Case №991/1196/24 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_12 of inciting an attempted provision of unlawful benefit to an official and taking possession of another’s property by deception.
2. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the fact that PERSON_12 incited the giving of unlawful benefit to judges, since there is no evidence of PERSON_12’s active role in inducing PERSON_13 to transfer money, and PERSON_13’s testimony is contradictory and not supported by other evidence. The court also noted that the qualification of actions as incitement excludes the possibility of intent to commit such actions after the person-performer has already made a decision to commit the crime. Regarding the charge of fraud, the court found that PERSON_12 did not intend to misappropriate the money, but took actions aimed at influencing the court’s decision, which excludes qualification under the article on fraud, and significant damage to the victim was not proven. Instead, the court found the fact of abuse of influence proven, since PERSON_12, being the head of the State Judicial Administration, received money for promising to influence the court’s decision, which constitutes a crime under Part 2 of Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that it does not matter to whom exactly the funds were intended, the main thing is that they were transferred for the influence that the accused promised to exercise.
3. The court found PERSON_12 guilty of abuse of influence and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years with deprivation of the right to hold positions in state and local self-government bodies for a term of 3 years.
Case №925/1565/24 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of additional agreements to the supply contract and the recovery of penalties for improper performance of obligations.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the termination of additional agreements, which extended the term of delivery, after the actual fulfillment of obligations will not lead to the restoration of the violated right of the plaintiff. The court noted that only a valid contract can be terminated, and in this case the obligations have already been fulfilled. Also, the court took into account that the defendant partially violated the term of delivery, for which it paid a penalty, and did not establish other violations that would be the basis for the recovery of additional penalties. The court emphasized that “term of the contract” and “term/time for fulfillment of the obligation” are not identical concepts. The court of cassation performs the function of a “court of law”, and not a “court of fact”, therefore the re-evaluation of evidence is beyond its powers. The court also noted that it did not find grounds for deviating from the legal position of the Supreme Court, which the complainant referred to.
3. The court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision
of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 902/173/25 dated 09/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. In this case, LLC “VCP “Verbivske” challenged the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in favor of LLC “VTK M’yasoprodukt”. The essence of the dispute was in the original claim of LLC “VTK M’yasoprodukt” against LLC “VCP “Verbivske” for the recovery of debt and a counterclaim of LLC “VCP “Verbivske” against LLC “VTK M’yasoprodukt” for the recovery of another amount. The Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region issued an additional decision on the recovery of expenses for legal assistance, which was reviewed by the appellate court. LLC “VCP “Verbivske” filed a cassation appeal, claiming that the decision of the appellate court is unfounded. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case file, found no grounds for granting the cassation appeal, leaving the decision of the appellate court unchanged. Accordingly, expenses for professional legal assistance shall be recovered in accordance with the decision of the court of first instance, as confirmed by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 909/784/23 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the invalidation of decisions of the general meeting of shareholders and the recovery of court costs.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, thus supporting their conclusions. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case, assessed the evidence, and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law. Perhaps the courts found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the violation of his rights by the decisions of the general meeting of shareholders, or concluded that the appealed decisions comply with the requirements of legislation and the charter of the company. Also, the courts could take into account the position of third parties in the case, in particular, regarding the legality of the decisions taken. It is important that the Supreme Court agreed with the assessment of evidence and legal justification provided by the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 926/1485/14 dated 09/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings due to the reorganization of a state authority.
2. The court refused to satisfy the application for the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings, as the fact of legal succession between the Department of Infrastructure and D was not proven.
The court noted that there was no evidence of succession from the Department of Life Support Systems, nor was there evidence of debt transfer based on a transfer act or distribution balance. The court noted that for procedural succession, it is necessary to establish the fact of the transfer of material rights from the predecessor to another person. The court also indicated that the dispute arose in connection with the breach of contractual obligations, and not with the exercise of public-authority functions, which excludes the possibility of public succession. The court took into account that the Department of Infrastructure is in the process of termination, but not liquidated, and the entry on the termination of the legal entity has not been entered in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. The court also referred to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the distinction between the concepts of succession of a legal entity and succession of rights and obligations of a legal entity.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 904/3203/20 dated 08/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state enforcement officer regarding the non-completion of enforcement proceedings on the obligation of Vilanta 2018 LLC to return a land plot to the territorial community by demolishing a non-residential building.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and the Constitution of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not substantiate the impossibility of enforcing the court decision without the participation of the debtor, and also did not take into account that the court decision remains unenforced, which contradicts the tasks of enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of advance payment of expenses by the recoverer does not release the state enforcement officer from the obligation to ensure the enforcement of the court decision. The Supreme Court also noted that the conclusion of a contract for temporary use of the land plot after the court decision has entered into legal force is not a ground for its non-enforcement. The court of first instance, unlike the appellate court, correctly applied the law, establishing that there were no grounds for satisfying the defendant’s complaint.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the complaint of Vilanta 2018 LLC.
Case No. 909/790/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from TGI System LLC in favor of the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine LLC of penalties and fines for untimely performance of work under the contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, since TGI System LLC untimely performed the work stipulated by the schedule, whichis a violation of the terms of the contract, for which liability in the form of penalty and fine is provided. The court rejected the arguments of “TGI System” LLC that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases are not similar to this one. The court also noted that “TGI System” LLC did not prove with proper evidence the existence of force majeure circumstances or a significant change in circumstances that would release it from liability. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is not within its competence. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part referring to paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the complainant referred to, relate to legal relations that are not similar.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “TGI System” LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/13288/24 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the joint recovery of UAH 2,426,429.89.
2. The Supreme Court decided to close the cassation proceedings in the part of the cassation appeal filed on the basis of paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since circumstances were discovered that make cassation review impossible in this part. In the other part, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged. The court of cassation, presumably, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no grounds for their cancellation or change. The reasons for such a decision may be different, for example, the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of previous instances, the absence of violations that led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute, or the lack of arguments in the cassation appeal to review the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/8745/24 dated 09/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decisions of the general meeting of participants of “DP Derzhavni Loterei” Limited Liability Company.
The court of cassation considered the issue of whether the court of appeal rightfully canceled the ruling of the court of first instance on leaving the statement of claim without consideration, given that the statement of claim was signed by a lawyer for whom there is no information in the Unified Register of Lawyers of Ukraine. The Supreme Court noted that the status of a lawyer is confirmed by a certificate of the right to practice law, and the absence of information about the lawyer in the Unified Register of Lawyers of Ukraine is not an unconditional basis for depriving him of the right to represent inte
client in court. The court also took into account that the circumstances of the validity of this attorney’s powers had already been established in other court decisions. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that challenging the status of an attorney within the framework of an economic dispute is inadmissible, as it effectively transforms this dispute into a dispute regarding the right to practice law. The court indicated that interested parties have the right to initiate a separate legal dispute regarding the status of an attorney or to contact the competent authorities.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 922/1836/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery of debt under a contract for the procurement of works due to non-payment for completed overhaul works.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim. The court of cassation emphasized that for the satisfaction of the claim, not only the fact of the performance of the works is important, but also their compliance with the design and estimate documentation. In this case, the appellate court found that the works were actually performed, as evidenced by the signed acts, the absence of objections from the client, and other documents. The court also noted that the client carried out technical supervision of the performance of the works and did not express any comments, which is confirmed by the signing of acts of hidden works. The defendant’s arguments regarding the necessity of conducting an expert examination were rejected, as the available evidence allows to establish the volume and cost of the performed works. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the absence of evidence of contractual relations between the attorneys’ association and the attorney who represented the interests of the plaintiff is not a basis for refusing to reimburse the costs of legal assistance.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 922/5248/21 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the privatization of non-residential premises, the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of these premises and their recovery in favor of the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, as it was established that the privatization of communal property took place with violations, but the prosecutor missed the limitation period for appealing the contract of sale. The courts noted that a reduced limitation period of three months, established by the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of Statemunicipal property,” and the prosecutor became aware of the violation as early as February 2019, but only filed a lawsuit at the end of 2021. The court also took into account that the claim for recovery of property is derivative of the claim for invalidation of the contract, and since the latter claim was denied due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the recovery of property was also denied. The court of cassation emphasized that the application of the statute of limitations is intended to ensure legal certainty and protect against injustice that may arise when considering cases involving events that occurred in the past.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/1956/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement in the wording proposed by the plaintiff (“Batkivshchyna” LLC), as the parties did not agree on the terms of the contract renewal.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim of “Batkivshchyna” LLC, based on the following: (1) the parties did not reach an agreement on the essential terms of the lease agreement, in particular the amount of rent and the term of the agreement; (2) “Batkivshchyna” LLC did not appeal the decision of the Lannyvska Village Council regarding the terms of the contract renewal; (3) the lessor (Lannyvska Village Council) lawfully expressed its intention to change the essential terms of the agreement, in particular to increase the amount of rent; (4) the good faith performance of contractual obligations by the parties is decisive when assessing the lawfulness of the claims, and in this case there is no agreement between the parties regarding the essential terms of the agreement. The court also took into account that the renewal of a lease agreement concluded before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Counteracting Raiding” is carried out on the terms defined by such agreements, according to the rules in force at the time of their conclusion.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of “Batkivshchyna” LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/2089/23 dated 08/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff in the case on the recovery of debt under the guarantee agreement due to the assignment of the right of claim.
2. The court of appeal reversed the ruling of the court of first instance and granted the application of “FC “Vinstar” LLC to replace the plaintiff, “Megabank” JSC, with its successor, “FC “Vinstar” LLC, in the case on the recovery of debt. The court of appeal found that an assignment agreement was concluded between “Megabank” JSC and “FC “Vinstar” LLC for the right to claim in
requirements, on the basis of which the creditor was replaced in the obligation that is the subject of judicial review. The court took into account that, according to the terms of the agreement, FC Vinstar LLC acquired the right of claim under the guarantee agreement concluded with Dnipropetrovskgaz Zbut LLC. The consent of the representative of Megabank JSC to the replacement of the plaintiff was also taken into account. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that they are consistent with the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Dnipropetrovskgaz Zbut LLC and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/11943/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of operational and economic sanctions and the recovery of funds withheld by the defendant on the basis of these sanctions, due to the plaintiff’s alleged violation of the terms of work under the contract.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the main obligation of the contractor was to perform all the work stipulated in the contract as a whole, and not individual stages. The court found that the contractor performed the work within the general term specified in the contract, therefore, there are no grounds for accruing penalties. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the contract provides for the accrual of penalties for untimely performance of individual stages of work, since such a condition is not expressly stated in the contract. In addition, the court noted that the accrual of penalties for delay in the performance of stages of work, the acceptance and transfer of which is a certain stage of the provision of repair and maintenance services for equipment, or delay in the sequence of work, combined into stages, for each of these stages, under the contract as a whole, is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 61 of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the impossibility of double prosecution for the same offense. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court recognized them as reasonable, but reduced their amount to UAH 28,000, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 918/1177/23 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of a preliminary contract for the sale of a small privatization object between an individual entrepreneur and the Regional Office of the State Property Fund.
2. The court of cassation, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the redemption price of the privatization object should be determined on the basis of an independent property valuation, carried out in accordance with the current legislation at the time of the conclusion of the purchase and sale agreement, and not at the time of acceptance.
that the valuation of the integral improvements made by the lessee must be taken into account in the final settlement for the privatization object, but this does not mean that the value of the object must be determined based on an assessment made in previous periods. The court noted that the Individual Entrepreneur did not prove that the terms of the preliminary agreement as drafted by the Regional Office are unreasonable and illegal.
4. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts – without changes, refusing to satisfy the claim of the Individual Entrepreneur.
Case No. 922/3820/24 dated 11/09/2025
5. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Eastern Interregional Territorial Department of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU).
6. The decision does not state the court’s arguments.
7. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the Eastern Interregional Territorial Department of the AMCU without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Eastern Economic Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 916/4532/24 dated 11/09/2025
8. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s request to oblige the parties to refrain from fulfilling obligations under the contract, which the prosecutor considers void due to violations of public procurement procedures.
9. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the request to refrain from actions under a void contract, which has already been partially executed, is not an effective way to protect the interests of the state, since the satisfaction of such a claim in itself will not lead to the return of funds. The court noted that an effective way of protection in this case would be to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the void transaction, i.e., restitution. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the court’s obligation to apply the consequences of invalidity on its own initiative, since this is the right, not the obligation, of the court. The judges emphasized that the court’s task is to resolve the dispute in the most effective way to avoid repeated appeals to the court. The court also noted that it cannot comment on the presence or absence of violations during the procurement, as it refused to satisfy the claim due to an improper method of protection.
10. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 344/8472/22 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land management technical documentation as invalid and the cancellation of state registration of real property rights to a land plot.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the land management technical documentation is not a title document and cannot be recognized as invalid, as it is only a collection of textual and graphic materials that do not have independent legal significance. The court also noted that in case of detection of inaccuracies in the technical documentation, there is an established procedure for their correction according to the Law of Ukraine “On Land Management”, and not the recognition of all documentation as invalid. In addition, the courts of previous instances established that it is the land plot of the plaintiff that overlaps with the plot of the defendant, and not vice versa. The court also took into account that the requirement to cancel state registration is derived from the requirement to recognize the technical documentation as invalid, and since the first requirement is not subject to satisfaction, then the second one as well.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 761/40406/23 dated 10/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in the court of cassation instance.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the application for a supplementary decision regarding the distribution of court costs, was guided by the following arguments:
* Reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance is one of the main principles of civil proceedings.
* The amount of expenses for legal assistance must be
which is confirmed by relevant evidence (contract, act of services rendered, payment documents).
* The amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent by the lawyer, and the significance of the case for the party.
* The court takes into account the established practice of the ECHR regarding the criteria for reimbursement of legal costs (reality, necessity, reasonableness).
* The court takes into account the defendant’s objections to the claimed amount of expenses, but independently verifies their compliance with the criteria.
* The court takes into account that the applicant has provided evidence to confirm the scope of legal services provided, the work performed, their cost, and expenses incurred in the court of cassation instance.
3. The court partially granted the application and recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 7,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 824/86/24 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an enforcement document as not subject to enforcement in a case on the recognition and granting of permission for the enforcement of a decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court.
2. In the decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the review of an arbitration decision by national courts is limited to the grounds defined in Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). The court noted that the party challenging the arbitration decision must prove the existence of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of this decision. The Supreme Court indicated that national courts do not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in arbitration or review the arbitration decision on its merits. Also, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of the finality of arbitration decisions, as this contributes to the effectiveness of international commercial arbitration. In this case, SE NNEGC Energoatom was unable to prove the existence of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the arbitration decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of SE NNEGC Energoatom and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 509/639/22 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership rights to an apartment, storage room, and garage space located in a residential complex between an individual (plaintiff) and a servicing cooperative (defendant).
2. The court granted the claim, as the plaintiff fully fulfilled their obligations under the memorandum and instructive declarations, having paid all the share contributions for the real estate objects, while the defendant did not transfer the documents necessary for registering the ownership right. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the corporate nature of the dispute, noting that
The dispute arose between an associated member of the cooperative and the cooperative regarding the payment of membership fees and is not related to the management or activities of the cooperative. The court also took into account that the decision of the general meeting of the cooperative on additional contributions was declared invalid, as it violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court emphasized that the recognition of ownership is an effective way to protect the rights of an investor who has fulfilled the terms of the investment agreement, but whose ownership is disputed.
3. The court decided to recognize the plaintiff’s ownership of the apartment, storage room, and garage space.
Case No. 932/2343/22 dated 09/10/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage (apartment) and eviction of residents due to non-fulfillment of the terms of the loan agreement.
2. The court refused to satisfy the bank’s claim, as the bank changed the term of performance of the main obligation by sending a demand for early repayment of the loan, which, according to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, terminates the bank’s right to accrue interest stipulated by the loan agreement. The court noted that after changing the term of performance of the obligation, the bank has the right only to recover the amounts provided for in the second part of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (inflationary losses and 3% per annum). The court also took into account that the bank had already applied to the court with a claim for recovery of debt under the same loan agreement, and its claims were satisfied. The appellate court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the court of first instance mistakenly applied the statute of limitations, as the claim is unfounded. Since the main claim for foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage is not subject to satisfaction, the claim for eviction also cannot be satisfied, as it is derived from the first one.
3. The court of cassation left the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 335/8757/23 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state executor to suspend the enforcement proceedings for the recovery of wages from a joint-stock company that is in the process of privatization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the creditor’s complaint. The court noted that according to the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the state executor is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings if the debtor’s property is included in the list of privatization objects. The court emphasized that this restriction is legal, as it aims to ensure the public interest in the effective privatization of state property. The court also took into account that although privatization has been ongoing since 2018, this does not make the actions
