Case No. 991/361/25 of February 10, 2025
Subject of the dispute – approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in the case of providing unlawful benefit to an official holding a particularly responsible position.
The court, in approving the plea agreement, was guided by the fact that the agreement meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine on Criminal Liability, in particular, it was agreed with the Deputy Prosecutor General – Head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. The court also took into account that the terms of the agreement do not contradict the interests of society, as the accused undertook to cooperate in exposing other corruption crimes and to transfer a significant amount of funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court was convinced of the voluntariness of the agreement, the absence of violations of the rights of the parties, and the possibility of the accused fulfilling the obligations undertaken, in particular, regarding the provision of incriminating evidence and the transfer of funds. An important factor was the accused’s admission of guilt, which indicates the existence of factual grounds for признання his recognition as guilty. The court also took into account смягчающие mitigating circumstances, such as sincere remorse, service in the territorial defense, and assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The court approved the plea agreement and imposed the punishment agreed upon by the parties.
Case No. 991/2297/25 of April 7, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the chief accountant of LLC “IBC “SAVITAR” PERSON_6, accused of appropriating another’s property by злоупотребления abusing her official position, forging documents, and providing unlawful benefit to an official.
2. The court, in approving the plea agreement, was guided by the following arguments:
* The agreement meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, it was concluded voluntarily, with the participation of a defense attorney, and согласована agreed upon by the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.
* The accused exposed other persons involved in the crime, and the injured party consented to the conclusion of the agreement.
* The terms of the agreement meet the interests of society, ensuring a prompt consideration of the case, the exposure of a greater number of crimes, and the compensation of damages.
* The agreed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the identity of the accused, taking into account sincere remorse and the absence of aggravating circumstances.
* The court took into account the statute of limitations for bringing to justice for individual episodes of the crime and освободил released the accused from punishment for these episodes.
* The court determined a probationary period and imposed on the accused the obligations stipulated by law to ensure her correction.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and imposed on PERSON_6 the agreed punishment of 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment with a probationary period of 3 years, deprivation of the right to
to hold certain positions and without confiscation of property, and also canceled the preventive measure and the seizure of property.
**Case No. 991/5772/25 dated 08/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_3 in offering and promising to provide undue advantage for influencing an official for the purpose of concluding an agreement on the assignment of the right of claim.
2. When making the decision, the court took into account the defendant’s full admission of guilt, sincere remorse, and active assistance to the investigation, as well as the fulfillment of the terms of the plea agreement in another criminal proceeding. The court also took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, his marital status and health condition. An aggravating circumstance was the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. The court noted that the purpose of punishment is not only retribution, but also the correction of the accused, and concluded that the correction of PERSON_3 is possible without isolation from society. The court also took into account the punishments imposed on other accomplices in the crime. Regarding the payment of remuneration to the whistleblower, the court, having assessed all the circumstances, refused to pay remuneration to PERSON_6, as she did not meet the criteria of a whistleblower established by the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption”, in particular, she was not in labor or civil law relations with “TRIAR Ukraine” LLC.
3. The court found PERSON_3 guilty and imposed a sentence of a fine in the amount of UAH 68,000, and also decided to execute the previous court verdict independently.
**Case No. 917/2038/24 dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Poltava City Council regarding the assignment of objects on land plots to the municipal enterprise, since the plaintiff considers these objects to be his property.
2. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his rights, since the request to cancel the decision of the local self-government body will not lead to the restoration of his property right, which he considers violated. The court indicated that in this case there is a dispute about the ownership of the property, which must be resolved by filing a claim for recognition of ownership of the property (Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) or for claiming the property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also took into account that the plaintiff actually seeks recognition of ownership of the disputed objects, considering them created or acquired at his own expense. Therefore, since applying to the court using an improper method of protection is an independent basis for dismissing the claim, the courts of previous instances reached the correct conclusions about dismissing the claim to cancel the decision of the Poltava City Council, but on other grounds.
3. The court of cassation changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
“`
**Case No. 750/11648/14 dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for PERSON_7, convicted of illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and precursors.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release PERSON_7 from serving the sentence with probation, justifying it by the fact that the court of first instance did not take into account the instructions of the Supreme Court regarding the leniency of the punishment, did not substantiate the possibility of correcting the accused without actual imprisonment, and also took into account the severity of the crime related to illegal drug trafficking in large quantities. The court also took into account mitigating circumstances, such as sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime, which allowed the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the imposition of a punishment below the lowest limit. The appellate court took into account the state of health of the accused, but concluded that correction is possible only under conditions of isolation from society, imposing a real term of imprisonment with confiscation of property. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the personality of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
**Case No. 759/29016/21 dated 09/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the state registration of ownership of a residential building and an apartment as illegal, the recognition of property rights to the apartment, and the recovery of this apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that the appellate court did not properly analyze the evidence regarding the seller’s confirmation in an additional agreement that the actual object of investment is precisely the apartment under a certain number, and also did not give due assessment to the plaintiff’s arguments about a technical error in the contract of purchase and sale of property rights. The court also did not take into account that the act of acceptance and transfer of property rights is signed after the final calculation of the value of property rights on the basis of a technical passport, which is issued after the object is put into operation. The Supreme Court emphasized that an investor who fulfills the terms of the investment agreement acquires property rights to the investment object, which are transformed into ownership rights after the completion of construction, and the developer does not have the right to alienate this object to another person. The court of cassation pointed to the need for a comprehensive and complete examination of the evidence, as well as the fact that the appellate court did not state sufficient reasons on which its decision is based.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/8787/2**
“`Case No. 3 of 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the former director of the LLC for recognition of termination of employment relations and recovery of severance pay, compensation for unused vacation, average earnings for delay in settlement, and salary.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, emphasizing that the courts did not distinguish between the concepts of “termination of powers” of the director and “dismissal” of the employee, and also did not investigate the circumstances of the plaintiff’s dismissal as an employee of the LLC, in particular, whether an order for dismissal was issued, whether an entry was made in the work record book, whether accruals and payments of due amounts were made upon dismissal. The court noted that the termination of the director’s powers does not necessarily mean the termination of employment relations, and the courts had to investigate whether the requirements of labor legislation were met during the plaintiff’s dismissal. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to investigate the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the amount of her salary and due payments, as well as the court’s obligation to assess all arguments of the parties to the case and the examined evidence. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances were limited to the conclusion that there were no decisions of the sole participant of the Company on file regarding the establishment of the amount of remuneration and salary for the plaintiff as the director of this Company, and disregarded and did not properly assess other evidence available in the case file, provided by the parties in support of the amount of salary/remuneration of the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/8063/24 of 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine of damages caused, according to the plaintiff, by unlawful actions of the state executor.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff had not exhausted all possible ways to protect his violated right. In particular, the plaintiff did not prove the impossibility of recovering unjustifiably acquired funds directly from the claimant in another court proceeding. The court noted that the recognition of the actions of the state executor as unlawful is not in itself an unconditional basis for recovering damages from the state; it is necessary to prove a causal link between these actions and the damage caused. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that the plaintiff had already chosen a way to protect his right by filing a claim against the person holding the funds for their recovery as unjustifiably acquired. The court took into account that a final decision has not yet been made in the case on the recovery of unjustifiably acquired funds.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
2. The court of cassation instance considered the application for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Court of Cassation. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, the scope of services provided, the price of the claim, and the significance of the case for the party. The court also took into account that the obligation to prove the disproportionateness of expenses lies with the party that files a motion to reduce expenses. The court, referring to the principles of civil legislation regarding reasonableness and fairness, reduced the claimed amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, considering it excessive. The court took into account the criteria of the reality of the legal services provided, the reasonableness of their amount, the specific circumstances of the case, its complexity, and the necessary procedural actions of the party.
3. The court partially granted the application for the adoption of an additional decision and ordered the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 5,000 from PERSON_1 in favor of PERSON_2.
Right No. 202/4129/20 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of court costs for professional legal assistance and payment for postal services incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the case on the invalidation of the gift agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance, partially satisfying the application for the recovery of court costs, was guided by the following arguments: each party has the right to professional legal assistance, and one of the principles of civil proceedings is the reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made. The amount of expenses for legal assistance is determined by the court on the basis of the submitted evidence, in particular, the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, documents on payment of the fee. The court takes into account the criteria of proportionality of expenses with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the price of the claim, and the significance of the case for the party. The court also takes into account the general principles of civil legislation, such as fairness, good faith and reasonableness. In this case, the court found it reasonable to reimburse part of the expenses for legal assistance and expenses for postal items, taking into account the scope of services provided by the lawyer and the absence of objections regarding the amount of expenses.
3. The court ruled to partially grant the application for the adoption of an additional decision and to recover from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_4 the costs of professional legal assistance and expenses related to the payment of postal items.
Right No. 314/3063/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact about
living as a family by a man and a woman without marriage to protect the property interests of the applicant after the death of the man, in particular, to receive payments provided for family members of a deceased serviceman.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the case. The appellate court mistakenly dismissed the application, considering that there is a dispute about the law, since the deceased’s daughter from the first marriage was not involved in the case as an interested party, although her rights and interests could be violated. The court of first instance had the opportunity to involve the deceased’s daughter in the case and establish whether there is a dispute about the law. The objections of the relevant body (Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, TCC and SP) against the applicant’s right to receive a one-time financial assistance do not in themselves indicate the existence of a dispute about the law. Incomplete clarification of the subject composition and consideration of the case without the involvement of all persons whose rights may be violated or changed makes it impossible to correctly legally qualify the stated requirements and may lead to a decision that does not meet the principle of legal certainty and does not guarantee effective protection of rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 761/23490/24 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Sumy Oblast to disclose information containing banking secrecy of JSC “Credit Agricole Bank” regarding the individual entrepreneur PERSON_1.
2. The court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of the tax authority, supporting the decisions of the previous instances, which established that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence of the impossibility of conducting an audit of the IE PERSON_1 without disclosing banking secrecy. The court noted that the tax authority did not prove the fact of sending a copy of the order to conduct an unscheduled documentary audit to the IE PERSON_1 in the manner prescribed by law, which is a necessary condition for conducting such an audit. Also, the court indicated that the tax authority did not prove the existence of circumstances under which the audit is impossible or there is another objective need to disclose banking secrecy. The court emphasized that public authorities should act only on the basis, within the limits of authority and in the manner provided by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which emphasized the need to comply with the established procedure for notifying the taxpayer about the audit.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service of Ukraine in Su
in the Zaporizhzhia Oblast without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 908/3082/21 dated 09/16/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the bankrupt’s liquidator against the ruling of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, citing that the liquidator of the bankrupt enterprise missed the deadline for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance, and the reasons for missing the deadline are not valid. The court noted that the liquidator did not provide evidence that the previous management of the enterprise was unaware of the appealed ruling or did not have the opportunity to appeal it. Also, the court pointed out that the liquidator was appointed back in June 2024, and the deadline for appealing expired in December 2024, i.e., the delay was more than 6 months. The court of cassation emphasized that compliance with appeal deadlines is a guarantee of legal certainty, and the renewal of the deadline is an exception to the general rule. In addition, the court rejected the motion to replace the party in the case, as the applicant did not provide evidence of authority to act on behalf of legal entities.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 824/86/24 dated 09/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” to declare the writ of execution unenforceable in the case based on the application of “NORMA TRADE ENGINEERING” s.r.o. for recognition and permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court on debt collection.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application of SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” to declare the writ of execution unenforceable. The court proceeded from the fact that partial voluntary execution by the debtor of the arbitration decision is not a basis for declaring the writ of execution unenforceable, as the claimant is not deprived of the opportunity to recover the underpaid amount under this writ of execution. In addition, the court noted that at the time of filing the application, the writ of execution had not yet been issued, which makes the claim of SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” premature. The Supreme Court also emphasized that SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” did not prove the fact of the issuance of the writ of execution and did not provide evidence of violation of the principle of non bis in idem. The court indicated that SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” is not deprived of the opportunity to protect its rights within the possible enforcement proceedings.
3. The court dismissed the appeal of SE NNEGC “ENERGOATOM” and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
**Case No. 127/5836/22 dated 09/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s refusal toon the renewal of the term for appealing the decision of the investigating judge and the return of the appeal.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the ruling of the appellate court, points to the need for a thorough investigation of the circumstances that led to the omission of the deadline for appeal. The court of cassation draws attention to the fact that the appellate court must take into account the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, evaluate them in conjunction with other circumstances of the case and the arguments of the appeal. It is important that the appellate court properly assess the applicant’s arguments regarding the reasons for missing the deadline, verify their validity and, if necessary, investigate additional evidence. Also, the appellate court should take into account whether the appealed decision of the investigating judge is such that it may significantly affect the rights and interests of the person. It is necessary to ensure the person’s right to appeal the court decision, if there are legal grounds and valid reasons for missing the deadline.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 713/463/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s decision to close the criminal proceedings against a person accused of desecration of a grave (Part 1 of Article 297 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance and closed the criminal proceedings, motivating this by the fact that sufficient evidence of the person’s guilt was not established and the possibilities of obtaining them were exhausted, recognizing the protocol of inspection of the scene as inadmissible evidence, since, according to the court, a search was actually carried out without the appropriate permission of the investigating judge. The court of appeal did not directly examine the video recording of the inspection of the scene, which the prosecution referred to, and did not properly assess the totality of the evidence collected in the case, in particular, the testimony of witness-attesting witnesses. The Supreme Court points out that the appellate court, when overturning the verdict, should have directly examined the evidence referred to by the court of first instance and provided its own assessment of it. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the technical recording of the court session was carried out using the video conferencing subsystem, therefore, the absence of technical media in the case file is not a violation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 917/111/25 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of LLC “Firm Berizka” to the former director PERSON_1 to return the seal and documents of the enterprise after dismissal from the position.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing out that the courts of the previous instances did not take into account important circumstances, namely: whether the company took actions to record the state of affairs after the dismissal
whether requirements were set for the former director regarding the transfer of documents immediately after dismissal, whether the economic activity of the company was restricted due to the lack of documents, and why the requirement for the transfer of documents arose only 10 years after the director’s dismissal. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances applied the Instruction, which became invalid at the time of the disputed legal relations, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. In addition, the courts did not specify the list of documents to be returned, which makes the court decision unenforceable. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a comprehensive and objective clarification of the circumstances of the case and evaluation of the evidence, which was not done by the courts of previous instances.
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. 910/14858/23 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of purchase and sale of a part of the share in the authorized capital of the company and the determination of the size of the shares of the authorized capital.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights by the disputed contract, since he did not provide proper evidence that at the time of the conclusion of the contract of purchase and sale, the share in the authorized capital was not fully paid. The court of appeal also noted that the plaintiff did not prove how the disputed contract violates his rights and interests, and did not provide evidence of an appeal to the company’s participants with a demand to resolve the issue of the formation of the authorized capital. In addition, the court drew attention to the fact that the statement of claim and the disputed contract were signed by the same person, which indicates a conflict of interest, as well as the fact that the satisfaction of the claim actually corresponds to the interests of one of the defendants. The court of cassation also rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of the method of protection, since they do not relate to the circumstances of this case.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/4679/22 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of rejecting the monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service (MD STS) in the Dnipropetrovsk region to the Limited Liability Company (LLC) “Meat Factory “Favorit” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the additional accrual of new tax liabilities to the debtor on the basis of an audit report conducted after the debtor was declared bankrupt is unfounded, since зг
According to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, from the date of the decision to declare the debtor bankrupt, the bankrupt does not incur any additional obligations, including the payment of taxes and fees. The court also noted that the controlling authority did not adequately prove the grounds for recognizing the accounts payable as non-recoverable as of December 31, 2022, as it did not specify a specific factual basis that would confirm the need to write off the entire accounts payable in the company’s accounting records specifically in 2022. In addition, the courts took into account that the information regarding the recognition of the enterprise as bankrupt was open and known to the controlling authority on the date of the audit. The court of cassation also took into account the decision of the administrative court, which recognized as unlawful and canceled the tax notification-decision on the basis of which the monetary claims were filed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk region and the resolution of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 902/560/20 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of “Company “Plasma” LLC to the “Lanetsky” Farm within the framework of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recognize the monetary claims of “Company “Plasma” LLC to the debtor. The courts concluded that the creditor did not provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm the existence of the debt, in particular, primary documents that would confirm the fact of the transfer of funds in cash, as well as their capitalization by the debtor. The courts took into account that the transfer of a significant amount of funds (UAH 1,000,000) in cash, and not by non-cash transfer, raises doubts. Also, the courts took into account the impossibility of the physical presence of the debtor’s manager at the place of transfer of funds (Kharkiv) every day for a long period of time. The court emphasized the increased standard of proof in bankruptcy cases, which requires the creditor to provide convincing evidence to confirm the validity of its claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Company “Plasma” LLC and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 917/1946/24 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement regarding the renewal of the lease agreement for a new term.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court came to the erroneous conclusion about the partial satisfaction of the claim, since the parties did not reach an agreement on the essential terms of the lease agreement, namely the term of the lease and the amount of
rent. The court of cassation emphasized that the lessee, when applying for the renewal of the agreement, did not express disagreement with the increase in rent proposed by the lessor, and in the draft additional agreement indicated that the other terms of the agreement remained unchanged. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the court cannot substitute the will of the parties and independently form the essential terms of the agreement, as this contradicts the principle of freedom of contract. The court of cassation emphasized that the lessor intended to change the essential terms of the agreement regarding the increase in the amount of rent, which is its legal right, and the lessee did not respond to the proposed changes. The court of cassation also took into account that one of the essential terms of the land lease agreement is its term, regarding which the parties also did not reach an agreement.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 495/2695/24 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for the demolition of unauthorized construction and the return of the residential building to its original state.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a violated property right by the disputed construction, and also did not provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm that the defendant’s construction creates obstacles for him in using the property. The court took into account that the defendant had permission to build a shed, albeit with deviations from the project documentation. Also, the court took into account that the court decisions on bringing the defendant to administrative responsibility for illegal construction were canceled. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove exactly how the defendant violated his rights and legally protected interests, and also that other co-owners of the house did not report violations of their rights. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances, and also re-evaluate the evidence.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 905/306/25 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the limited liability company “Production Association Sloviansk Plant of High-Voltage Insulators” of a fine in the amount of UAH 5,400,000.00, imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition, and the refusal to grant a deferral of execution of the court decision on the recovery of this fine.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the claim of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for the recovery of the finand was denied a deferral of the execution of the decision. The court of cassation noted that the deferral of the execution of a court decision is a right, not an obligation of the court, which is exercised exclusively in exceptional cases if there are circumstances that complicate the execution of the decision or make it impossible, and evidence confirming the existence of such grounds. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances reasonably established the absence of evidence of the defendant’s ability to execute the court decision in a year, as well as the absence of circumstances that would contribute to the restoration of the enterprise’s solvency during this period. The court also took into account that granting a deferral does not stimulate debt repayment and may violate the property interests of the claimant, especially in view of inflationary processes in the state. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of interests of the parties and the inadmissibility of evading the execution of a court decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
[**Case No. 161/1961/24 dated 17/09/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130378203)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances in criminal proceedings regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder).
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision. It is only known that the court of cassation partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instances, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance. The full text of the ruling, from which the court’s motivation can be learned, will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
[**Case No. 159/1298/21 dated 17/09/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130378177)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for committing intentional murder, attempted intentional murder, and robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, which found the person’s guilt proven based on a combination of evidence, including the testimony of victims, witnesses, expert opinions (in particular, genetic analysis, which revealed a match of the convicted person’s DNA at the crime scene), as well as established facts of coordinated actions of the attackers. The court noted that the courts of previous instances took into account the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, refuting the reasonable doubts of the defense. The Supreme Court emphasized that the established facts indicate a prior conspiracy by a group of persons, and the vagueness of the charges due to the impossibility
identification of each attacker does not affect the validity of the charge, as the actions were committed in complicity. Also, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments about the violation of the right to defense, as the convicted person was informed of the essence of the charge, and the trial took place within the scope of the charge presented. The court of cassation emphasized that the arguments about the unreliability of the evidence boil down to disagreement with their assessment by the court, which is not the subject of cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 905/1491/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “Dtek-Pem Energougol” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” of debt for electricity transmission services, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the courts of previous instances correctly concluded that the claim should be partially satisfied, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the compliance of the volume and cost specified in the invoices with the planned volume of the service, which makes it impossible to establish the correctness of the plaintiff’s calculations. The court also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances and interfere with the assessment of evidence. In addition, the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the non-involvement of the NERCUP in the case, as it was not proven which circumstances important for resolving the case became impossible to establish due to the rejection of this motion. The court indicated that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances are consistent with the legal position of the Supreme Court, set out in other cases.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/3315/24 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the amendment of the pond lease agreement regarding the amount of rent.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of the Zolochiv Settlement Council. The courts established that, according to the pond lease agreement concluded between the settlement council and the farm, there is a possibility of reviewing the terms of the agreement, in particular, in the event of a change in the amount of land tax. In addition, the courts referred to the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine, according to which the amount of rent cannot be less than the amount of land tax. The courts also took into account that the normative monetary valuation of the land plot was carried out, and therefore there are grounds for setting the rent at 3% of the normative monetary valuation. The arguments of the farm that the disputed land plot belongs to public lands were rejected.
no, because, according to the technical documentation, this land plot belongs to the lands of the water fund for fishery needs.
4. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal of the “Nyva” Farm Enterprise without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts – without changes.
Case No. 910/3343/22 (910/12405/24) dated 09/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Idea International” LLC in favor of “Benefit Union” LLC of UAH 223,920.00 of debt under the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances courts on the refusal to satisfy the claim, pointing out that the defendant provided evidence of payment of the rent for the disputed period. The court noted that although the defendant missed the deadline for submitting a response to the statement of claim, the previous instances courts rightfully took into account the evidence submitted by the defendant, as they were provided within a reasonable time frame for consideration of the case. Also, the court of cassation rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the payment was made to a different account than the one specified in the contract, since the plaintiff did not dispute the fact that funds were received into the debtor’s account. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the funds were not credited to the debtor’s account or were returned to the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized the principle of adversarial proceedings in the commercial process, noting that the plaintiff bears the risks associated with the lack of evidence to support its claims.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal of “Benefit Union” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts – without changes.
Case No. 161/5405/24 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “Hig-Ant” LLC for compensation of expenses for professional legal assistance related to the consideration of the cassation appeal of PERSON_1.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application for compensation of legal aid expenses, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, legal aid expenses are subject to distribution between the parties, and their amount is determined according to the agreement on the provision of legal aid and evidence regarding the scope of services provided; secondly, the amount of expenses must be proportionate to the complexity of the case, time, scope of services provided and the importance of the case for the party; thirdly, the court may reduce the amount of expenses if they are disproportionate, and the obligation to prove the disproportionality rests with the other party; fourthly, the court takes into account the criteria of validity, necessity and reasonableness of the amount of expenses, as well as the specific circumstances of the case, the principles of civil law and the practice of the Supreme Court; fifthly, despite the fact that the cassation appeal was dismissed, the claimed amount of legal aid expenses may be reduced if it does not meet the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
3.
