits. The court took into account the circumstances of the case, previous court decisions, and materials provided by the parties. The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when issuing an additional decision and reviewing it on appeal.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the additional decision and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 911/906/23 dated 03/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of property rights to a newly created land plot, the cancellation of its state registration, and the recovery of land plots.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Niva Farm” LLC, upholding the decisions of previous instances. The court took into account that the prosecutor’s office acted in the interests of the state, representing the Yahotyn City Council. The court also took into account the circumstances of the creation and registration of the land plot, as well as compliance with the norms of land legislation. In addition, the court assessed the arguments of the cassation appeal of “Niva Farm” LLC but found no grounds for overturning the decisions of previous instances. The court proceeded from the need to ensure legality and protect the interests of the state in land relations.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Niva Farm” LLC and to uphold the decisions of previous instances.
Case No. 755/12775/23 dated 03/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of criminal proceedings for separate episodes of thefcrimes committed by the convicted person in connection with the decriminalization of the act, and the refusal to reclassify these actions as another crime.
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, namely, it did not apply the law that was subject to application. The court of appeal did not take into account the provisions of Part 3 of Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the court to go beyond the scope of the accusation in terms of changing the legal qualification, if this improves the situation of the person. The Supreme Court noted that illegal entry into a vehicle can be qualified under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code as illegal entry into another possession of a person, referring to Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The appellate court did not investigate the circumstances of the illegal entry into vehicles, which is necessary for making a lawful decision. The court also referred to its own practice in similar cases, where theft with entry into a car was reclassified as illegal entry into another possession of a person (Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code).
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case No. 910/2546/22 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the obligation to perform certain actions related to registration actions regarding land plots.
2. The court’s decision does not contain any arguments.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeals of LLC “Herman-Agro” and LLC “Ekoniva” without satisfaction, and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 13.02.2024 in case No. 910/2546/22 to leave unchanged.
Case No. 909/790/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “TGI System” Limited Liability Company in favor of the Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine of the amount of UAH 1,717,184.70.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on the complaint of TGI System LLC on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which concerns minor cases. At the same time, the cassation appeal of TGI System LLC on the grounds provided for in paragraph 4 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine was dismissed, which indicates that the case was considered on the merits regarding the application of legal norms. The court of cassation, probably, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the claims of the GTS Operator. This may be due to the fact that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute these conclusions. Thus, the Supreme
The court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the recovery of funds from TGI System LLC in favor of the GTS Operator.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast and the resolution of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal, confirming the recovery of the amount of UAH 1,717,184.70 from TGI System Limited Liability Company.
Case No. 488/479/19 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to apply compulsory educational measures to a minor who committed socially dangerous acts.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not properly assess the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the investigator’s lack of authority to conduct a pre-trial investigation, justifying this only with an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, which is not a procedural decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that a procedural decision on the determination of a group of investigators must meet the requirements of Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code and be made on an official letterhead in the form of a resolution, and an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations cannot replace this procedural decision. Also, the appellate court did not properly refute the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to analyze all the arguments of the appeal and provide reasoned answers to them, which was not done in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 750/6836/23 dated 09/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of intentional murder committed with particular cruelty by a person who had previously committed intentional murder, as well as for the illegal acquisition, carrying and storage of firearms and ammunition.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the defense, indicating that the appellate court did not fully verify the arguments of the convict’s and defense counsel’s appeals, in particular, regarding inconsistencies in the testimony of a key witness and insufficient investigation of the circumstances of the discovery of traces of blood on his clothes, which could indicate his involvement in the crime. The Court also noted that the appellate court did not provide proper justifications for changing the classification of the criminal offense in terms of illegal handling of grenades. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have analyzed all the arguments of the appeal and provided reasoned answers to them, and, if necessary, examined the evidence in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
Considering the gravity of the crimes the person is accused of, the court imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 757/418/24-к dated 09/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the defense counsel’s appeal against the first instance court’s ruling on the extension of the period of detention of the accused.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling, pointing out that the appellate court incorrectly determined the date of filing of the appeal by the defense counsel. The cassation court noted that the appellate court failed to take into account the evidence confirming the filing of the appeal within the statutory period. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have taken into account the date of filing the appeal with the post office, and not the date of its registration by the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental principle, and that a court decision must be lawful, well-founded and reasoned. The appellate court’s violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law was recognized as significant, as it prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision.
3. The Supreme Court decided to reverse the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and order a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 456/769/22 dated 09/08/2025**
1. The person applied to the court with a request to correct a clerical error in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. It only states that the consideration of the application took place in an open court session, and that the full text of the ruling will be drawn up later, and only the operative part is announced now. The court refers to Part 2 of Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows limiting the drafting and announcement of only the operative part of the ruling, if the drafting of the full text requires significant time. It is also stated that the ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for correction of a clerical error.
**Case No. 990/197/25 dated 09/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on the dismissal of a judge from office on the grounds of paragraph 3 of part six of Article 126 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
2. The court dismissed the appeal, as the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on the dismissal of the judge is based on the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ on bringing the judge to disciplinary responsibility. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed that in this case the HCJ did not decide on bringing the judge to disciplinary responsibility.
