**Case No. 243/2858/21 dated 09/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, as well as compensation for moral damages caused by the dissemination of information by the defendant on the Facebook social network, which the plaintiff considers to be untrue.
2. The court, in denying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the information disseminated by the defendant constitutes evaluative judgments and critical statements regarding the plaintiff, who is a public figure (the city mayor), and therefore the limits of permissible criticism regarding him are wider than those regarding an ordinary citizen. The court took into account the expert’s opinion, which confirmed that the defendant’s statements contain both factual assertions and evaluative judgments. The court also noted that the defendant is not obliged to prove the truth of evaluative judgments, and the plaintiff did not prove that the disseminated information is specifically factual assertions that do not correspond to reality. The court referred to the ECtHR’s practice regarding freedom of expression and the role of the press as a “watchdog of society.” The court also took into account that the information concerned the professional activities of the plaintiff as a public figure, which is socially important.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the courts of previous instances, leaving the cassation appeal without merit.
**Case No. 161/3803/24 dated 09/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is compensation for property damage caused by a traffic accident, where the plaintiff seeks compensation for the difference between the actual amount of damages and the insurance compensation received from the insurance company.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, recovering from the perpetrator of the traffic accident the difference between the cost of restoration repair of the car (excluding VAT, since the repair was not carried out by a VAT payer) and the amount of insurance compensation. The court proceeded from the fact that the perpetrator of the traffic accident caused property damage exceeding the insurer’s liability limit, and according to Article 1194 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the perpetrator is obliged to compensate the victim for the difference between the actual amount of damage and the insurance payment. The court took into account the report on the assessment of the cost of damages provided by the insurance company as proper evidence of the amount of damage. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide evidence that would refute this report and did not exercise the right to appoint an expert examination. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the real damages include the cost of restoration repair without taking into account depreciation.
3. The court decided to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 743,567.29 as compensation for property damage.
**Case No. 199/9912/22 dated 08/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession.
and cancellation of the decision on state registration of the right of lease.
2. The Supreme Court found that the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the case in the order of civil procedure regarding the prosecutor’s claims in the interests of the local self-government body against the Subsidiary Enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas” (hereinafter – SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”), since the dispute is a land dispute between the territorial community and a legal entity, which belongs to the commercial jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the criteria for distinguishing between judicial jurisdiction are the subject composition of legal relations, the subject of the dispute, and the nature of the disputed substantive legal relations. Since the dispute between the local self-government body and a legal entity arises in connection with the implementation of economic activity, it is subject to consideration in the commercial court. Also, the Supreme Court noted that there are no grounds for recovering from the prosecutor’s office in favor of SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” court costs for professional legal assistance, since the prosecutor’s office’s unreasonable actions were not established.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closed the proceedings in the case in this part, and also overturned the additional decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the distribution of court costs.
Case No. 335/7744/23 dated 03/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of wages from an enterprise that is in the process of privatization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which recognized as lawful the actions of the state executor who suspended the enforcement proceedings on the basis of paragraph 12 of part one of Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since the debtor’s enterprise is included in the list of small privatization objects. The court noted that the suspension of enforcement proceedings during privatization is a restriction provided by law to ensure the public interest in controlling the sale of property in order to accelerate economic activity under the management of an effective private owner. The court also took into account that privatization provides for the investor’s obligation to repay wage arrears, and in case of unjustified delay in privatization, the person has the right to compensation from the state. The court referred to the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of paragraph 12 of part one of Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” in similar cases. The court also noted that the issue of the constitutionality of paragraph 12 of part one of Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” is being considered by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but at the time of the case consideration, this norm is valid and must be applied.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and to uphold the appellate court’s ruling.
Case №686/31963/24 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the exclusion of the mortgagor from the list of guarantors and debtors under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, supporting the position that the plaintiff had not proven a violation of his rights and interests, since he was actually acting in the interests of a third party (the mortgagor). The court noted that an appeal to the court is possible only in the event of a violation of the rights and interests of the person appealing, and not the rights of other persons who are not plaintiffs in the case. The court also emphasized that it cannot reassess the legality of a court decision in another case that has already become final, as this contradicts the principle of legal certainty. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court found the reduction of their amount by the appellate court to be justified, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court of cassation emphasized that the assessment of evidence regarding the costs incurred and their proportionality is within the competence of the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case №452/3745/19 dated 13/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property (hangar) from someone else’s illegal possession in favor of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation decided that the appellate court had mistakenly applied the provisions on the statute of limitations, because it did not take into account that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment when the person learned or could have learned about the violation of his right, and in this case, from the moment of state registration of ownership of the disputed property by the first acquirer, and not from the date of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of property into ownership. The court also noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine was not a party to the disputed legal relations and was not notified of the decision of the local self-government body. In addition, the court pointed out the need to verify the defendants’ arguments regarding the existence of the disputed object. Considering that the appellate court did not establish circumstances that are of decisive importance for the consideration of this dispute, the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case №462/3797/21 dated 01/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for entering false information.
regarding documents on state registration of a legal entity (Article 205-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the courts fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, duly verified the arguments of the defense, in particular regarding the questioning of witnesses, and reasonably found the person guilty of committing the crime. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances duly assessed the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, expert opinions, and other documents confirming the fact that the convict entered false information about the location of the legal entity. The court also noted that the defense failed to ensure the appearance of all declared witnesses in court, and the appellate court reasonably saw no grounds for re-examining the witnesses, as the court of first instance examined their testimonies fully and without violations. The court of cassation emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate the evidence and establish new circumstances, and its task is only to verify the correctness of the courts’ application of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 206/4419/17 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal verdict regarding PERSON_7, who was accused of completed attempted extortion of undue advantage for influence on a judge.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, in upholding the acquittal verdict, did not fully take into account the practice of the ECHR and the Supreme Court regarding the distinction between protection against incitement to commit a crime and denial of the fact of committing a crime. The appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the absence of provocation by law enforcement agencies, since the acquitted person did not admit his guilt in committing the crime, which contradicts the ECHR’s position that protection against provocation presupposes the accused’s admission of committing the incriminated actions. Also, the appellate court incorrectly assessed the admissibility of the protocol of covert investigative (search) actions (hereinafter – CISD), formally referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, but not taking into account that the circumstances of the case differ from those in which the decisions of the GC SC were made. The court did not provide proper justification for its conclusions regarding the groundlessness of the prosecutor’s appeal arguments in view of the ruling of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of November 8, 2023.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 761/17408/23 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court thaton the cancellation of the release from serving a sentence with probation for a person convicted of theft and robbery committed under martial law against an elderly person.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, supporting the decision that release from serving a sentence with probation was unfounded. The court noted that the appellate court correctly considered the severity of the crimes committed under martial law and against an elderly person, which significantly increases the public danger of the act. It was also taken into account that the court of first instance, when applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code, did not provide sufficient circumstances indicating the possibility of correcting the convicted person without serving a sentence. The court of cassation agreed that the correction of the convicted person is possible only in conditions of isolation from society, and the imposed punishment is minimal and fair. The defense counsel’s arguments about mitigating circumstances were not considered sufficient to change the appellate court’s decision.
3. The court decided to uphold the appellate court’s verdict and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 201/13250/23 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a debt under a loan agreement in the amount of USD 270,000.
2. The court of appeal, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the loan agreement concluded in writing is evidence not only of the fact of the conclusion of the agreement, but also of the fact of the transfer of the amount of money to the borrower. The appellate court took into account that the defendant in the court of first instance admitted the claims and did not object to their satisfaction. The court also noted that the loan agreement was not disputed by any of the parties. The appellate court emphasized that the parties in the agreement determined the loan amount in the equivalent of the US dollar, which provides legal grounds for recovering the debt in foreign currency. Arguments about the artificiality of the claim and abuse of rights were rejected as they were based on assumptions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 369/15556/19 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the village council’s decision on the transfer of a land plot into ownership as unlawful and the cancellation of the ownership right to this plot.
2. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the village council’s decision as unlawful, since it violated the plaintiff’s right to use his land plot, including a part of the common passage in the defendant’s plot. However, the court refused to cancel the defendant’s ownership right, considering it an improper method of protection. The appellate court agreed with this decision, noting that the plaintiff’s right had already been
effectively protected by recognizing the decision of the village council as illegal. The Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the state registration of ownership is derived from the fact of acquiring this right, and the cancellation of the village council’s decision is a sufficient basis for terminating the defendant’s ownership right. The court also took into account changes in legislation regarding state registration of property rights, which require simultaneous recognition, modification, or termination of property rights upon cancellation of the registration decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 530/949/23 dated 01/09/2025**
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 intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment without changes, as the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, including expert opinions, witness testimonies, and protocols of investigative experiments. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the convicted person had caused the bodily injuries that resulted in the victim’s death, and that these injuries could not have been obtained under other circumstances. Also, the court of cassation rejected the defense’s arguments about the court distorting the witness’s testimony and the absence of traces of the crime on the convicted person’s belongings, noting that these circumstances do not cast doubt on the person’s guilt. The court of cassation emphasized that it has no reason to consider the decisions of the courts of previous instances illegal or unfounded, as the courts acted within their powers and in compliance with the norms of procedural law.
3. The court ruled: The judgment of the Kotelva District Court of the Poltava Region dated May 17, 2024, and the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal dated February 17, 2025, in the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel shall be dismissed.
**Case No. 355/900/23 dated 08/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of violating traffic safety rules or the operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle while intoxicated, which resulted in the consequences provided for in Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the resolution does not provide the court’s arguments. It is only known from the text of the resolution that the convicted person’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s judgment remained unchanged. The full text of the resolution will be announced later, and then it will be possible to find out
regarding the arguments of the court.
3. The Court ruled: the judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of July 23, 2024, regarding PERSON_8, shall remain unchanged, and the latter’s cassation appeal shall be dismissed.
Case №317/1598/17 dated 08/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for attempted murder for mercenary motives.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, because it believes that the courts did not adequately substantiate the existence of the convicted person’s intent to specifically deprive the victim of life, and also did not ascertain whether the convicted person performed all the actions he considered necessary to complete the crime, and what objective reasons prevented him from doing so. The Court noted that the formulation of the charge in the verdict is not clear and specific, and the justification for the criminal-legal assessment of the act is contradictory. In particular, it was not clarified whether the burn on the victim’s hand could have been caused while holding the rifle barrel with both hands, as stated in the indictment. Also, after the shot into the floor, the convicted person did not take any other actions to bring the intent to murder to completion, but only took the debt receipts and left the scene, which casts doubt on whether the victim’s life was the main object of the encroachment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case №924/1246/21 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the principal debt, penalty, 3% per annum and inflationary losses under the contract for the performance of work.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out the following violations: the appellate court exceeded the limits of the appellate review, reviewing the decision of the court of first instance not only in the part of the penalty, as requested by the appellant, but also in the part of the principal debt, 3% per annum and inflationary losses, without providing justification for such departure beyond the limits of the appellate review; the appellate court did not fully assess the arguments of the defendant regarding the application of Resolution No. 187, which establishes a moratorium on the fulfillment of obligations to persons associated with the aggressor state, in particular, it did not accurately ascertain whether this resolution is applicable to the plaintiff, taking into account the presence of persons associated with the Russian Federation among the founders; the appellate court allowed contradictions, rejecting the defendant’s arguments about the extension of Resolution No. 187 to the plaintiff, but at the same time upheld the decision of the court of first instance to postpone the execution of the decision on the basis of the same resolution, without explaining how this is consistent with the conclusion that there are no grounds for applying Resolution No. 187 to the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized
that the court of appeal did not take into account the conclusions set forth in the rulings of the Supreme Court of April 15, 2025 in case No. 910/1418/23 and in case No. 914/158/19, and did not accurately ascertain whether Resolution No. 187 applies to the Company in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/2089/25 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under contracts for the supply of coal products.
2. The cassation court, overturning the decision of the court of appeal and upholding the ruling of the court of first instance on leaving the claim without consideration, proceeded from the following: the mandatory conditions for leaving the claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s failure to appear at the court hearing are the simultaneous presence of proper notification of the plaintiff about the time and place of the court hearing and the absence of a statement from the plaintiff requesting that the case be considered in their absence; a party to the case may not waive the right to participate in court hearings on the principle of silence, their expression of will must be formalized; if the plaintiff did not appear at the court hearing, but reported the reasons for the non-appearance, the court must assess the validity of such reasons; the court of first instance found that the plaintiff was properly notified of the court hearing, did not appear, did not report the reasons for the non-appearance, and did not file a statement requesting that the case be considered in their absence, which is the basis for leaving the claim without consideration. The cassation court also noted that the court of appeal did not take into account the conclusions set forth in the rulings of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court of March 17, 2023 in case No. 910/17906/21 and of November 18, 2022 in case No. 905/458/21.
3. The cassation court granted the cassation appeal of LLC “Energo Resource Group”, overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on leaving the claim without consideration.
Case No. 824/131/23 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the issuance of a decision on withdrawal in enforcement proceedings based on a potential conflict of interest.
2. The court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that a private enforcement officer is obliged to declare self-withdrawal in the event of a real or potential conflict of interest with the creditor, as provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. Clarification of the circumstances regarding the existence of a conflict of interest may occur at the stage of receipt of the application for compulsory enforcement of the decision. The creditor’s right to appeal against the decision on self-withdrawal is aimed at ensuring impartiality and objectivity of enforcement proceedings. Су
and also noted that the legislation does not require mandatory initiation of enforcement proceedings to exercise the right to self-recusal. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in this case, which confirm the right of the executor to self-recusal in the presence of a potential conflict of interest.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 824/131/23 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a complaint of a private enforcement officer against the actions of another private enforcement officer regarding the issuance of a decision on recusal in enforcement proceedings.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text lacks the main arguments of the court, which it used when rendering the decision. Only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided, which state that the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the appellate court remains unchanged. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 548/2444/23 dated 08/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of drug-related crimes and thefts.
2. The Supreme Court, having satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, amended the verdict of the appellate court, applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation, establishing a probationary period. The court took into account the circumstances of the case and the personality of the convicted person, in particular, that he is undergoing military service, entrusting the commander of the military unit with supervision over him during his service. This decision was made in order to ensure the possibility of correction of the convicted person without isolation from society, taking into account his positive characteristics and mitigating circumstances. The court decided that the probationary period and supervision by the commander of the unit would contribute to his resocialization.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, amended the verdict of the appellate court, and released the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 902/515/25 dated 08/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is securing a claim before filing a lawsuit to invalidate decisions of the local self-government body, land auctions, purchase and sale agreements and land lease agreements, cancellation of state registration and decisions of the state registrar.
2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decision of the appellate court to refuse to secure the claim, proceeded from the following main arguments:
* Securing the claim by prohibiting obstruction of repair work
the water supply network actually restricts the defendant’s right to use their property and is equivalent to satisfying the claim, which contradicts the CPC of Ukraine.
* The prohibition to carry out construction works on the disputed land plots does not correspond to the balance of interests of the parties and restricts the defendant’s right to use the property.
* The court of first instance did not cite factual circumstances that would indicate a real possibility of complicating or making it impossible to effectively protect the plaintiff’s violated rights in the absence of seizure of the land plots.
* Measures to secure a claim must clearly correspond to the essence and subject of the stated claims, and in this case, they go beyond the scope of the dispute and are aimed at restricting the activities of the defendants.
* The court of appeal, refusing to take measures to secure the claim in the part of imposing seizure on land plots, mistakenly indicated that such measures can be applied only in property disputes, which contradicts the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
* The court of first instance, granting permission to the plaintiff to carry out repair works, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the land plot, which ignores the presumption of legality of the transaction.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 991/5841/24 dated 09/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the return of the lawyer’s appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling on permission to inspect the area in order to detect a mobile phone belonging to the suspect.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court, returning the appeal, did not take into account that the investigating judge’s ruling on permission to inspect was issued in order to detect property belonging to the person challenging the ruling, namely the suspect’s mobile phone. The appellate court did not substantiate why the person who filed the appeal is not included in the circle of persons who have the right to appeal. The court of cassation instance emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental principle guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, as well as Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court of cassation instance also noted that ensuring the right to appellate review is one of the basic principles of legal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 756/9672/21 dated 09/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closing of criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of embezzlement of property in especially large amounts.
reclosure of criminal proceedings based on paragraph 1 of clause 3 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in connection with the closure of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely, on the basis of item 2 of Part 1 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (item 5 of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), due to the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court, upholding the decision to close the proceedings, reasoned that the prosecutor had overturned the investigator’s decision to close the proceedings after the expiration of the pre-trial investigation periods established by Art. 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the prosecutor had the right to overturn the investigator’s decision within 20 days from the moment of its receipt, but failed to do so in a timely manner. Also, the court noted that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which abolish the terms of the pre-trial investigation before the notification of suspicion, cannot be applied to this proceeding, since the trial had already been completed at the time these amendments came into force. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the principle of good governance, according to which the mistakes of state bodies should not be corrected at the expense of citizens. The court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments about the objective impossibility of exercising procedural guidance due to the investigator’s untimely sending of the decision and the reorganization of the prosecutor’s offices, emphasizing that these circumstances are not grounds for renewing procedural deadlines.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the prosecutors.
Case No. 757/25100/23-ц dated 05/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction on the transfer of a share in the authorized capital of Valedus LLC, the cancellation of the entry in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs, the determination of the size of the participants’ shares in the authorized capital of Valedus LLC, as well as the recognition of the invalidity of a clause of the minutes of the general meeting, the act of acceptance and transfer of property and the act of acceptance and transfer of a share in the authorized capital.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of proceedings in the case. The court of appeal reasonably noted that the court of first instance violated the norms of procedural law, since it did not make a decision on the plaintiff’s application to change the subject of the claim and increase the amount of the claims, filed in January 2025. The Supreme Court emphasized that a person who applies to the court independently determines in the statement of claim which of their rights has been violated and what actions need to be taken to restore this right. The court also recalled that the task of civil proceedings is the fair and effective protection of violated rights. Considering that the court of first instance did not consider the application to change the claims, the court of appeal rightfully overturned its ruling and sent the case for further consideration. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the plaintiff’s violation of subject-matter jurisdiction are premature, since the court of first instance must first consider all the stated
no requirements.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 334/672/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_10 and PERSON_9 under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud committed on a particularly large scale or by an organized group).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not specify the specific arguments that the Supreme Court relied on, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. However, given the decision to overturn the appellate court’s verdict and order a new trial, it can be assumed that the cassation court found certain violations of substantive or procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case. It is possible that the evidence was incorrectly assessed, important circumstances of the case were not taken into account, or procedural violations were committed that could have affected the legality and validity of the verdict. In their cassation appeals, the defenders may have pointed to the discrepancy between the court’s conclusions and the actual circumstances of the case, the incorrect application of the criminal law, or violations of the right to defense. More specific reasons will become known after the full text of the ruling is announced.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defenders’ cassation appeals, overturned the Dnipro Court of Appeal’s verdict, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 913/769/21 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the state enforcement officer’s decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings due to the partial cancellation of the court decision.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially overturned the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings, namely, in the part of the claims canceled by the appellate court. The court noted that the enforcement proceedings can be terminated both in whole and in part, in proportion to the canceled claims. Also, the court indicated that there are no grounds for issuing a new writ of execution for the uncanceled part of the decision, since the current order remains in force in this part. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments about procedural violations, noting that the appellate court properly assessed them, and the appellants did not prove that these violations led to an illegal decision. The court also emphasized that a correct in substance and legal decision cannot be overturned for purely formal reasons.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 199/4867/23 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in t
in using the land plot by dismantling the unauthorized constructed real estate object, canceling the state registration and terminating the ownership of the real estate object, as well as canceling the state registration of the land plot.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the disputed land plot was allocated to PERSON_4 for the construction and maintenance of an individual residential building on the basis of a decision of the executive committee of the district council back in 1997, and in 2002 the term of construction was extended to him. These decisions of the local self-government body have not been canceled and have no expiration date, and therefore, it is the rights of PERSON_4, and not the city council, that may be violated by unauthorized construction on this plot. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights to land, and therefore, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim for the demolition of unauthorized construction. The court also noted that the demolition of unauthorized construction is an extreme measure that is applied only if it is impossible to eliminate violations in another way. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they correctly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations and applied the norms of substantive law.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of the Dnipro City Council without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 466/2799/22 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation.
2. The Supreme Court considered the application for the distribution of court costs after the cassation review of the case, where the claim for the cancellation of the dismissal order and reinstatement was initially satisfied, but later the decision of the court of appeal was canceled, and the decision of the court of first instance refusing the claim was upheld. The court of cassation noted that the court fee is imposed on the parties in proportion to the amount of satisfied claims, and since the defendant’s cassation appeal was satisfied and the claim was denied, the defendant is subject to reimbursement of the court fee incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation. At the same time, considering that the plaintiff is exempt from paying the court fee, the amount of the court fee paid by the defendant is subject to compensation at the expense of the state. The court refers to Articles 141, 270, 416 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for the adoption of an additional court decision and ordered the recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of the defendant the amount of the court fee paid for filing the cassation appeal, as compensation at the expense of the state.
Case No. 127/3691/24 dated 03/0**Case No. 9/2025**
[Link to court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129459369](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129459369)
**Case No. 757/3455/16-ц dated 24/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of property (an apartment) as jointly owned property of spouses and the division of this property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed apartment is an object of jointly owned property of the spouses and is subject to division between the parties in equal shares, since the defendant did not rebut the presumption of the community of property of the spouses and did not prove that the disputed property was acquired with funds that belonged to him personally. The courts took into account that the defendant initiated a court process to recognize the validity of the gift agreement of funds only after the opening of proceedings in the case of property division, which may indicate the bad faith of his actions. The court decision on recognizing the validity of the donation agreement, made four years after the purchase of the apartment, is not proof that the apartment was purchased with these funds. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in this evaluation. Regarding the distribution of court costs, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the failure to submit a preliminary calculation of court costs is not an unconditional basis for refusing their reimbursement, and determined the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[Link to court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130097466](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130097466)
**Case No. 761/47440/17 dated 22/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and the invalidation of certain terms of this agreement.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court on the recovery of the debt amount at the US dollar exchange rate, since the agreement defined a monetary equivalent in foreign currency. At the same time, the court did not agree with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the application of a special statute of limitations to claims for the recovery of penalty, since the parties in the agreement agreed to increase the statute of limitations to 10 years. Also, the court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments about the need to reduce the amount of the penalty, which significantly exceeds the amount of the principal debt. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to reduce the amount of the penalty to double the amount of debt under the loan agreement, considering such amount fair and reasonable.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amending the decisions of previous instances in the part of the penalty recovery and redistributing court costs.
[Link to court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130097531](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130097531)
**Case No. 715/609/17 dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict.
