Case No. 10/24/2011/5003(902/1144/24) of 09/11/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the obligation of the Executive Committee of the Vinnytsia City Council to execute the decision regarding the development of a mechanism for compensation of the value of the property of LLC VKP “Moris”.
2. The cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim, noting that the plaintiff requested to oblige the defendant to execute the decision of the executive committee regarding the development of a mechanism for compensating the value of the property, although in fact, a decision on the development of such a mechanism was not adopted. The court emphasized that it is a law enforcement body and cannot substitute for executive authorities. An effective way of protection in this case would be to file a claim for the recovery of property or for the recovery of its value, and not an obligation to develop a compensation mechanism. The court also noted that the application of the method of protection must be objectively justified and substantiated, and in this case, the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 910/6131/24 of 09/10/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the procurement contract as invalid and the recovery of unduly received funds in the field of public procurement.
2. The cassation court supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the prosecutor rightfully appealed to the court in the interests of the Chernihiv City Council, since the Council is the owner of KP “Chernihivvodokanal” and has a duty to control the financial and economic activities of the enterprise. The courts found that the additional agreement, which increased the price of the contract due to the change in the euro exchange rate, contradicted the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”, since there were no reasonable grounds for changing the price, and the goods were actually purchased for hryvnias. In addition, the Council was notified by the prosecutor of the violation, but did not take measures to protect the interests of the community, which confirms its inaction. The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Articles 36, 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement” were not supported by reference to the relevant case law of the Supreme Court.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Imest-Plus” and to uphold the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 907/439/22 of 09/16/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,044,607.68 in favor of the Charitable Organization “Charitable Foundation “Volunteer Center “East” from Physical Person-Entrepreneur Bairatskyi Volodymyr Volodymyrovych.
2. The decision does not provide any arguments that the court was guided by when making the decision, since only the introductory
and the operative part of the resolution. The full text of the court decision is required to provide a complete answer.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Bairatskyi Volodymyr Volodymyrovych and to leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 641/1333/23 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is simultaneously a claim for child support and a counterclaim to exclude the record of paternity.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim to exclude the record of paternity, as the man knew that he was not the biological father of the child at the time of filing the application for recognition of paternity. The court took into account that the man did not provide evidence that his expression of will was violated, for example, through threats or violence. The court also noted that it cannot question the man’s voluntary decision to recognize himself as the father, as this may violate the interests of the child. Regarding alimony, the court partially satisfied the claim, recovering monthly alimony for the child from the man, but reduced the recovery period, as the plaintiff had not previously applied for alimony. The court proceeded from the fact that parents are obliged to support their children until they reach the age of majority, and the man must bear financial responsibility for the child.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 200/1281/24 dated 16/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the court regarding the sending of the writ of execution for enforcement and the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that an appeal against the actions of the court regarding the sending of a writ of execution issued within the framework of a civil case cannot be considered in the procedure of administrative proceedings, since such actions can only be appealed within the framework of the procedural law governing civil proceedings. The court noted that appeals against the actions of judges (courts) regarding the consideration and resolution of cases, as well as appeals against court decisions outside the procedure provided for by procedural law, are not allowed. Regarding the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer, the court emphasized that such disputes should be resolved in the procedure of civil proceedings, since the writ of execution was issued on the basis of a decision in a civil case. The court also took into account the established case law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the jurisdiction of courts in cases regarding appeals against decisions, actions or omissions of state enforcement service bodies, which depends on the jurisdictional affiliation of the court that issued the writ of execution, and the status of the plaintiff as a party to the enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 560/19453/23 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Department regarding the non-recognition of the building where the headquarters of the 1st Cavalry Corps of the Red Cossacks was located as a local historical monument, and the obligation to remove it from the relevant list.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the prosecutor who filed the cassation appeal did not prove a violation of the interests of the state, and the courts of previous instances justifiably satisfied the claim of “PROSKURIVINVEST” LLC. The court noted that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of passivity or improper performance of duties by the Department in protecting the interests of the state, and also did not refute the conclusions of experts regarding the lack of historical value of the building. The court also took into account that the Law of Ukraine “On Condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes in Ukraine and Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbols” requires the elimination of symbols of totalitarian regimes, and the Department did not take actions to implement this law. In addition, the court emphasized that the prosecutor cannot interfere with the property rights of “PROSKURIVINVEST” LLC without proper justification of violation of the interests of the state.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 925/313/23(925/898/23) dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank of the amount of lease payments paid towards the value of the leased asset under a terminated agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the financial leasing agreement is mixed, combining elements of lease and sale, and lease payments include both payment for the use of the property and part of the purchase price. Since the agreement was terminated and the property was returned to the bank, the bank has no obligation to transfer the property to the ownership of the lessee, and therefore, it must return the paid lease payments, which are essentially a prepayment for the property. The court also rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the offsetting of counterclaims, as they were disputed and not recognized by the court. The bank cannot simultaneously demand both the return of the leased asset and compensation for its value through lease payments. The court emphasized that the terms of the agreement do not provide that in the event of termination of the agreement at the initiative of the lessor, the leasing
installment shall be deemed a fee for the use of the leased asset.
3. The court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 910/13201/24 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the ownership of NVM Invest LLC to a land plot on which the building purchased by it is located in the process of privatization.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that at the time of conclusion of the contract of sale of the building, the land plot was not formed as an object of civil rights, since it did not have a cadastral number, which makes it impossible to apply Articles 377 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine regarding the automatic transfer of ownership of land to the buyer of the building. The court noted that according to the current legislation, the buyer of the privatization object is obliged to formalize the lease right to the land plot necessary for the maintenance of the acquired object. Also, the court emphasized that the granting of a land plot into private ownership is the exclusive competence of the local self-government body, and the court cannot replace this body. In addition, the court took into account changes in legislation that limit the automatic transfer of ownership of state or communal land upon acquisition of ownership of real estate.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim of NVM Invest LLC for recognition of ownership of the land plot.
**Case No. 362/6188/17 dated 09/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Vasylkiv City Council on the transfer of a land plot into the ownership of PERSON_2, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed after one year from the date of drawing up the full text of the court decision of the first instance. The court noted that the defendant was duly notified of the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, received court summonses, and therefore the exceptions provided for in Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allow the renewal of the term for appeal after one year, do not apply to him. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the signature on the registered delivery notifications does not belong to the defendant, since the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine do not impose an obligation on the court to establish the identity of the person who signed, if the correspondence was delivered to the correct address. In addition, the court indicated that the combination of a summons via a court notice with a summons via the website of the judicial authority is permissible.
and does not violate the rights of the defendant.
4. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 260/3288/24 dated 16/09/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the appeal against the order of dismissal, reinstatement to the position, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work and obligation to perform certain actions.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the obligation of the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to appoint the plaintiff to the position of head of the Territorial Service Center and in the part concerning the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work. The case in this part was sent for a new consideration to the court of appeal. The court of cassation probably disagreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the validity of the refusal to appoint to the position and the calculation of the amount of average earnings. In the other part, the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged, which may indicate the agreement of the Supreme Court with the conclusions of the appellate instance regarding the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal and other claims. For a complete understanding of the position of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the full text of the decision, which will contain detailed reasons.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal in part, overturning the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the claims for appointment to the position and recovery of average earnings, and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/13150/24 dated 11/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on granting permission for the concentration of the company “CRH Ukraine B.V.” by acquiring shares of PrJSC “Dyckerhoff Cement Ukraine” and a share in the authorized capital of JV LLC “Dyckerhoff /Ukraine/”.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals, focused on the issue of whether the rights and interests of the plaintiff, PBG Kovalska LLC, were violated by the appealed decision of the AMCU. The court took into account the previous conclusions in case No. 910/9448/24, where it was established that PBG Kovalska LLC is not a consumer of the concentration participants and a manufacturer of cement products. The Supreme Court emphasized that only the potential impact of the concentration on the market is not a sufficient basis for appealing the AMCU’s decision, and it is necessary to prove a specific violation of the plaintiff’s rights and interests. The court emphasized that a monopoly position in itself is not an offense, and abuse of it should be considered in a separate procedure. The Supreme Court indicated that the plaintiff did not prove how the appealed decision of the AMCU violates its rights and interests, and also did not substantiate how the recognition of the decision as invalid will restore these rights.
3. The Supreme Court decided to change the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision.
of the cassation court, upholding the decision to dismiss the claim of PBG Kovalska LLC.
**Case No. 922/3826/24 dated 09/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties and the cancellation of an operative-economic sanction due to violation of the terms of delivery of goods under a supply agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify whether force majeure circumstances actually made it impossible for the defendant to fulfill its obligations within the established time frame, considering that the agreement was concluded during martial law, and the supply of goods was carried out during the period of these circumstances; the courts did not analyze how the circumstances referred to by the defendant affected the possibility of fulfilling its contractual obligations; the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments that most of the evidence provided by the defendant to confirm the circumstances of non-performance of its obligations under the Agreement actually relate to circumstances that arose after October 19, 2023 (the deadline for fulfilling the obligations to deliver the goods). The court of cassation instance emphasized the need to take into account the principle of good faith and the inadmissibility of abuse of rights when evaluating the evidence and circumstances of the case. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the need to prove the extraordinary and unavoidable nature of force majeure circumstances, as well as the causal relationship between these circumstances and the impossibility of fulfilling obligations.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 689/54/22 dated 10/02/2024**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the delay in executing a court decision on reinstatement and compensation for moral damages.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the employer violated the requirements of the law regarding the immediate execution of a court decision on the reinstatement of an employee, since it actually allowed the employee to work only after a long time after the decision was made. The court noted that proper execution of a reinstatement decision is not only the issuance of an order to reinstate, but also the actual admission of the employee to perform previous duties. Also, the court emphasized that the claim for recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence due to the delay in the execution of the decision on reinstatement is a dispute over wages, to which the terms defined by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine do not apply. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the employee missed the deadline for applying to the court, since the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court had already deviated from the po
Regarding the previous conclusions on the application of limitation periods in such disputes. The court also indicated that there is no evidence of hindering the employee’s actual admission to work, as the employer did not provide evidence of the employee’s familiarization with the reinstatement order until the moment of actual admission to work.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 736/1270/22 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a service agreement and compensation for damages caused by non-fulfillment of obligations under this agreement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, partially satisfying the defendant’s cassation appeal, for the following reasons:
* The courts did not take into account that the term of the agreement expired before the lawsuit for its termination was filed, and only a valid agreement is subject to termination.
* The courts did not establish which specific rights and interests of the plaintiff were violated, did not determine the legal nature of the funds that the plaintiff requested to be recovered from the defendant, and did not establish a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s damages.
* The courts did not take into account the terms of the land lease agreement, according to which the land plot had no defects preventing its effective use, and also did not take into account that the authorized owner of the disputed land plot is the territorial community.
* The courts did not take into account that a person who owns and uses agricultural land plots is a proper land user and acquires ownership of the harvest grown on such plots.
3. The court of cassation instance decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the appealed part, to refuse to satisfy the claim for termination of the agreement, and to refer the case in the part of recovery of damages, penalties, and fines for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/21/24 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement and the return of the land plot due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that systematic (two or more times) full non-payment of rent is an independent basis for termination of the lease agreement according to clause “d” of part 1 of Article 141 of the Land Code of Ukraine, and in such a case there is no need to assess the significance of the violation according to the general norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the fact of debt repayment at the time of the case consideration does not affect the landlord’s right to demand termination of the agreement due to previous violations. In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the need to take into account the economic benefit for the state, since proper fulfillment of contractual obligations is important for ensuring in
of the interests of the territorial community. The court also noted that the refusal to grant the defendant’s motions for the retrieval of evidence and ensuring the appearance of the plaintiff’s representative did not affect the objectivity of the case’s consideration, as all necessary circumstances were established based on the available evidence.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the termination of the lease agreement and the obligation to return the land plot.
Case No. 925/159/25 dated 09/16/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery of debt under a revolving financial assistance (loan) agreement in a joint and several procedure.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal, as the defendant challenged only part of the first instance court’s ruling, namely the return of the court fee to the plaintiff, and not the ruling in its entirety regarding leaving the claim without consideration. The court noted that the list of rulings that can be appealed separately from the court’s decision is exhaustive, and the ruling on the return of the court fee is not included in this list. Additionally, the court indicated that the defendant did not substantiate how the appealed ruling violates their rights and interests, and did not prove that the satisfaction of their appeal would restore their violated rights. The court of cassation emphasized that the cassation proceedings depend on the arguments of the cassation appeal, and the burden of proving the existence of grounds for cassation appeal rests on the appellant. The court also noted that disregarding the conclusion of the Supreme Court means disregarding the conclusion regarding the application of a legal norm, and not any conclusion made by the court of cassation in substantiating the reasoning part of the ruling.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 601/1913/18 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a verdict regarding a person accused of aiding and abetting the receipt of undue advantage by an official.
2. The court of cassation, having reviewed the case, agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_9’s guilt in aiding and abetting the receipt of undue advantage by a prosecutor. The court noted that the courts of first instance and appellate instance properly examined and assessed the evidence, including witness testimony, protocols of investigative actions, and results of covert investigative (search) actions. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the defense’s arguments about the absence in PERSON_9’s actions of the qualifying element of “extortion of undue advantage,” as the victim himself was interested in avoiding criminal liability and offered undue advantage. The court also emphasized that a separate consideration of the case regarding the accomplice without a final decision regarding the perpetrator of the crime is not a violation of the right to a fair trial. Considering the exclusion
considering the elements of extortion and mitigating circumstances, the court of cassation reduced the term of imprisonment.
3. The court partially granted the cassation appeals of the defenders, excluded the qualifying element of “extortion of unlawful benefit” from the charge and reduced the term of imprisonment of PERSON_9 to 5 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 386/88/22 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal in the criminal proceedings on charges against a person for attempted murder.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defender, overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new consideration in the appellate instance, motivating it by the need for a thorough examination of the arguments of the appeal and ensuring the completeness of the judicial review. The court pointed out that the court of appeal did not give due consideration to all the circumstances of the case, which could affect the legality and validity of the decision. Also, the Supreme Court took into account the need to ensure proper behavior of the accused during the new consideration of the case, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules during the consideration of criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new consideration in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case No. 212/4527/23 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for criminal offenses under Parts 1, 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).
2. The arguments of the court are not specified in the operative part of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 440/2642/24 dated 16/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the resolution of the State Consumer Service on imposing a fine on Silpo-Food LLC for violation of legislation on the prevention and reduction of the use of tobacco products.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that during martial law, unscheduled inspections are possible only if there is a real threat and based on an individual decision of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine (MOH). The court noted that the State Consumer Service acted unlawfully by initiating an inspection based on a letter of approval, and not an individual decision of the MOH. It was also emphasized that the protection of public health is a priority, but even in these
and their violation negates the results of the inspection. The court pointed out the need to maintain a balance between health protection and respect for the rights of business entities, as well as the inadmissibility of neglecting procedural guarantees.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal of Silpo-Food LLC, overturned the decisions of the previous instances, and declared illegal and overturned the resolution of the State Food and Consumer Service on the imposition of a fine.
**Case No. 161/15788/22 dated 09/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of real estate and the obligation to vacate the land plot from real estate objects built on it.
2. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim because:
* The prosecutor chose an inappropriate method of protection, as the cancellation of state registration will not resolve the fate of illegally constructed buildings.
* The claims for the elimination of obstacles to the use of the land plot are formulated vaguely, without specifying the method of vacating the plot and at whose expense it should be done.
* Demolition of unauthorized construction is a proper method of protection, but the prosecutor did not state such claims.
* The court did not establish the invalidity of the sale and purchase agreement, on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership of the real estate.
* The prosecutor did not prove how the defendant should vacate the land plot, taking into account that there are real estate objects on it, the ownership of which is registered to the defendant.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 991/9232/25 dated 09/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the accusation of PERSON_4 of entering false information into the declarations of a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, which is a crime under Part 2 of Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court approved the plea agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the accused, considering that the agreement meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as the interests of society, as it ensures a quick trial, savings in procedural resources, and financial support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court found that the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt, the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights and interests of the parties, and the agreed punishment is fair and corresponds to the severity of the crime and the identity of the accused. The court also took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, his assistance in solving the crime, and his active volunteer work in support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court took into account that the crime was not committed in complicity, there are no damages and harm, and that the agreement was agreed with the deputy head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Procuracy.
3. The court found PERSON_4 guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to 1 year of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold positions in local self-government bodies for a term of 1 year, releasing him from serving the main sentence with a probationary period of 1 year.
Case No. 756/11052/24 dated 15/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the principal remuneration from the defendant in favor of the private enforcement officer.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim of the private enforcement officer without consideration due to the repeated failure of the plaintiff to appear at the preparatory court hearings. The court noted that the plaintiff had been duly notified of the date, time and place of the hearing, but did not appear, and the application for the case to be heard in the absence of the plaintiff was received by the court after the ruling to dismiss the claim without consideration had been issued. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to procedural law, in the event of a repeated failure of a duly notified plaintiff to appear, the court has the right to dismiss the claim without consideration if there is no application for the case to be heard without the plaintiff’s participation. The court also emphasized the obligation of participants in the judicial process to exercise their procedural rights and obligations in good faith, and that each party bears the risk of the consequences associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions. The court indicated that the plaintiff’s right to access to the court was not violated, as he can re-apply to the court after eliminating the reasons that led to the dismissal of the claim without consideration.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/13855/24 dated 16/09/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 5,642,182.38.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the court’s arguments from the provided part of the resolution. Only formal information about the parties to the case, the appealed decisions, the composition of the court, and the decision taken are indicated in the introductory and operative parts of the court decision. To analyze the court’s arguments, the reasoning part of the resolution is necessary, where the court sets out the justification for the decision, referring to the rule of law and the circumstances of the case.
The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 140/13376/23 dated 15/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions on the application of penalties for storing fuel without a license.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of the p
of additional tax assessment notices, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court emphasized that the order to conduct an actual audit must clearly define the grounds for its conduct, and mere reference to a specific clause and sub-clause of the Tax Code of Ukraine is insufficient. In this case, the controlling authority referred to a sub-clause that contains several independent grounds for audit, but did not specify which of these grounds was the reason for ordering the audit. This deprived the taxpayer of the opportunity to understand the reasons for the audit and the range of issues that may be its subject. The court took into account that the illegality of the actions of the controlling authority in ordering and conducting the audit may be the basis for a claim to invalidate the decisions taken as a result of such audit.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but upheld them in the part of satisfying the claims.
Case No. 601/1913/18 dated 09/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 27, Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (aiding and abetting the acceptance of an offer, promise, or receipt of an unlawful benefit by an official).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defenders, amending the court decisions of previous instances. The court excluded the qualifying element of “extortion of unlawful benefit” from the charge, mitigating the main penalty. The court probably concluded that the evidence provided by the prosecution did not confirm the existence of extortion of unlawful benefit, which affected the qualification of the crime and, accordingly, the measure of punishment. At the same time, the court decisions were left unchanged in the rest, which may indicate sufficient evidence regarding other elements of the corpus delicti under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely, receiving unlawful benefit by an official by prior conspiracy by a group of persons. Leaving the court decisions unchanged in other parts may indicate that the court agreed with the assessment of the evidence and the qualification of the actions of the accused in the part of aiding and abetting in receiving unlawful benefit. The cassation appeal of one of the defenders was dismissed, which may indicate the absence of significant arguments that could affect the court’s decision.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeals of the defenders, amend the verdict and ruling, excluding the qualifying element of “extortion of unlawful benefit” and mitigating the punishment.
Case No. 127/4213/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for treason under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld
the sentence without changes, since the courts of previous instances, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, comprehensively examined the evidence and reasonably established the person’s guilt in treason, namely in collecting and transmitting information about the location of Ukrainian military formations to representatives of the Russian Federation through the Telegram application. The court took into account that the person was identified not only by the place of registration, but also by the year of birth and the phone number they used. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances complied with the requirements of the criminal procedure law regarding the admissibility of evidence and its evaluation in aggregate. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court provided exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the defense’s appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal and left the sentence and ruling of the previous instance courts unchanged.
**Case No. 991/878/22 dated 09/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal of the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court to open appellate proceedings on the defender’s complaint against the first instance court’s ruling refusing to clarify the court decision.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, believing that the ruling refusing to clarify the court decision is not subject to appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that according to Part 4 of Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a ruling clarifying a court decision or refusing to clarify it can be appealed in appellate procedure. The court also noted that the object of written clarification in criminal procedure law is the entire system of court decisions defined by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out that the court of appellate instance is authorized to review the appealed decisions of the first instance court for their legality, validity, and reasoning, and not for their clarity or incomprehensibility. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that the court of appellate instance incorrectly applied the practice of the Supreme Court, namely, the conclusions of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which have precedence over the conclusions of the panel of judges, were not taken into account.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 910/15018/19 dated 09/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the imposition of subsidiary liability on the former founder (participant) of the bankrupt company for the obligations of this company in connection with bringing it to bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous instance courts, noting that the actions of the former founder (participant) of the bankrupt contain all the elements of an economic offense, which results in the burden of subof the debtor, as the debtor’s insolvency occurred during the period when he was still the founder (participant) of the bankrupt entity. The court emphasized that the object of the offense is the rights of creditors to satisfy their monetary claims, which cannot be realized due to the debtor’s lack of sufficient property. The court also took into account that the former founder did not refute his fault in bringing the debtor to bankruptcy, and his inaction in failing to contribute to the authorized capital and the subsequent reduction of this capital led to the impossibility of satisfying the creditors’ claims. The court rejected arguments about repeated liability, as joint and several liability and subsidiary liability are different types of liability. The court also took into account that the funds recovered from the former founder in another case were returned to him under the procedure of reversal of execution of the decision.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 902/669/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of decisions of the local self-government body, an investment agreement, and a land purchase and sale agreement, as well as the return of real estate objects to communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case, in particular, the intended purpose of the property that was the subject of the disputed investment agreement, and the legal nature of this agreement. The court pointed out the importance of verifying the agreement’s compliance with the requirements of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Laws of Ukraine “On Investment Activity” and “On the Transfer of Objects of State and Communal Ownership”, as well as the land purchase and sale agreement. Also, the court drew attention to the existence of restrictions on the transfer of property to private ownership, established by the decision of the Vinnytsia City Council, and to the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the absence in the agreement of conditions for the joint use of investment results and the achievement of a social effect for the community. In addition, the court emphasized that the criterion of good faith of the acquirer should be assessed taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the appellate court did not take these circumstances into account and did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments, which led to the adoption of an unfounded decision.
3. The court of cassation instance ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 177/2492/24 dated 10/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the securing of a claim in a case regarding the removal of a child from the father and the determination of the child’s place of residence with the mother.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court that the establishment of
