Case No. 905/306/25 of 09/18/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery from the limited liability company in favor of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine of a fine in the amount of UAH 5,400,000.00.
The decision of the court of cassation instance does not contain any arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, since only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided. Usually, in the reasoning part of the decision, the court states the established facts, analyzes the evidence, refers to the norms of substantive and procedural law, and also provides justification for the decision made. The absence of a reasoning part in the provided excerpt makes it impossible to provide a complete assessment of the court’s position.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the limited liability company without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову [resolution] of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 906/1197/24 of 09/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract and recovery of the advance payment under the initial claim, as well as recovery of debt, taking into account inflationary losses, annual interest, penalty, and fine under the counterclaim.
The resolution does not contain arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, since only the introductory and operative parts are provided. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is necessary.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of FOP [Individual Entrepreneur] Smal Andriy Petrovych, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and referred the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zhytomyr Oblast.
Case No. 910/10621/23 of 09/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC [Private Joint Stock Company] “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “GS-Trading” of court costs for legal assistance, namely “success fee”.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of LLC “GS-Trading”, overturning the resolution of the appellate court in the part of refusing to recover the “success fee” and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance. The court did not provide specific arguments in this abbreviated resolution, but from the text it can be concluded that the dispute concerned the legality of recovering the “success fee” as part of the costs of legal assistance. It is possible that the courts of previous instances did not take into account certain circumstances or incorrectly applied the norms of law governing the issue of the distribution of court costs. For a complete understanding of the position of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the resolution, which should state the reasons for the decision.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to recover the “success fee” and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 918/988/24 of 09/
**Case №910/2579/24 dated 09/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for rent, penalty for failure to return the leased property, and eviction from the leased premises.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the existence of rent arrears and the lawfulness of the penalty calculation for failure to return the leased property after the termination of the lease agreement. The court noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of the return of the property or measures taken for its return. The defendant’s arguments that the terms of the agreement make it dependent on the actions of the asset holder were not accepted by the court, as the obligation to return the property lies with the lessee. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the publication of an auction announcement is grounds to consider the property returned, as this does not relieve the lessee of the obligation to actually return the property to the lessor. The court emphasized that cassation review does not involve re-evaluation of evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №910/12561/24 dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the preparation of project documentation, as well as penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, noting that Krasylivskyi Aggregate Plant LLC violated the terms of the contract by untimely payment for the performed works, which became the basis for the accrual of penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the need to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, as claims for recognition of the agreement or its part as invalid were not filed. Also, the court emphasized that reducing the amount of penalties is the discretionary right of the court, which must be exercised taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the balance of interests of the parties. The court noted that inflation losses and 3% per annum, accrued on the basis of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, are not subject to reduction. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases were rejected, as the circumstances of each case are individual, and the courts of previous instances acted within their powers, evaluating evidence and establishing factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Krasylivskyi Aggregate Plant LLC, and the decisions of the previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the initial claim remained unchanged.
**Case №824/20/25 dated 18/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of a Private Enterpris
That “Sosnytski Agrarian Investments” on the recognition and granting of permission for the execution of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court on the recovery from TRANS TRADE RK SA of debt for delivered goods, penalties, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, since for consideration of the application for recognition and granting of permission for the execution of the decision of international commercial arbitration, it is necessary that the debtor has a location or property in Ukraine. The court noted that the presence of the founder of the debtor’s corporate rights in Ukrainian legal entities or a bank account is not a sufficient basis for determining the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court, since the property must belong directly to the debtor. The court emphasized that the absence of a registered place of residence and location of the debtor in Ukraine, as well as the absence of evidence of the debtor’s property being located in Ukraine, indicate the absence of competence of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to grant permission for the execution of the decision of international commercial arbitration. The court also took into account that the opening of enforcement proceedings in violation of the rules of the place of execution of the decision may lead to violation of the rights of the parties and complicate the execution process. Given the lack of proper evidence of the presence of the debtor’s property in Ukraine, the court concluded that the closure of proceedings in the case was justified.
3. The court decided to leave the appeal complaint unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 320/39508/23 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice issued by the Central Interregional Department of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text lacks the court’s arguments that it relied on when rendering the decision. There are only introductory and operative parts. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 160/30975/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice issued by the tax service to a private joint-stock company.
2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the court’s arguments from the provided text, as there is no reasoning part of the decision. The text contains only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which indicate the parties, judges, representatives, and the court’s decision. To provide information on the court’s arguments, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The court upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts and refused to satisfy the tax service’s cassation appeal.
services.
**Case No. 320/13311/23 dated 09/18/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Education Department regarding the failure to accrue and pay a one-time financial assistance to orphans and children deprived of parental care, as well as the obligation to accrue and pay such assistance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the prosecutor, reasoning that the prosecutor did not adequately substantiate the grounds for representing the interests of the state in court. The court noted that the prosecutor may represent the interests of the state only in cases where the protection of these interests is not carried out or is improperly carried out by a state authority, or in the absence of such authority. In this case, the prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the Children’s Affairs Service, which, in his opinion, improperly protects the rights of orphans, but the court decided that the prosecutor is actually trying to protect the individual rights of specific individuals, and not the interests of the state in a broad sense. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor cannot substitute for authorized bodies that can and want to protect the interests of the state, and that the prosecutor’s appeal to the court should be an exceptional measure. The court emphasized that the protection of the rights of specific children is not the protection of the interests of the state, but is the provision of legal assistance to individuals, which contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and European standards.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 939/1907/20 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the orders of the Borodianka RDA and state acts on the ownership of land plots, as well as the elimination of obstacles in the use of these plots by returning them to the state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that for the return of forestry land plots to the state, an effective method of protection is a vindication claim, that is, claiming property from someone else’s illegal possession, since the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court consistently applies this position in similar cases. The court noted that the incorrect legal qualification of the disputed legal relations by the prosecutor does not relieve the court of the obligation to apply the appropriate provisions of legal norms. However, the court cannot go beyond the limits of the claims and, in violation of the principle of dispositivity, independently choose the legal basis and subject of the claim. Since the prosecutor has chosen an ineffective method of protection, the court cannot satisfy the claim, even if it establishes a violation of the rights of the state. The court also emphasized that the court of appeal mistakenly left the claim in the interests of the Kyiv Regional State Administration unexamined, since in the reasoning part of the decision it concluded that the prosecutor’s claims should be left unexamined.
in the interests of SE “SLP “Kyivoblahrolis”, but did not determine the scope of the claims in this part in the operative part.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning and operative parts of the decisions of the previous instances, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 755/9901/22 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the car sale agreement on installment terms and the return of the car due to the buyer’s failure to pay the full price.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim, considering that the proper way to protect the right is to recover the debt, not to terminate the agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the case of the sale of goods with deferred payment, the seller has the right to demand both payment for the goods and termination of the agreement in case of non-payment of the next installment, according to Article 695 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 916/667/18 are not applicable to legal relations arising from a sale agreement with deferred payment. The effective method of protection in this case is determined by the plaintiff. The court also took into account that in the car sale agreement, the parties stipulated the seller’s right to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in case of the buyer’s violation of the payment terms.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 291/1157/19 dated 04/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land lease agreements concluded between the Farm Enterprise “OL.Ahro-Svit” and individual PERSON_1 as invalid, since the plaintiff, Subsidiary Enterprise “Ahrofirma “Nemyrynetska”, claimed that it had a priority right to lease these plots based on previously concluded but unregistered agreements.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that for land lease agreements concluded after January 1, 2013, state registration of the lease right, and not the agreement itself, is mandatory. Since the lease agreements between the Subsidiary Enterprise “Ahrofirma “Nemyrynetska” and PERSON_1 were not registered, the plaintiff did not have a lease right. Accordingly, the conclusion of lease agreements between FE “OL.Ahro-Svit” and PERSON_1 did not violate the plaintiff’s rights, since at the time of the conclusion of these agreements, the plaintiff did not have a valid, registered lease right. The court also took into account that the term of the lease agreements between the plaintiff and PERSON_1 expired in August 2022, and therefore, at the time of the consideration of the case in cassation proceedings, the plaintiff did not have a valid lease right that could be protected. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supremeregarding the Court, according to which, if at the time of the court decision the primary tenant does not have a valid lease right, then his claims are not subject to satisfaction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Subsidiary Company “Agrofirma “Nemyrynetska” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 758/10275/21 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of cars purchased with the plaintiff’s funds, but registered in the name of the defendant, with whom the plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant provided for the acquisition of movable property, where the defendant is the title owner, but the plaintiff retains ownership. The courts noted that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her ownership right by the defendant, since the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff’s right to the cars. The courts also critically assessed the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the origin of the funds with which the cars were purchased, and did not establish grounds for applying the provisions on the donation agreement, as the defendant claimed. The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the violation by the court of first instance of the norms of procedural law, in particular regarding the recusal of the judge and the signing of the decision.
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. 522/8262/17 dated 10/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of an apartment by an investor who fully paid the investment contribution but did not receive ownership of the apartment after the completion of construction.
2. The court of cassation instance, agreeing with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, noted that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect their rights, since the claims for invalidation of purchase and sale agreements and cancellation of the certificate of ownership are not proper ways of protection in this situation. The court emphasized that an effective way to protect the violated rights of an investor may be the recovery of the disputed real estate (apartment) through a vindication claim. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that after the fulfillment of the terms of the investment agreement, the investor acquires property rights to the object of investment, and the developer does not have the right to alienate this object to other persons. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the violation by the appellate court of her right to participate in the court session, since the appellate court reasonably refused to postpone the consideration of the case.
3. The court of cassation instance decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but leaving their operative parts unchanged.
without changes, i.e., dismissing the claim.
**Case No. 815/1105/18 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the amendments to the order of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Odesa region regarding the placement of a land plot for land auctions and their cancellation.
2. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiff appealed to the court, challenging the amendments to the order, because he believed that his right to obtain a permit for the preparation of technical documentation for the disputed land plot had been violated. The appellate court dismissed the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the illegality of the actions of the State Geocadastre. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that at the time of the case’s consideration, the land plot had already been transferred to the Obriy Farming Enterprise for lease, which, however, was not involved in the case as a co-defendant. The court emphasized that resolving the issue of the legitimacy of the order without the participation of the tenant would lead to a violation of the latter’s rights. Considering that the plaintiff did not file a claim for invalidation of the lease agreement, and chose an ineffective method of protection, the court of cassation agreed with the dismissal of the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decision of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 910/15947/24 dated 09/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Ossoyo LLC in favor of Ukrainian Railways JSC of UAH 4,047,120.00 of penalty for the defendant’s failure to fulfill the agreed order for the transportation of goods by rail.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, motivating it by the fact that the courts of the previous instances, after examining the circumstances of the case, reasonably concluded that there were grounds for recovering the penalty from the defendant, since the defendant violated the terms of the contract by not using the agreed volume of ordered wagons; at the same time, the courts took into account that the defendant did not take appropriate actions to terminate the obligations under the annex to the contract and independently made a decision to order the service on the most favorable terms for himself, and also did not refute the fact of violation of the contractual obligation. The Supreme Court emphasized that reducing the amount of the penalty is a right, not an obligation of the court, and can be exercised by it in each specific case based on the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the evidence provided by the participants in the case, and in this case, the courts did not establish circumstances for its reduction. The court of cassation noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the established circumstances and the assessment of the courts, which indicates the dissimilarity of this case with other cases cited by the appellant, from the point of view of the subject composition.
of the participants, subject matter, grounds of the dispute, methods of protection, objects and subjects of legal regulation of disputed legal relations, conditions for the application of legal norms, factual and evidentiary basis, legally significant facts and circumstances of the case established by the courts. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellant’s references to violations of procedural law are unfounded and actually amount to an attempt by the appellant to re-evaluate the evidence in the case, which the cassation court has no right to do.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal of “Ossoyo” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 916/491/24 dated 09/19/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – distribution of court costs incurred by the Private Firm “Artek” in connection with the appeal of the court decision in cassation procedure and for professional legal assistance in the courts of appeal and cassation instances.
2. The court refused to recover court costs from the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office, as the cassation appeal was partially satisfied, and the court costs for filing the cassation appeal were imposed on the appellant, i.e., on the Private Firm “Artek”. Regarding the costs of professional legal assistance in the court of appeal, the court noted that the claim should have been dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations is a legitimate right of the offender to avoid prosecution. Taking this into account, as well as the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine on the possibility of imposing court costs on a party that abuses procedural rights or whose incorrect actions led to the dispute, the court decided to impose the court costs for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal on the Private Firm “Artek”. The court also noted that this decision was made within a reasonable time after the panel of judges returned from vacation.
3. The court ruled to impose court costs for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal on the Private Firm “Artek”.
Case No. 910/8416/23 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Kyiv City Council to transfer a land plot to a servicing cooperative for the operation of a parking lot, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement for this land plot and the cancellation of the decision on the state registration of the right of lease, as well as the obligation of the cooperative to return the land plot and demolish the illegally constructed garages.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the need to sell the right to lease land plots for roadside service facilities (parking lots) exclusively at land auctions, and also did not investigate the issue of the legal regime of unauthorized construction and its consequences. The court also pointed out that the courts did not clarify whether the land plot was provided to the previousowners of garages for construction, and whether these garages are unauthorized construction. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the discrepancy between the area of the land plot and the area of the real estate objects located on it, as well as the presence on the plot of property belonging to other individuals. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the established conclusions regarding the application of norms regulating the legal regime of unauthorized construction, its consequences, and its connection with issues of land ownership.
3. The court of cassation 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. 910/8269/24 dated 09/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of services to ensure the availability of electrical energy for household consumers, as well as 3% per annum and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims, as SE “Guaranteed Buyer” improperly fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, namely, did not fully and with delay pay for the cost of services provided. The court noted that the suspensive condition referred to by the defendant (the existence of a debt of the plaintiff to SE “NNEGC “Energoatom”) can be applied only if the universal service provider has a debt to SE “NNEGC “Energoatom” for electricity purchased as a result of electronic auctions, the existence of which in the disputed legal relations the defendant did not prove. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about force majeure circumstances, as their existence was not proven. The court of cassation emphasized that the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum is a measure of responsibility for delaying a monetary obligation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 757/28952/24-к dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return of an appeal to a person serving a sentence in places of deprivation of liberty, due to missing the deadline for appealing the decision of the investigating judge.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court made a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court of appeal did not clarify the date the convicted person received a copy of the investigating judge’s decision, which is important for determining the start of the appeal period in accordance with Part 3 of Article 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a person in custody, the deadline for filing an appeal is calculated from the moment they are served with a copy of the court decision. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate
the court did not establish this date, which made it impossible to correctly determine whether the deadline for appeal had been missed. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court should have established the date the convicted person received a copy of the ruling, and only then make a decision on the return of the complaint.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 2-2830/10 dated 18/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of lower courts regarding the recovery from the applicants of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by a private enforcement officer in connection with the consideration of their complaint against his actions.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the private enforcement officer is entitled to reimbursement of legal assistance expenses, as such expenses are documented. At the same time, the court took into account that the amount of expenses claimed for reimbursement significantly exceeded the amount specified in the preliminary calculation, therefore, the appellate court lawfully reduced the amount of reimbursement. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the appellants about the lack of evidence of payment for legal assistance, noting that expenses are subject to allocation regardless of the fact of their payment. Also, the Supreme Court признав визнав unfounded the references to the missed deadline for submitting an application for an additional decision, since the deadline was calculated correctly, taking into account weekends. The court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is not within its powers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
**Case No. 501/2332/21 dated 17/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the right of ownership of an apartment by evicting the defendants and collecting payment for the use of housing.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the collection of payment for the use of housing, pointing to the erroneous conclusion about the existence of contractual relations between the parties, since the defendant did not accept the plaintiff’s offer to conclude a lease agreement. At the same time, the court noted that the plaintiff has the right to compensation for the use of his property, but exclusively on the basis of unjust enrichment, and not contractual obligations. Since the plaintiff did not claim the recovery of funds on the basis of unjust enrichment, the court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim regarding the collection of payment for the use of housing, changing only the reasoning part of the decision. The court of cassation emphasized that in the absence of contractual relations, there are no legal grounds for collecting payment for the use of housing on the basis of a contract, but the owner has the right to protect his property rights by other means provided by law. The court of cassation
He also emphasized the principle of dispositiveness of civil procedure, according to which the court considers cases within the limits of the stated claims.
3. The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s decision regarding the recovery of payment for the use of the apartment and upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy this claim, amending the reasoning part.
Case No. 761/3997/24 dated 19/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the order of dismissal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff independently wrote applications for dismissal by agreement of the parties and for employment under a fixed-term employment contract, and did not prove that the conclusion of the fixed-term employment contract was made under duress. The court also took into account that before the expiration of the employment contract, the plaintiff did not take any action to conclude a new employment contract, which contradicts her arguments about the desire to continue the employment relationship. The court noted that the term of the fixed-term employment contract is established by agreement of the parties, and each party has the right to make proposals regarding the term. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not express a desire to continue the employment relationship before the expiration of the contract. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they correctly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations and the norms of substantive law, fully and comprehensively examined the evidence and gave it a proper assessment.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 346/6477/21 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of real estate donation agreements as invalid.
2. The Supreme Court issued an additional decision, because during the previous consideration of the cassation appeal of PERSON_3, the issue of upholding the decision of the court of first instance was not resolved, although in the reasoning part of the decision, agreement with the conclusions of the local court was expressed. The court of cassation noted that, according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the court of appeal reversed a court decision that complies with the law, the cassation court reverses the decision of the appellate court and upholds the decision of the court of first instance. Considering that the Supreme Court agreed with the legality of the decision of the court of first instance, but did not reflect this in the operative part of the previous decision, it became necessary to make an additional decision to correct this inconsistency. The court also took into account that the applicant requested that the decision of the court of first instance be upheld.
3. The court granted the application for an additional decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 925/1299/24 dated September 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the Condominium Association “Heroiv Dnipra 69” in connection with the cassation review of the case.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the Condominium Association’s application for an additional decision on the distribution of court costs, was guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made. The court took into account the evidence provided by the Condominium Association of expenses incurred for professional legal assistance, namely the contract with the lawyer, the payment receipt, and the act of acceptance and transfer of services. At the same time, the court took into account the plaintiff’s motion to reduce the costs, assessed the proportionality of the costs to the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer. The court also took into account the consistency of the Condominium Association’s legal position throughout the proceedings in various instances and the fact that the lawyer was already familiar with all the details of the case. Given this, the court concluded that the preparation of the case for cassation review did not require a significant amount of legal work. The court also noted that familiarization with the cassation appeal and analysis of judicial practice are components of preparing a response to the cassation appeal.
3. The court partially granted the Condominium Association’s application and ordered PERSON_1 to pay the Condominium Association “Heroiv Dnipra 69” UAH 3,000 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 500/621/23 dated September 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in the case regarding the establishment of judicial control over the enforcement of the court’s decision on the payment of underpaid supplements to the pension of the deceased husband.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court erroneously returned the appeal, requiring the payment of a court fee, since a person who applies to the court for the establishment of judicial control over the enforcement of a decision is not required to
to pay the court fee for appealing a ruling issued based on the consideration of such application. The court noted that the requirement to pay the fee in such a case contradicts the constitutional right to judicial protection and the binding nature of court decisions. The court took into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding ensuring the enforcement of court decisions and the necessity of an effective mechanism of judicial control. The court also referred to a previous decision of the Supreme Court in case No. 140/8660/20, where the collection of court fees for appeals against rulings on issues of judicial control was deemed unconstitutional. The court emphasized that the Plenum of the Supreme Court has already submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee.”
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 120/9932/23 dated 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the defendant’s actions regarding the reduction of the allowance for special service conditions and bonuses in the certificate of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance, which was prepared for the recalculation of the pension.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances, when resolving the dispute, did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the application of the telegram of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine dated 04.03.2022 No. 248/1210, which, according to the plaintiff, provides for a different bonus amount than the one considered by the courts based on previous telegrams and conclusions in the model case. The court noted that the application of the conclusions set forth in the decision in the model case is possible only if the disputed legal relations fully correspond to the characteristics of a typical case, and the presence in this case of evidence that was not the subject of investigation in the model case indicates its difference. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not comply with the requirements of the CAS of Ukraine regarding a comprehensive, complete, and objective consideration of the case, in particular, they did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and did not examine all available evidence. Considering that the powers of the Supreme Court do not include the examination of evidence, the establishment of factual circumstances of the case, or their reevaluation, the court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 915/1439/24 dated 11/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) to impose a fine on the enterprise for failure to submit information upon request within the established period.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position of the AMCU. The court noted that the enterprise
The court stated that the agency failed to provide evidence disproving the receipt of the AMCU’s request within the specified period. The court also indicated that the rejection of the motion to order a handwriting examination was justified, as the expert’s opinion could not confirm the receipt of the request on a day other than that indicated in the case file. The court emphasized that ordering an examination is a right, not an obligation of the court, and is decided in each specific case taking into account the circumstances of the case. The court also took into account that an unfounded appointment of an examination could lead to delays in the proceedings.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 990/415/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on the temporary suspension of a judge from administering justice.
2. The court granted the claim because the HCJ’s decision to suspend the judge was based on a previous HCJ decision to bring the judge to disciplinary responsibility, which was overturned by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Grand Chamber, overturning the HCJ’s decision to bring the judge to justice, proceeded from the fact that intent or gross negligence is necessary for the disciplinary responsibility of a judge, which was not established in the judge’s actions. Since the decision to bring disciplinary action was overturned, the decision to suspend also lost its legal basis. The court emphasized that the absence of a valid decision to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility precludes the application of a disciplinary sanction in the form of temporary suspension from administering justice. The court also noted that the HCJ cannot give its own assessment of the judge’s procedural decision, as this is beyond its powers.
3. The court declared illegal and overturned the decision of the High Council of Justice on the temporary suspension of the judge from administering justice.
Case No. 340/4394/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notice-decision on the accrual of real estate tax, other than land, for a complex of buildings, which, according to the plaintiff, is used in agricultural activities and, accordingly, is not subject to taxation.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, based on the fact that the non-residential premises are used by the plaintiff for agricultural activities, namely, raising pigs, processing and storing feed, which entitles them to the benefit provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the building complex belongs to the “Agricultural Buildings” class. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphaheld that the key is the fact of functional use of buildings in agricultural activities, and not just formal classification to a certain class of buildings. The court also noted that the defendant did not prove that the buildings are not used for agricultural purposes, and the plaintiff is not an agricultural producer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of tax benefits aims to stimulate and reduce the tax burden on taxpayers who use real estate for agricultural purposes. The court took into account that the plaintiff is registered as a natural person-entrepreneur (FOP) with the type of activity “pig breeding” and has entered into an agreement on joint activities in the field of agricultural production.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, recognizing the tax notification-decision as illegal.
Case No. 380/10780/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of a military unit against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of average earnings and compensation for the delay in payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the military unit missed the deadline for appeal, and the reasons for the omission are not valid. The court emphasized that the lack of funds in a state body is not a valid reason for missing a procedural deadline, since funds for court fees must be provided for in the budget. Also, the court indicated that re-filing an appeal after its return does not give the right to renew the term if a significant period has been missed and no convincing evidence of objective obstacles has been provided. The court emphasized the importance of observing procedural deadlines to ensure legal certainty and the obligation of participants in the case to conscientiously exercise their procedural rights. In addition, the court noted that the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are aimed at protecting the rights and interests of individuals and legal entities from illegal actions by the state, and therefore do not apply to state authorities that act on behalf of the state and whose status is prevalent in legal relations with other persons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 520/29352/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against decisions of the village council, adopted at the session, on various issues of local importance.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff, referring to violations of the rules for combining claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not
