**Case No. 725/6970/24 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of a fact of legal significance, namely the fact of the father’s independent upbringing and maintenance of a minor child for the purpose of receiving social assistance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the application, reasoning that the case concerns a dispute over law, namely the participation of one of the parents in the upbringing of the child, which should be considered in the order of claim proceedings, and not separate proceedings. The court noted that establishing the fact of a father’s independent upbringing of a child is related to the circumstances regarding the mother’s failure to fulfill parental responsibilities, which affects the rights and interests of the child. The court also pointed out that family responsibilities are inalienable, and it is impossible to completely renounce the responsibilities for raising a child. The court emphasized that the institution of separate proceedings cannot be used to create prejudicial facts in order to further resolve a dispute over law. The court also took into account that the parents had entered into an agreement regarding the exercise of parental rights, which indicates the existence of a civil dispute regarding the fulfillment of the terms of this agreement.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 741/1921/24 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation of a woman and a deceased serviceman as one family without marriage registration for the purpose of receiving a one-time financial assistance.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence confirming the fact of their cohabitation with the deceased, maintaining a common household, and the existence of mutual rights and obligations. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, the fact of the birth of a joint child, money transfers from the deceased to the plaintiff’s card, as well as the plaintiff’s receipt of financial assistance for burial from the military unit of the deceased. The court noted that the law does not define an exhaustive list of evidence confirming the fact of cohabitation, therefore the evaluation of evidence is the responsibility of the court. The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for determining a family, namely cohabitation, common household and mutual rights and obligations. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 463/5556/24 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against the ruling of the investigating judge granting permission for temporary access.
access to the documents of the village council.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, reasoning that the right to appeal is not absolute and may be limited by law. According to paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only those rulings on temporary access to documents that deprive an individual entrepreneur or legal entity of the ability to conduct their activities are subject to appeal. The court noted that the applicant had not proven that the seizure of documents made it impossible for the village council to operate. The appellate court acted lawfully in refusing to open proceedings on the basis of Part 4 of Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the ruling of the investigating judge is not subject to appeal. Refusal to open appellate proceedings is not a restriction on the right of access to court, since appellate appeal is only possible in cases expressly provided for by law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 751/5974/24 dated 09/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of applying special confiscation to the property of the convicted person, which was used to commit the crime.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, which decided to confiscate the convicted person’s bath complex, as it was used for the provision of sexual services. The court noted that special confiscation is a way to protect society, not a punishment, and aims to remove property related to the crime from circulation. The court took into account that the convicted person facilitated the commission of the crime by providing premises for the provision of sexual services and received income from this activity. The court also took into account the property status of the convicted person, the presence of other property, and concluded that the confiscation of the bath complex would not constitute an excessive individual burden for her and would not violate the fair balance between the interests of society and the protection of her rights. The court emphasized that without the use of this property, the commission of the crime would have been impossible or too difficult.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 757/8091/22-ц dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation and the obligation to refute inaccurate information disseminated by the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that the disputed statement does not contain factual data on the commission of crimes by the plaintiff, but is an expression of the subjective opinion of the defendant and his оценочными judgments. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, indicating that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, since it considered the case in the absence of the plaintiff.
that the court of appeal considered the case in the absence of the party and their representative, without duly notifying them of the date, time, and place of the court hearing, which took place during the “Air Raid Alert” signal. The court emphasized that the court of appeal should have postponed the hearing, considering the objective obstacles to the appearance of the parties to the proceedings and the need to ensure their right to participate in the court hearing. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the priority is to preserve human life and health, especially in the context of military aggression, and courts should take this into account when deciding on the postponement of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 2322/395/11 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction and decisions of the state enforcement officer to open enforcement proceedings for the compulsory collection of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the debtor’s complaint, on the following grounds:
* The enforcement documents were submitted for execution within the established three-year period, as the period was interrupted by the submission of the enforcement document for execution.
* The debtor’s arguments regarding improper certification of the copy of the bank representative’s power of attorney were not supported by proper evidence.
* The opening of enforcement proceedings took place on the basis of a re-submitted enforcement document within the period provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.
* The courts of previous instances found that the actions of the state enforcement officer complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, and the applicant did not prove otherwise.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal boil down to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal in the appealed part unchanged.
**Case No. 521/9478/19 dated 09/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the apartment sale agreement, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership, and the restoration of the registration of ownership of the apartment, which was part of the inheritance property.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the court of appeal, noted that the plaintiff chose an inappropriate way to protect their rights as an heir, since in this case, a more effective way to protect would be to file a claim for recovery of property from the last acquirer of the property. The court emphasized that an heir who has accepted the inheritance has the right to demand property from a bona fide acquirer on the basis of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, especially if the propertybut was disposed of from the possession of the testator against his will. The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court did not take into account the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the proper method of protection in such disputes, namely a claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court of cassation emphasized that the choice of an improper method of protection is a basis for refusing to satisfy the claim. Considering the need to examine the evidence and establish the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court decided to send the case for a new appellate review.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 308/16165/22 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of three individuals accused of embezzlement of budget funds and forgery in office during the construction of an administrative building.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, agreeing with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the guilt of PERSON_6, PERSON_7, and PERSON_8 in committing the crimes imputed to them had not been proven. The courts found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendants’ intent to misappropriate funds, their mercenary motives and purpose, and their prior conspiracy. It is important that the construction was completed, the object was put into operation, and the examination confirmed the compliance of the performed works with their value. The courts also признали визнали inadmissible some of the prosecution’s evidence due to violations of the procedural order of their receipt.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 279/2123/24 dated 09/10/2025
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 murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment, as the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding significant violations of the criminal procedure law were not confirmed. The court noted that a poor-quality audio and video recording of the court session, where the accused spoke in debates, is not an unconditional ground for overturning the court decision, since it was not proven how this affected the legality of the decision. In addition, although the court of first instance did not react to the new circumstances reported by the accused in his final statement, the appellate court verified these circumstances and found them to be untrue. The court also took into account that the accused constantly changed his testimony, which was regarded as an attempt to evade responsibility.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 754/6069/18 dated 09/10/2025**
2. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for inflicting grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim.
3. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the guilt of the convicted person proven based on the totality of evidence, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and other case materials. The court noted that there were long-standing hostile relations between the convicted person and the victim, during which the convicted person had already inflicted bodily harm on the victim. Also, the court took into account the inconsistency and contradictory nature of the convicted person’s testimonies regarding the circumstances of the crime and his behavior after the discovery of the victim’s body. The court emphasized that the standard of proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” was met, as the totality of established circumstances excludes any other reasonable understanding of the event other than the guilt of the convicted person. The court also noted that the proof of the circumstances of the crime can be based on the analysis of a set of circumstantial evidence, which in this case confirms the guilt of the convicted person.
4. The court ruled to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court without changes, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130194127](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130194127)”>**Case No. 619/9624/24 dated 09/09/2025**
5. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to approve the plea agreement and returning the criminal proceedings to the prosecutor.
6. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that in accordance with Art. 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, only those court decisions that are expressly provided for by this Code can be appealed in appellate proceedings, and the ruling on the refusal to approve the agreement does not belong to such decisions. The court emphasized that Part 4 of Art. 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of appealing the return of the indictment, and not the return of criminal proceedings as a result of the court’s refusal to approve the agreement. Also, the Supreme Court noted that even the failure of the court of first instance to clarify the opinion of the parties regarding the continuation of court proceedings in the general procedure does not give grounds for appealing the ruling on the refusal to approve the agreement. The court took into account that the prosecutor in the court hearing expressed doubts about the agreement, which indicates her disagreement with the continuation of the proceedings in the general procedure.
7. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court without changes, and the cassation appeal of the prosecutor – without satisfaction.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130194197](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130194197)”>**Case No. 756/14999/23 dated 09/11/2025**
8. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal produConstruction, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide the court’s arguments. The full text of the court decision is necessary to provide complete information.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 914/1027/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the constituent assembly of the Condominium of Apartment Building Owners and the cancellation of its state registration.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that in order to protect the right in court, it is necessary to establish the existence of a violated right or interest of the plaintiff by the defendant. The court emphasized that not all violations during the convocation and holding of the general meeting of the Condominium of Apartment Building Owners are unconditional grounds for declaring decisions invalid. It is important that the plaintiff substantiates how the appealed decisions violate his rights and interests, and not just expresses disagreement with the activities of the Condominium of Apartment Building Owners. The court also took into account that the cancellation of the state registration of the Condominium of Apartment Building Owners, which has already been established and is operating, will not restore the plaintiff’s rights, but may violate the interests of other co-owners. The court noted that it is not within its competence to re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 317/3140/15-к dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments that it relied on when making the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. It is only known that the court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
3. The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 756/14999/23 dated 11/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for illegal acquisition and storage of narcotic drugs for the purpose of sale in large quantities (Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code).
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance in the part concerning the imposition of punishment, considering that the local court groundlessly applied Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code, imposing a punishment below the minimum limit and releasing from serving the sentence with probation. The court of appeal did not recognize active assistance in solving the crime as a mitigating circumstance.
since the accused did not provide information that had not already been established by the investigation. The appellate court took into account the severity of the crime, the large amount of narcotic substance, the purpose of distribution, the lack of sufficient grounds for mitigating the punishment, and concluded that it was necessary to impose a real punishment in the form of imprisonment. The court of appeal noted that the presence of illness and disability is not a sufficient basis for a significant reduction in the degree of severity of the crime. The appellate court, having weighed all the circumstances, imposed the minimum penalty provided for by the sanction of the article, considering it fair and necessary for the correction of the convicted person.
4. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 463/5556/24 dated 09/09/2025
The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Lviv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the head of the Slavska settlement council.
The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal. In making this decision, the Supreme Court was guided by Articles 376, 434, 436, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court apparently agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that there were no grounds for opening appellate proceedings, although the specific reasons for this decision remain unknown given the absence of the full text of the ruling. It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s ruling is final and not subject to appeal, which emphasizes the completion of the judicial process in this case. The final reasons for the decision will be known after the full text of the ruling is announced.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 725/173/24 dated 11/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding criminal proceedings against three individuals accused of committing crimes related to drugs and money laundering.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court erroneously overturned the conviction of PERSON_9 for previous crimes related to theft due to the decriminalization of the act, as decriminalization did not occur. The court also stated that the appellate court incorrectly applied the provisions on the totality of crimes when sentencing PERSON_9. The Supreme Court decided to exclude from the appellate court’s ruling the reference to the cancellation of the conviction of PERSON_9 in connection with decriminalization and the closure of criminal proceedings, and also excluded the reference to Part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code from the first instance court’s judgment regarding PERSON_9, leaving the remaining court decisions unchanged.
3. The SupThe Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court’s ruling and the first instance court’s verdict regarding PERSON_9, and left the remaining court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 2-о-29/11 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings based on the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case regarding the establishment of the fact of the applicant’s residence with the testator at the time of the inheritance opening.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, justifying it by stating that the right to appeal lies with the parties to the case and individuals whose rights and obligations are directly violated by the court decision. For individuals who did not participate in the case, a necessary condition for appeal is the court’s decision on matters concerning their rights, freedoms, interests, and/or obligations. The court noted that the first instance court’s decision does not contain conclusions regarding the rights and obligations of the appellant; therefore, the appellate court reasonably closed the proceedings. The court of cassation also considered that the appellant had not provided evidence that the first instance court’s decision directly affects their rights and interests. Furthermore, the court of cassation took into account previous court decisions concerning the appellant’s inheritance rights and established that the appellant had already applied to the court for the protection of their inheritance rights but was denied due to the expiration of the deadline for accepting the inheritance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 922/4134/21 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the privatization of non-residential premises of communal property, carried out in violation of the requirements of legislation on privatization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim, because: firstly, the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, since the claim for the recovery of property is a proper method of protection; secondly, the last acquirer of the property is bona fide, and the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer violates Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it places an excessive burden of responsibility on them for the actions of others; thirdly, the courts took into account the criteria of reality, reasonableness, justification, and proportionality when resolving the issue of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the party for professional legal assistance. The court of cassation noted that for cassation review, the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of a legal norm in a particular case are not sufficient; a mandatory condition is the similarity of legal relations in the case in which the Supreme Court made conclusions, with legal relations.
Regarding the procedural issues in the case being reviewed, the court also noted that the prosecutor is not the plaintiff in the case and therefore does not participate in the distribution of court costs.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 212/621/25 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to enter information into the ERDR and the return of the appeal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not take into account that the person appealing the investigating judge’s ruling was present only when the operative part was announced, and received the full text of the ruling later, which could affect the timeliness of filing the appeal. The court emphasized that ignorance of the reasons for the investigating judge’s decision may be a valid reason for reinstating the term for appeal. The appellate court did not properly verify the appellant’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. Also, the appellate court referred to the resolution of the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, but did not take into account its provision that ignorance of the reasons for the decision may be a valid reason for reinstating the term.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 127/16264/22 dated 09/09/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victims.
The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, indicating that the appellate court did not properly assess the circumstances of the case from the point of view of the possibility of applying Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for mitigation of punishment in the presence of certain mitigating circumstances, the absence of aggravating circumstances, and the defendant’s acknowledgment of guilt. The court noted that the convicted person admitted the factual circumstances, expressed regret for the act, took measures to compensate for the damage, sincerely repented, had no prior convictions, and was positively characterized. Taking into account these circumstances, as well as the conclusion of the Probation Center on the possibility of correcting the convicted person without deprivation of liberty, the Court concluded that it was possible to mitigate the main punishment.
The court changed the judgments of previous instances, mitigating the main punishment of the convicted person to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment on the basis of Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
**Case No. 910/11152/24 dated 09/15/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the distribution of court costs, namely the costs of p
professional legal assistance incurred by the bank in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
The court, partially granting the bank’s application, was guided by the fact that although the bank had provided evidence of incurring expenses for legal assistance, their amount was inflated. The court took into account that the bank’s legal position did not change during the consideration of the case, and the lawyer who provided assistance in the cassation instance was already familiar with the details of the case. The court also considered excessive the costs of making copies of the cassation appeal and sending them by mail, since it is possible to submit documents in electronic form. The court emphasized that the amount of reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance should be proportional to the subject of the dispute, necessary and justified, and also meet the criteria of reality of attorney’s fees. Taking these circumstances into account, the court decided to reduce the amount to be recovered from the defendant in favor of the bank, considering the claimed amount disproportionate and excessive.
The court decided to recover from Joint Stock Company “Ukrgazvydobuvannya” in favor of Joint Stock Company “Commercial Bank “Globus” UAH 100,000 for professional legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 398/6934/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings in connection with the assignment of the right of claim under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the application for replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings. The court noted that the replacement of the claimant in the enforcement document is allowed at any stage of the judicial process. In addition, the courts did not take into account that, according to current legislation, the terms defined by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” were interrupted for the period of martial law, which is currently ongoing. The court emphasized that the procedural purpose of replacing a party is to obtain the execution of a court decision, and in the absence of grounds for resuming the enforcement proceedings that have been completed, achieving this goal is impossible. The court also noted that together with the application for legal succession, if the enforcement proceedings are completed, the applicant must take procedural actions aimed at resuming the enforcement proceedings, and the court must assess these issues comprehensively.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal instance.
Case No. 910/268/23 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of Ferrexpo AG against the actions of the state executor regarding the non-execution of the decision of the appellate commercial court.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, based on the fact that the decision of the Commercial Court, on the basis of which the enforcement proceedings were opened, entered into legal force and was not overturned. Ap
The appellate court, having overturned the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the satisfaction of the complaint against the actions of the state enforcement officer, issued a virtually identical decision also satisfying the complaint against the actions of the state enforcement officer. The cancellation of the enforcement officers’ decrees of May 15, 2023, will lead to a significant delay in the execution of the mandatory court decision. The court of cassation stated that excessive formalism does not contribute to the real resolution of the dispute and contradicts the objectives of commercial proceedings. Also, the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of the Fund that, considering the fact that the decrees of the SES of May 15, 2023, were not appealed by anyone, by filing a complaint in March 2025 against the actions of the acting Head of the SES, Donets Ya.V., the third party is actually trying to appeal and cancel the decrees of the SES of May 15, 2023, in an extra-procedural manner. Regarding the closure of appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellants that any ruling of the court of first instance is subject to appeal either independently or together with the court’s decision on the merits of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturning the постанову (ruling/decree) of the appellate commercial court in the part concerning the closure of appellate proceedings and sending the case back in this part for continued consideration, and left the court decisions unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 757/15527/22-ц dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages and material expenses related to the allegedly unlawful actions of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) regarding the failure to enter information about a criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (URPI) based on his application.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, proceeded from the following:
* According to Articles 56 of the Constitution of Ukraine and 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CC of Ukraine), the state compensates for damages caused by illegal actions of state authorities, but the plaintiff must prove the existence of damage, the illegality of actions, and the causal relationship between them.
* The ruling of the investigating judge on the satisfaction of the complaint against the inaction of NABU is not an unconditional proof of the unlawfulness of NABU’s actions but only indicates the realization of the right to appeal.
* The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact that he suffered moral damage, the unlawfulness of the actions, and the causal relationship between the damage and the actions of NABU.
* The court noted that the realization of the right to appeal a decision, action, or inaction of an investigator or prosecutor during pre-trial investigation, in the event of satisfaction of such a complaint, constitutes sufficiently fair satisfaction for compensation of the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
* There are no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence, as this goes beyond the powers of the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court with
left the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 760/13740/22 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense attorney against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed in large amounts (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. The court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part, but the decision to overturn the ruling of the appellate court may be related to significant violations of the criminal procedure law, incorrect application of the law on criminal liability, or the discrepancy between the court’s conclusions and the actual circumstances of the case. Also, the court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which were not taken into account by the appellate court. To fully understand the court’s motives, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the full text of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the person in the form of detention.
Case No. 910/3350/21 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding the imposition of a fine on JSC “Kyivoblgaz” for abuse of monopoly position in the market of natural gas distribution services.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim of JSC “Kyivoblgaz”, proceeded from the fact that the AMCU rightfully established the monopoly (dominant) position of the company in the gas distribution market, as well as the fact of abuse of this position, which was expressed in making unreasonable demands to the participants in the procurement of gas meters through the “ProZorro” system. The court emphasized that the AMCU proved the presence of violations of legislation on protection of economic competition in the actions of “Kyivoblgaz”, namely creating obstacles for other market participants. The court also noted that commercial courts should not take over the functions of the AMCU regarding the establishment of the boundaries of commodity markets, but should check the correctness of the AMCU’s application of the relevant legal norms. The court took into account that the requirement regarding the mandatory availability of a test report according to a specific program (RM 081/39.434-2014) was unreasonable, since this program is not mandatory according to the legislation of Ukraine, and such a requirement created obstacles for the participation of potential participants in tenders. The court also rejected the applicant’s reference to the fact that the AMCU incorrectly established the existence of control between the companies, since the AMCU proved the existence of control relations between the companies.
within the meaning of Article 1 of Law No. 2210.
3. The court dismissed JSC “Kyivoblgaz”‘s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 334/672/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict, by which PERSON_8 and PERSON_9 were found guilty of fraud on a particularly large scale, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict, pointing out the following violations: the appellate court did not specify what exactly the convicted persons appropriated – property or funds, which complicates understanding the essence of the charge; the appellate court unreasonably did not interrogate the accused, referring to their refusal to testify on the basis of Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is not true; the appellate court did not properly verify the position of the accused and did not refute their arguments, which is important when overturning an acquittal and issuing a guilty verdict; the appellate court did not conduct a comprehensive and complete analysis of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, in particular, did not take into account the arguments of the defense’s cassation appeals. Considering that the appellate court is actually the last instance for a fair trial, the standards of proof must be the highest, and any simplifications are unacceptable.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 910/14130/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the assignment of claim agreement, which, according to the plaintiff, was concluded to avoid fulfilling monetary obligations to him.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim for recognition of the invalidity of the assignment of claim agreement. The court noted that in order to qualify the agreement as fraudulent (i.e., concluded to the detriment of creditors), it is necessary to prove a set of certain criteria, in particular, alienation of property in the presence of significant debt, alienation after the filing of a lawsuit, alienation in favor of a related party, absence of other property to repay obligations. In this case, the courts found that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all the necessary signs of fraud, in particular, the circumstances of the deterioration of the defendant’s property status as a result of the conclusion of the disputed agreement were not confirmed. In addition, the court took into account that the requirement for the debtor to refrain from carrying out any economic operations in order to prevent possible abuses is disproportionate and excessive. The court also noted that the mere fact of the defendants’ relatedness is not a sufficient basis for recognizing a transaction as fraudulent.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of
to satisfaction, and the ruling of the court of appeal – without changes.
**Case №487/5115/24 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the qualification of the actions of a person who stole property as robbery committed under martial law, rather than theft, and the issue of closing the criminal proceedings due to the decriminalization of the act.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as the actions of the convicted person were correctly qualified as robbery, because the victim discovered the criminal actions, and, despite this, the convicted person continued them in order to seize the property. The court noted that robbery differs from theft in that the perpetrator is aware that his actions are noticed by the victim or other persons, and still continues the theft. The court also took into account the testimony of the victim and the protocol of the investigative experiment, which confirm that the convicted person was aware that his actions were exposed. In addition, the court indicated that changes to the legislation regarding petty theft do not apply to robbery, so there are no grounds for closing the criminal proceedings. The appellate court properly verified these circumstances and reasonably upheld the verdict.
3. The court ruled to uphold the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the court of appeal without changes, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
**Case №317/3140/15-к dated 09/09/2025**
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of illegal imprisonment, illegal entry into a dwelling, and hooliganism with the use of weapons.
The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, which upheld the acquittal of the court of first instance. The appellate court agreed that the evidence of the prosecution was inadmissible because the pre-trial investigation was conducted by an unauthorized body due to violations of the rules of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the prosecutor’s instruction to the investigative department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Zaporizhzhia region to conduct the investigation is not a violation of the rules of jurisdiction, since the crimes of which PERSON_6 was accused fall under the jurisdiction of the National Police, and the jurisdiction of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Zaporizhzhia region extends to the entire region. The court also indicated that the provisions of Part 5 of Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prohibit an investigative unit of a higher level from conducting a pre-trial investigation immediately after entering information about a criminal offense into the ERDR. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not properly verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence and did not provide comprehensive answers to them.
The court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case №724/1590/1**
**Case №9 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the indictment of the head of the education department for abuse of office, misuse of budget funds, and making false entries in official documents during the procurement of school buses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the defendant’s actions did not contain intent to obtain unlawful gain, necessary for qualification under Article 364 of the Criminal Code, since the prosecutor’s office in another proceeding asserted the deception of officials by the supplier. The court noted that the supplier’s deception does not negate the official’s obligation to conscientiously perform their duties, therefore, improper performance of duties was correctly qualified under Article 367 of the Criminal Code (official negligence). The court also agreed with the absence of a crime under Article 366 of the Criminal Code (official forgery) due to the lack of intent to make false entries, again, due to the supplier’s deception. Regarding the accusation under Article 210 of the Criminal Code (misuse of budget funds), the court confirmed that violations of public procurement rules do not prove misuse of funds. Although the appellate court did not specify the specific positions that the convicted person cannot hold, this did not affect the legality of the decision, as he was released from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case №724/1590/19 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the verdict and ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6.
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide any arguments of the court. It only appears from the text that the court of cassation considered the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the verdict and ruling of the appellate court. At the same time, the full text of the resolution, which should contain the reasons for the decision, will be announced later. Currently, it is impossible to determine the arguments that the court used when making the decision, as only the operative part is available.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict and ruling of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case №725/173/24 dated 11/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which amended the first instance court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking, and also overturned the previous verdict regarding the same person due to the decriminalization of the act.
2. The Supreme Court considered the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, who argued that the appellate court, by overturning the previous verdict, interfered with a court decision that had already
that had entered into legal force, which is a violation of the criminal procedure law. The cassation court agreed that the appellate court had committed a material violation by overturning the verdict that had entered into legal force. However, the court took into account that the reversal of the appellate court’s ruling would worsen the position of the convicted person, as the appellate court had reduced the sentence. It was also taken into account that the convicted person had been conditionally released on parole to perform military service under a contract. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided that a new trial in the appellate court would not lead to a different result, and therefore, in order not to violate the right to a fair trial, it decided to partially grant the cassation appeal, excluding from the appellate court’s ruling references to the reversal of the previous verdict and excluding from the first instance court’s verdict references to Part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code, which concerned the aggregate of offenses.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the ruling of the appellate court and the verdict of the first instance court regarding references to the reversal of the previous verdict and the aggregate of offenses, but upheld the main decision regarding the sentence of the convicted person.
Case No. 127/16264/22 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle, which caused the death of the victim or other serious consequences).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the convicted person’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instances. The court, applying Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, mitigated the imposed sentence. This means that the court took into account certain circumstances that mitigate the convicted person’s responsibility, which allowed reducing the term of imprisonment. The court probably took into account sincere remorse, voluntary compensation for damages, positive character references, or other circumstances provided by law that allow for the imposition of a sentence below the lowest limit established by the sanction of the article. The cassation court, reviewing the case, could have concluded that the courts of previous instances did not fully take these circumstances into account, which became the basis for mitigating the sentence.
3. The court ruled to amend the verdict and ruling of the previous instances, mitigating the sentence of the convicted PERSON_5 to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Case No. 607/21865/23 dated 10/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the establishment of the fact of family relations between the plaintiff and the deceased person for the purpose of inheritance.
The court dismissed the claim for the establishment of the fact of family relations, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient
did not provide any evidence to confirm her family relationship with the deceased aunt, namely, that she is her cousin. The courts of previous instances noted that the plaintiff did not prove that PERSON_3 was a sister of PERSON_4, which is a key link in establishing the family relationship. The court also took into account that the inheritance had already been recognized as ownerless and transferred to the ownership of the territorial community by a court decision, and the plaintiff’s previous application to establish the fact of family relations was dismissed due to the existence of a dispute about the law. The testimonies of witnesses provided by the plaintiff were not recognized as a sufficient legal basis for establishing the fact of family relations in the absence of other supporting documents. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies, and proof cannot be based on assumptions.
The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 536/341/20 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim).
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, supporting the conclusion that the guilt of PERSON_6 had been proven. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a reevaluation of the evidence and an appeal against the factual circumstances of the case, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, expert opinions, as well as the absence of evidence that bodily injuries were inflicted on the victim by other persons or under other circumstances. The court also noted that the appellate court reasonably took into account the physical capabilities of the convicted person, despite his leg injury, and the absence of evidence that the victim had bodily injuries before meeting PERSON_6. The court rejected the arguments about inadmissible methods of inquiry, as they had already been verified and not confirmed. The court also agreed with the conclusion that there were grievous bodily injuries, which excludes the requalification of the actions of the convicted person.
3. The court ruled: To leave the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal of April 16, 2025, regarding PERSON_6 unchanged, and to dismiss his cassation appeal.
Case No. 208/2405/15-ц dated 09/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser, the cancellation of the record of state registration of ownership of immovable property, and the restoration of state registration of ownership of immovable property.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the disputed apartments were disposed of from the possession of the plaintiff not byof his will, as his signature on the sale and purchase agreements was forged, which was established by court decisions that have become legally binding; the defendant acquired ownership of the disputed property under an agreement with a person who did not have the right to dispose of it; the exclusion of apartments from the housing stock did not lead to the creation of new real estate objects; the legal mechanism of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides for the recovery of property specifically from the last acquirer. The court also pointed out that the person from whom the property is claimed is not deprived of the opportunity to protect their rights in a legal way, by making claims against the person whose actions caused the violation. The court of cassation also noted that it sees no grounds for overturning the appealed court decisions, as the courts in this case, along with the appropriate method of protecting the violated right (recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession), additionally indicated the cancellation of the state registration of the ownership right of the illegal possessor and the restoration of the state registration of the plaintiff’s ownership right, which does not affect the essence of the decision.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 640/13498/18 dated 09/04/2025**
5. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the assignment agreement of the right of claim under the mortgage agreement, the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights and their encumbrances, as well as the recovery of real estate from someone else’s illegal possession.
6. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the private notary violated the procedure for foreclosing on the mortgaged property, as proper evidence of sending and receiving by the plaintiff a written demand to remedy the violation of the main obligation, as provided for by Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage,” was not obtained. The court noted that the evidence provided by the notary did not contain information about the storage of the notification at the post office for 30 days and the completion of this period from the moment the mortgagor received the demand. The court also emphasized that since the alienation of the property took place in violation of the procedure established by law, it cannot be considered as having taken place with the owner’s consent. The court of cassation confirmed the lawfulness of the application by the courts of previous instances of the mechanism for protecting the right, provided for by Articles 387, 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since there are no contractual legal relations between the original owner and the last acquirer of the property. The court rejected the applicant’s reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, as the factual circumstances and grounds for the claims in these cases differed.
7. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the first instance and appellate courts.
