**Case No. 991/8307/24 dated 19/02/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125270405](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125270405)
1. The subject of the dispute is the approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and several defendants in corruption crimes related to abuse of office and embezzlement of state-owned enterprises’ property.
2. The court, in approving the agreement, was guided by the fact that it complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the possibility of concluding an agreement in corruption cases, provided that other accomplices are exposed and damages are compensated. The court took into account that the defendants provided incriminating testimony that contributed to the investigation, and also undertook to compensate the state for damages in the amount of over 79 million hryvnias by transferring real estate, forgiving debt, and transferring property rights. An important argument was that the agreement ensures a quick completion of the trial, saves resources, and implements the principle of inevitability of punishment, as well as contributes to strengthening the defense capability of Ukraine through the transfer of funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also satisfied itself that the conclusion of the agreement was voluntary, does not violate the rights of any of the parties, and the agreed punishment is fair and corresponds to the severity of the crimes.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and issued a guilty verdict, imposing a sentence of imprisonment with a probationary period and additional penalties in the form of fines and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
**Case No. 285/405/21 dated 11/09/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130231719](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130231719)
1. The subject of the dispute is an 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 on hooligan motives.
2. The cassation court upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances thoroughly investigated the evidence, in particular, witness testimonies, crime scene examination reports, expert opinions (forensic medical, molecular genetic, traceological, psychological), and reasonably found the guilt of the convicted person proven. The court took into account that traces of the accused’s footwear were found at the crime scene, and genetic traces of the victim were found on his clothes and nails. The appellate court reviewed all the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided convincing reasons for their rejection, in particular, regarding the possible movement of the victim’s body and the expert’s involvement in the crime. The cassation court agreed with the qualification of the convicted person’s actions as intentional murder on hooligan motives, taking into account the absence of any prior hostile relations between the convicted person and the victim, as well as the suddenness and groundlessness of the actions. Also, the court did not find confirmation of procedural violations indicated by the defense, in particular, regarding the explanation of rights, the participation of prosecutors and experts, as well as the effectiveness of the defense.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first
of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defenders – without satisfaction.
Case No. 754/1233/23 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_8 of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 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 resulted in the death of the victim or caused grievous bodily harm).
2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments. There is only the operative part, from which it is impossible to understand why the court made this particular decision. To analyze the arguments, it is necessary to see the full text of the resolution.
3. The Supreme Court granted the defender’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, and left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 990/32/24 dated 09/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the termination of the qualification assessment for compliance with the position of a judge, which began in 2018.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that the current legislation does not require the HQCJU to make a separate decision on the resumption of qualification assessment after its suspension, since the resumption of the procedure occurs automatically after receiving a response from the authorized body in the field of anti-corruption. The court also noted that although for some time two qualification assessment procedures were conducted in relation to the plaintiff (assessment of the ability to administer justice in the Supreme Court and assessment of compliance with the position held), they are different in nature, grounds and consequences, and therefore do not create a state of legal uncertainty. The court emphasized that the competitive assessment was completed by the decision of the HQCJU of February 12, 2024, and therefore, at the time of the case consideration, only one procedure was in effect – qualification assessment for compliance with the position of a judge. The court also indicated that the plaintiff’s reference to paragraph 21 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402-VIII is unfounded, since this norm prohibits repeated qualification assessment for compliance with the position held, and not the assessment of the ability to administer justice in the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that an administrative claim cannot be aimed at eliminating purely hypothetical risks or abstract doubts regarding the legal status of a person.
3. The court refused to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 991/6396/24 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of thethere is a refusal to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against a ruling of the investigating judge refusing to review a ruling on setting a deadline for familiarization with the materials of the pre-trial investigation based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the ruling of the investigating judge on setting a deadline for familiarization with the materials of the pre-trial investigation is not subject to appeal. The court also took into account that Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for appellate appeal against the ruling of the investigating judge refusing to satisfy the motion for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The court of cassation referred to the fact that although, according to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the practice of the Supreme Court, the ruling of the investigating judge may be reviewed based on newly discovered circumstances, however, the decision following such review may be appealed only in cases where this is provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine for appealing the decision being reviewed. Since the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of appealing a ruling on setting a deadline for familiarization with the materials of the pre-trial investigation, the ruling refusing its review is also not subject to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 914/1773/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a natural gas distribution agreement, as well as penalties, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing that the appellate court lawfully reduced the amount of the penalty, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the partial payment of the debt by the defendant, as well as the fact that the penalty should not lead to excessive enrichment of the creditor. The court of cassation noted that reducing the amount of the penalty is the right of the court, which is exercised taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the principles of fairness, good faith and reasonableness. Also, the court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments that the appellate court took into account inadmissible evidence, since the appellate court’s decision does not refer to new evidence submitted by the defendant. The court of cassation also disagreed that the appellate court departed from the previous practice of considering similar disputes, since each case has individual circumstances that affect the court’s decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 686/4073/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a share in the property of the spouses, vi
demanding property from someone else’s illegal possession, recognizing as illegal and canceling the resolution and act of the state enforcement officer, as well as recognizing as invalid the certificates of transfer of property to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing out that the plaintiff had consented to the transfer of the disputed property as collateral to secure the obligations of a third party. The court noted that the plaintiff’s appeal to the court with a claim for the division of property that had already been transferred to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt may indicate bad faith and abuse of rights in order to avoid enforcement of the court decision. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a dispute over the division of property with his ex-wife. In addition, the court pointed out that the claims for recognition of the state enforcement officer’s actions as illegal and the certificates of transfer of property as invalid are an improper way of protection, since they will not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights, but are derivative from the claims for the division of property, which were dismissed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 405/7049/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for the issuance of a restrictive order against her ex-husband, PERSON_2, in order to protect her from domestic violence.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the ruling of the appellate court, emphasized the importance of taking into account the conclusion of the psychological study of the applicant, which confirms that she has an anxiety disorder and depression as a result of prolonged psychological and physical violence by her husband. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess this evidence, as well as other evidence provided by the applicant, which indicates the likelihood of continued violence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the duration and systematic nature of PERSON_2’s illegal behavior indicate the risk of repeated violence, which is the basis for the application of a restrictive order. The court also took into account that the legislation on the prevention of domestic violence applies to former spouses, regardless of whether they live together. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to protect the applicant and uphold the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to issue a restrictive order against PERSON_2.
Case No. 704/1055/21 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal verdict against a person accused of committing intentional murder for mercenary motives and as a person who had previously committed intentional murder.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appeal
The appellate court formally approached the review of the first instance court’s verdict, did not properly analyze the totality of evidence provided by the prosecution, and did not provide convincing reasons for rejecting this evidence. In particular, the appellate court did not assess, in conjunction, the testimonies of witnesses, the search protocol with the seized hammer with traces of blood, printouts of telephone connections, and expert opinions indicating the possible involvement of the accused in the murder. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a thorough examination of all evidence, both direct and indirect, to establish the circumstances of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that indirect evidence can be used to prove a person’s guilt if, in their totality, they confirm his or her involvement in the crime.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the acquittal of the person and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 756/6408/24 dated 15/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of two minor children after the termination of cohabitation of parents who were not married.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the mother’s claim, determining the place of residence of both children with her, based on the following arguments: the father did not provide sufficient evidence that the separate residence of the children would be in their best interests; the age of the children was taken into account and it was concluded that their interests are best served by living together with one of the parents; the father’s reference to his financial security and the existence of conflicts between the children was rejected as an insufficient basis for separating the children. The appellate court also took into account the opinion of the child, heard in the presence of psychologists, and did not establish circumstances that would indicate a positive impact on the child if he or she lived with the father. The Supreme Court emphasized that the equality of parental rights is derived from the rights and interests of the child, and that international and national norms do not grant either parent a priority right to live with the child. The court also took into account the opinion of the guardianship authority, which considered it advisable to determine the place of residence of the children with their mother.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 910/12305/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a natural gas supply agreement concluded between the Condominium of Apartment Building Owners and the gas supply company.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by exceeding the scope of the claims, as it increased the term of the natural gas supply agreement declared by the plaintiff, without taking into account that no new claims are accepted or considered in the appellate court.
claims and grounds for the claim that were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance. The court noted that the appellate court actually changed the subject of the claim, which contradicts the principle of dispositiveness of commercial proceedings, according to which the plaintiff independently determines the subject and grounds of the claim. Also, the court of cassation pointed out the erroneous reference of the appellate court to Article 633 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the public contract, since the draft contract itself contained a provision that it is not public. The court did not agree with the defendant’s arguments regarding the violation of the rights of LLC “Telets-VAK” and LLC “Mykolaiv Electric Supply Company”, since the dispute concerned the defendant’s obligation to conclude an agreement with the condominium association, and the issue of debt of the previous supplier must be resolved separately.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 8/471-23/1 dated 09/09/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court partially granted the application for the distribution of court costs, reducing the amount to be recovered. The court took into account that the cassation appeal was considered in written proceedings, and the arguments in the response to the cassation appeal were similar to those in the response to the appeal. The court noted that the service of drafting a response to a cassation appeal involves the need to conduct a preliminary legal analysis of the court decision being appealed in the cassation appeal, studying and analyzing the cassation appeal, the legal framework and case law indicated in the cassation appeal, forming the client’s legal position, i.e., drafting a response to a cassation appeal involves performing these actions in aggregate, and therefore, indicating these stages of preparing the response as separate types of services is incorrect. Also, the court emphasized that the amount of expenses for legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided, and the declared amount did not meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness, proportionality and justification. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the criteria for assessing court costs.
3. The court ordered PERSON_1 to pay DK ZhEP “Budivelnyk” UAH 15,000 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 15/81 (910/9782/24) dated 09/09/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – claiming real estate within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim, since there was a real threat of alienation of the disputed property by the defendant, which could make it impossible to enforce the decision
of the court in case the claim is satisfied. The court took into account that the defendant had the right to dispose of the property, and requiring evidence of intent to alienate it would be excessive. The court also noted that the measures taken do not deprive the defendant of the right to possess and use the property, but only temporarily restrict the right of disposal. The arguments of the appellant regarding the incomplete investigation of the case were rejected, as they amounted to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. The court also took into account the balance of interests of the parties and concluded that securing the claim would help protect the rights of the plaintiff and the debtor, in whose interests the claim was filed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 201/16143/16-к dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_7, who was accused of abuse of office (Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution did not prove the existence of a crime under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of PERSON_7, as it was not proven that she intentionally abused her official position in the interests of third parties and that she was aware of the fact that these persons received illegal benefits. The court also took into account that the conclusions of forensic economic examinations were recognized as inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, and the fact of causing real property damage was not confirmed. The court did not agree with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to defense and the rejection of motions for re-examination of witnesses, as the prosecutor did not provide sufficient grounds for this. The court also noted that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal and provided reasoned answers to them.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 201/10068/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child with the father.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the purpose of securing a claim is to protect the interests of the plaintiff from the bad faith actions of the defendant in order to ensure the real execution of the court decision. Securing a claim in disputes concerning children should guarantee the interests of the child and prevent bad faith behavior of the parents. However, the court noted that in disputes concerning the determination of the place of residence of a child, which are resolved under the laws of Ukraine without the application of the Hague Convention, securing the claim by restricting the right to travel outside of Ukraine
and is not possible, as such a measure is not provided for by the civil procedural law. The court also took into account that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court on this issue. Considering this, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law by granting the application for securing the claim by prohibiting the child from traveling abroad.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s ruling denying the application to secure the claim.
Case No. 583/2978/21 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of theft committed repeatedly.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain any arguments of the court, as it is stated that the full text will be announced later, therefore it is impossible to determine which arguments the court used when making the decision.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 205/1874/23 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, noted that the courts of previous instances reasonably concluded that the prosecutor had failed to prove the fact of forgery of documents on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership of the land, since the prosecutor did not provide proper and admissible evidence. The court took into account that there is a copy of the order of the State Geocadastre, which was the basis for registration of ownership, and the prosecutor did not refute its authenticity. At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the dispute between the local self-government body and the legal entity (State Enterprise “Ilyich-Agro Donbas”) regarding the land plot is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court, given the subject composition of the parties. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the rules of jurisdiction and indicated that violation of these rules is the basis for canceling the court’s decision. Also, the court of cassation instance referred to the ECHR’s practice regarding the need to adhere to the principle of “good governance” during the state’s interference with a person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
3. The decisions of previous instances were canceled in the part of the claims against State Enterprise “Ilyich-Agro Donbas” with the closure of proceedings, and in the other part they were left unchanged.
Case No. 344/11671/23 dated 08/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (MIA) to register the right of ownership
ownership of the apartment in which the plaintiff resides and to initiate the transfer of this apartment from state to municipal ownership for further privatization.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that each party in a civil proceeding must prove the circumstances to which it refers. In this case, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, having received the apartment from the State Mortgage Institution (SMI), did not register the ownership right to it, which made it impossible for the plaintiff to privatize the housing. The court noted that state registration of rights is not a way to acquire ownership, but only confirms the fact of acquisition of property rights. The existence of an act of acceptance and transfer of the apartment between SMI and the Ministry of Internal Affairs is a legal basis to consider the Ministry of Internal Affairs authorized to manage this property. The court also took into account that improper performance of the obligation to account for housing cannot impose negative consequences on citizens who have the right to privatization. The court emphasized that the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not fulfill its obligations regarding registration and transfer of the apartment, which violates the plaintiff’s right to privatize housing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, obliging the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine to take the necessary actions to register the ownership right and transfer the apartment to municipal ownership.
Case No. 305/2050/15-к dated 16/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for official negligence that caused grave consequences, and the decision to partially satisfy the civil claim against the Yasinya Consumer Society.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous courts, emphasized the absence of the elements of a crime under Art. 367 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of PERSON_6. The court noted that to qualify official negligence, it is necessary to establish what actions (or inaction) of the official, which are part of her official duties, led to grave consequences. In this case, the damage was caused to the victim by a private entrepreneur after the victim acquired ownership of the real estate object, and the court did not determine which duties of PERSON_6, as the chairman of the board of the Yasinya Consumer Society, were violated and led to the damage. The court also emphasized that the guilt of a person must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and all doubts are interpreted in favor of the accused.
3. The court overturned the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court and closed the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 on the basis of the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in her act, and left the civil claim without consideration.
Case No. 910/13443/24 dated 03/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of the Limited Liability Company
of Limited Liability Company “Solar Energy West” for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 40,000.00.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the application of LLC “Solar Energy West” for the distribution of court costs. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal assistance is not excessive, is commensurate with the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the price of the claim. Also, the court took into account that SE “Guaranteed Buyer” did not duly prove the disproportion of these expenses. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in this assessment. It is important that the plaintiff provided evidence of the expenses incurred within five days after the court decision, as provided by procedural law, and the act of services rendered is dated the day of the decision, which indicates the impossibility of its provision before the court debates. The court also noted that disagreement with the amount of expenses for legal assistance does not indicate a violation by the court of the norms of procedural law.
3. The court of cassation ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 335/12692/23 dated 09/16/2025
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 punishment for theft committed under martial law, and a request for a more lenient punishment with the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances took into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular the degree of severity of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court noted that the imposed punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of 5 years and 1 month is fair, necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of her committing new crimes. The court also rejected the convict’s arguments about the violation of her right to defense during the appellate review, as she was duly notified of the date, time and place of the case hearing and did not express a desire to participate in the hearing. In addition, the court took into account that the convict had already been convicted of a similar crime, which indicates her propensity to commit crimes. The court also noted that the presence of a minor child is not an unconditional basis for imposing a more lenient punishment, as the convict left the child in the care of an adult daughter and came to another city to commit crimes.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 335/
**Case № 12692/23 of 16/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed in large amounts or under conditions of recurrence).
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the arguments of the court. It is only known from the text of the ruling that the convicted person filed a cassation appeal with additions, which the panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court did not satisfy. References to Articles 433, 434, 436, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code indicate that the court of cassation instance verified the correct application of the norms of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances, and also concluded that there were no grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions. Perhaps, the court of cassation instance agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances, and considered the guilt of PERSON_6 in committing the crime imputed to her as proven. Also, it is likely that the court did not find significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could have led to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
**Case № 754/1233/23 of 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic safety rules, which resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, because the appellate court did not properly consider the arguments of the defense’s appeal, in particular regarding the refusal to satisfy motions for conducting examinations, interrogating witnesses, as well as regarding the non-conformity of the assigned punishment to the severity of the criminal offense and the identity of the accused. The court noted that the appellate court did not provide reasons why the motions of the defense were not subject to satisfaction, and left unconsidered the arguments about the unfairness of the punishment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to re-examine the circumstances established during the criminal proceedings, if they were examined by the court of first instance incompletely or with violation. The court also took into account that information that was not the subject of direct examination by the court cannot be recognized as evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
**Case № 523/11666/16-ц of 03/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the bank’s change of the term for fulfillment of the main obligation and did not inves
inspected the terms of the credit agreements and additional agreements regarding the procedure for early repayment of the loan. Also, the appellate court did not pay attention to the discrepancies in the debt calculations provided by the bank and did not assess the legality of including commissions in the amount of debt, which may be void. The court indicated that the appellate court did not properly examine the debt calculation provided by the plaintiff in the context of the changed loan term and did not assess the legality of the bank’s crediting of funds to repay commission payments, and therefore did not clarify, taking into account these facts, the actual amount of the credit debt. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court adopted a superficial approach to resolving the dispute, which led to premature conclusions about the existence of grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. The decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of debt from the borrower was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 510/105/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, to confirm belonging to the citizenship of Ukraine.
2. The court, granting the application, proceeded from the fact that the applicant was born and lived on the territory of Ukraine, which is confirmed by the birth certificate, and also graduated from school on the territory of Ukraine. The court took into account that the applicant was denied the issuance of a citizen’s passport of Ukraine due to the impossibility of confirming the fact of residence on the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, and she was recommended to apply to the court to establish this fact. The court also took into account the testimony of a witness who confirmed the fact of the applicant’s residence in Ukraine. The court noted that establishing the fact of permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine is necessary for the realization of a person’s right to obtain citizenship of Ukraine. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, noting that the specified fact is subject to establishment in the order of separate proceedings on the basis of Articles 293 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine”.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову (ruling/resolution) of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 214/6157/20 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank in favor of the depositor of the amount of the bank deposit, interest, 3% per annum, penalties and moral damages in connection with the bank’s improper performance of the terms of the bank deposit agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance in the part of recovering penalties on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Consumer Rights”. The court of cassation
