**Case No. 910/12099/21 of 16/09/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the general meeting of a religious community as invalid and the recognition of the statute of a religious organization in the new edition as invalid.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, did not properly review the case and did not assess all the arguments of the appeal, in particular, regarding the application of the provisions of the statute, which, according to the appellant, contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations.” The court of appeal did not refute the arguments regarding the non-compliance of the provisions of the statute with the requirements of the law and did not indicate which specific norms of the law or statute regulate the procedure for notifying members of the religious organization about the meeting. In addition, the court of appeal prematurely recognized the legal relations in this case as dissimilar to case No. 906/1330/21, without properly assessing all the circumstances, in particular, regarding the existence of fixed membership in the religious community. Considering that the court of appeal did not assess all the arguments of the appeal and did not properly review the case, its decision does not meet the requirements of Articles 236, 269, 282 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the claims for recognition of the decisions of the general meeting as invalid and recognition of the statute as invalid, and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 727/12318/23 of 18/09/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of inflicting medium bodily harm.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that it has no right to re-evaluate the evidence, but only verifies the observance of procedural rules by lower courts. The court noted that the local court properly assessed the evidence, in particular the testimony of the victim and witnesses, a video recording of the incident, and the conclusions of forensic medical examinations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the duration of the health disorder, determined by the examination, is decisive for the qualification of the severity of bodily harm, and not the duration of treatment. Also, the court rejected the arguments about the need for an additional examination, since no sufficient grounds were provided for doubts about the correctness of the already available expert opinions. The appellate court, according to the cassation court, properly verified the arguments of the appeal and provided reasonable answers to them.
3. Court decision: The verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convict was dismissed.
**Case No. 193/784/22 of 18/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as unexecuted and the recognition of land lease as unlawful.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the absence of the will of her deceased mother to conclude an additional agreement to the land lease agreement, and on the contrary, the actions of the parties (payment of rent and its acceptance) indicate the execution of the lease agreement, which excludes the recognition of the additional agreement as unexecuted. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not prove that her mother did not sign the additional agreement, and the defendant provided evidence of fulfilling contractual obligations. The absence of the original additional agreement is not an absolute ground for recognizing it as unexecuted, since the fact of the execution of the agreement by both parties is important. The court also noted that the erroneous statement of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not apply for the appointment of an expert examination did not affect the correctness of the dispute’s resolution on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 158/2170/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation in kind of a share of a residential building that is under joint partial ownership, and the termination of the right of joint partial ownership.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, as they did not take into account that in the case of having only two co-owners, there is not an allocation of a share between them, but a division of joint property, in which the court must determine the size of the separated parts for both parties and the specific real estate objects that are formed as a result of the division. The courts also did not pay attention to the fact that the allocation of only the plaintiff’s share raises doubts about the possibility of registering the ownership right to the share of the property that remains with the second co-owner. In addition, the previous instance courts applied Article 364 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulates the allocation of a share from property that is under joint partial ownership, instead of applying the norms that regulate the division of property between two co-owners. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the method of protection must be proper and guarantee the full restoration of the violated right.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 755/6518/23 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict regarding a person convicted of violating traffic rules, which caused moderate bodily injury to the victim, and the decision of the court of appeal, which upheld the verdict.
2. The court of cassation, r
Considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the imposed punishment and the absence of grounds for its mitigation, considering that the courts properly examined all the circumstances of the case, data on the identity of the guilty party, as well as his post-criminal behavior, in particular, non-recognition of guilt and the absence of actions to compensate the victim for damages. The court also noted that the circumstances referred to by the defense counsel are data on the person, and not circumstances that mitigate the punishment and significantly reduce the degree of severity of the crime committed. In addition, the court of cassation instance indicated that establishing new circumstances and examining evidence that was not the subject of consideration in the courts of previous instances is not within its competence. Regarding the civil claim, the court noted that the victim clearly expressed his position regarding the person from whom damages should be recovered, and the defense did not raise the issue of involving the insurance company as a civil defendant in the courts of previous instances.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 192/1572/22 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic safety rules while intoxicated, which resulted in moderate bodily injury to the victim.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person’s guilt proven based on a set of relevant and admissible evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim and witnesses, data from the accident scene examination report, conclusions of forensic medical and auto-technical examinations, as well as a certificate of alcohol intoxication. The court noted that the very fact of a person being in a state of alcohol intoxication can be proven by various evidence, and not only by an expert opinion, and that obtaining a certificate of intoxication from a hospital does not require separate permission, as it is not a medical secret. The Supreme Court also rejected arguments about violations of the right to defense during the examination, as the defense did not exercise its right to involve another expert. The court indicated that the appellate court properly verified all the arguments of the appellate complaints and reasonably upheld the judgment, complying with the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeals.
Case No. 686/11661/21 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements and the invalidation of property donation agreements, which were transferred
but the debtor’s son.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of invalidating the gift agreements, noted that the courts did not take into account that at the time of the conclusion of the gift agreements, the term for fulfilling obligations under the loan agreements had not yet arrived, and the property was not encumbered. The court indicated that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendants’ intent to conclude gift agreements without the intention of creating legal consequences, and the registration of ownership rights to the property indicates the reality of the transactions. Also, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove bad faith in the actions of the defendants and abuse of their rights, therefore there are no grounds to believe that the plaintiff’s rights were violated by the disputed transactions. Regarding the recovery of debt from the borrower’s husband, the court noted that since the husband consented to the conclusion of the loan agreement, the civil liability of the spouses should be joint and several, but the appellate court did not indicate that the husband is a joint and several debtor together with his wife, from whom the debt under this agreement has already been recovered.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of invalidating the gift agreements and refused to satisfy the claim in this part, and also changed the decision of the appellate court in the part of debt recovery, indicating that the husband is a joint and several debtor.
Case No. 639/1822/24 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs, where the defense requests to mitigate the punishment and apply release from serving the sentence on probation.
2. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, as the courts of previous instances took into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular the severity of the crime, the amount of the seized narcotic drug, information about the convicted person, mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, admission of guilt, difficult financial situation). The appellate court has already mitigated the punishment, applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposing a punishment below the lowest limit provided for by the sanction of the article. The Supreme Court agreed that the circumstances referred to by the defense are not sufficient for release from serving the sentence on probation, considering the public danger of the crime and the need for real punishment for the correction of the person. The court also noted that the spread of drug addiction poses a serious threat to public health.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and to leave the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 530/716/25 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings on the prosecutor’s appeal against a separate ruling of the investigating judge.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open proceedings, citing that a separate ruling of the investigating judge is not subject to appeal under the CPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that although the CPC does not directly provide for appealing separate rulings of the investigating judge, it is necessary to take into account the general principles of criminal proceedings, in particular, the rule of law and ensuring the right to appeal procedural decisions. The court emphasized that the right to appeal is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Supreme Court also referred to its own practice, according to which the appellate court must be guided by the principles of ensuring the right to appeal, even if the relevant decision of the investigating judge is not expressly provided for in the list of those that are appealed. Given this, the Supreme Court found the decision of the appellate court to be unfounded and in violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 127/5836/22 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to enter information into the ERDR and the return of the appeal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court because the appellate court considered the motion to reinstate the term for appeal in the absence of the applicant, without properly notifying him of the date, time and place of the court session, which is a violation of the person’s right to participate in the consideration of their case. The court of cassation emphasized that verifying confirmation of a person’s receipt of a notice is the duty of the court, and the absence of information in the case materials about receipt of the notice makes consideration of the case in the absence of the person inadmissible. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of Articles 370, 419 of the CPC, which stipulate that a court decision must be lawful, reasonable and motivated. Such a violation is considered significant because it prevented a lawful and well-founded decision from being made.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 478/549/23 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for the rape of a minor.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court because the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the defense regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, namely the protocols of inspection of objects, the scene, detention, as well as the document
related to material evidence, due to violations of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC). The court of first instance, according to the SC, took a formal approach to assessing the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence. The appellate court, in turn, did not refute these arguments, limiting itself to general phrases about their unsubstantiated nature. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to analyze all the arguments of the appeal and provide reasoned answers to them, which was not done. Given the severity of the crime, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 686/20391/21 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property, namely a residential building and a land plot, by canceling the state registration of an adjacent land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right, since the existence of state registration of the defendant’s land plot, the configuration of which does not correspond to the title documents, is not a sufficient basis for satisfying the claim for cancellation of this registration. The court took into account the expert’s conclusion that the configuration of the defendant’s land plot does not correspond to the data in the State Land Cadastre, but at the same time noted that the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights is possible by establishing an easement. The court also noted that non-compliance with building codes (DBN) in itself is not a basis for canceling the state registration of a land plot. The court of cassation rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the appellate court’s failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since those cases had different subjects of the dispute and circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 219/8011/21 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the amount of insurance compensation from PrJSC “IC “TAS” in favor of the plaintiff, the owner of the car damaged in the traffic accident.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, since the appellate court did not ensure proper notification of the plaintiff about the appeals of the other party, which deprived her of the opportunity to submit her objections and violated the principle of equality of parties, enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Supreme Court emphasized that each party has the right to familiarize themselves with the arguments and evidence of the other party, including the appeal, and provide their own comments. The court of cassation noted that sending procedural
delivery of copies of rulings on the opening of appellate proceedings and appellate complaints. Since the appellate court did not establish the fact of proper notification of the plaintiff about the appellate complaints, it prematurely overturned the decision of the court of first instance. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not submit a response to the appellate complaint, and the appellate court did not verify whether she had been duly notified of the appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 380/5906/25 dated 23/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv region regarding the limitation of the maximum pension amount for PERSON_1 after its recalculation, taking into account indexation.
2. The court justified its decision by stating that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine cannot establish additional grounds for limiting pension payments, as this contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and the special law that regulates pension provision for persons dismissed from military service. The court emphasized that changes to the conditions and norms of pension provision should be made exclusively by amending the special law, and not by the law on the State Budget. Also, the court took into account previous decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which emphasize the impossibility of canceling or changing the scope of rights and guarantees provided for in special laws by the law on the State Budget. The court noted that restrictions on pension payments established on the basis of the budget law violate the constitutional right to social protection. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv region and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 560/10130/24 dated 23/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to issue an additional decision on leaving the Pension Fund’s appeal unconsidered.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, motivating this by the fact that the list of grounds for issuing an additional court decision is exhaustive and does not include the non-resolution of the motion to leave the appeal unconsidered. The court noted that the appellate court had already considered the issue of restoring the term for appeal when opening proceedings on the Pension Fund’s appeal, refusing to satisfy similar motions of the plaintiff. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the decision on the restoration of the missed
extension of the term for appeal falls within the discretionary powers of the appellate court. The court of cassation indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal were not substantiated and do not provide grounds to believe that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case №911/22/24 (911/953/25) dated 09/24/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – appealing the ruling on securing the claim, namely, whether the courts of previous instances lawfully prohibited the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (Minjust) from executing its own order on canceling registration actions regarding real estate, the owner of which is LLC “Regional Resources.”
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the application for securing the claim, motivating this by the fact that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to effectively protect the rights of LLC “Regional Resources.” The court noted that the purpose of securing a claim is to guarantee the possibility of real execution of the court decision in the future. The court also emphasized that there is no universal algorithm for applying measures to secure a claim, as it depends on the circumstances of each case. Importantly, the dispute in this case is non-property, so the courts must investigate whether the failure to take measures to secure the claim will lead to a violation of the requirements for fair protection of rights. The court found that there is a connection between the measure to secure the claim (prohibition to execute the order of the Ministry of Justice) and the subject of the claim (cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice), which will ensure the protection of the plaintiff’s rights within one court proceeding.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine without satisfaction, and the постанову (resolution/decree) of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case №160/25185/24 dated 09/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notifications-decisions, by which the tax liability of LLC “Agro-Hold” was increased for VAT and income tax of a non-resident.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of the additional VAT assessment, since the economic transaction for the purchase of contract works was real and confirmed by proper primary documents, and the tax authority did not provide evidence of the fictitiousness of the transaction. Regarding the income tax of a non-resident, the court noted that the controlling body mistakenly identified corporate rights with real estate. The court also took into account the provisions of the Convention between Ukraine and Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation, according to which income from the alienation of shares of companies, the value of which is based on real estate that is the object of economic activity, may be exempt from taxation. The court also took into account that the non-resident company
presented a document confirming her status as a tax resident of Cyprus.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Tax Service Administration in the Dnipropetrovsk region and upheld the ruling of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal.
Case No. 697/2143/20 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property (a house and a land plot) in kind between former spouses, where one of the parties died and her successor did not receive a certificate of inheritance.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for division of property in kind, motivating this by the fact that the defendant did not receive a certificate of inheritance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to inheritance arises from the moment it is opened, and the absence of a certificate of inheritance does not deprive the heir of the right to inheritance. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances actually evaded resolving the dispute on its merits, leaving the plaintiff’s rights unprotected, and did not contribute to establishing all the circumstances of the case, in particular regarding the existence of title documents for the disputed property. The court of cassation emphasized that the resolution of a dispute regarding the division of inherited property does not depend on the heirs obtaining a certificate of inheritance.
3. The Supreme Court 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. 910/2276/23 dated 02/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “GS-Trading” of a penalty, inflation losses, and 3% per annum for improper performance of obligations under the agreement on balancing the electricity market.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting their conclusions that PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” violated the terms of the agreement, untimely and incompletely settling with LLC “GS-Trading” for the supplied balancing electricity. The court rejected Ukrenergo’s arguments about the absence of fault in the delay of payments, noting that this does not relieve it of responsibility for violating a monetary obligation. The court also emphasized that the special procedure for settlements in the electricity market does not cancel the general norms of civil law regarding liability for violation of contractual obligations. The court of cassation agreed with the calculation of inflation losses made by LLC “GS-Trading” and recognized the legitimacy of collecting a penalty for the period before the beginning of martial law, since the resolution of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission on suspending the accrual of penalties does not have retroactive effect. In addition, the court recognized as reasonable the partial reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality.
The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 296/9143/23 dated 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for hooliganism, threat of violence against a law enforcement officer.
2. The Supreme Court found that the court of appeal did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, in particular, did not properly verify the arguments of the convict’s appeal regarding the need for a psychiatric examination, taking into account the available information about the person being registered with a psychiatrist and his inadequate behavior during the commission of crimes. The court emphasized that if there are reasonable doubts about the sanity of a person, the courts are obliged to order a psychiatric examination. Failure to conduct such an examination, if there are grounds, is a significant violation that casts doubt on the legality and validity of the court decision. The court of appeal did not provide a convincing answer to the arguments of the convict’s appeal regarding the need for a psychiatric examination.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and scheduled a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 260/3288/24 dated 16/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of head of the territorial service center, reinstatement to the position, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and obligation to appoint to a position in the reorganized structure.
2. The Supreme Court found that the court of appeal mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the obligation of the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to appoint the plaintiff to a position in the newly created territorial service center, without taking into account the circumstances of the reorganization and possible legal succession. The court of appeal did not assess whether there was an actual administrative succession, whether the position was reduced, and whether another way of protecting the plaintiff’s rights could be ensured. Regarding the recovery of average earnings, the court of appeal mistakenly applied the norms of Procedure No. 100, since the plaintiff had been on sick leave for a long time, and it is necessary to establish the period of forced absence and the amount of average daily wages, taking into account the actual time worked. The court emphasized that the method of protecting the violated right must be effective and ensure the restoration of the violated right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the obligation to appoint to a position and recover average earnings, sending the case for a new trial to the court of appeal, and left the ruling unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 631/75/17 dated 23/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for the review of a default judgment regarding the recovery of debt under a loan agreement from her in favor of JSC CB “PrivatBank.”
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the application of PERSON_1 for review of the default judgment, reasoning that the defendant had missed the deadline for filing such an application. The court took into account that a copy of the default judgment was sent to the defendant at her registered address, but was returned with the note “addressee does not reside at the specified address,” which, according to the CPC of Ukraine, is considered proper notification. The court also noted that the defendant was aware of the case being heard, as she received a subpoena to appear in court, and did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline for filing an application for review of the default judgment. The court emphasized the obligation of participants in civil legal relations to act in good faith and bear the risk of consequences associated with their procedural actions or inaction. The Court departed from the conclusions formulated in its ruling of November 09, 2021, in case No. 214/5505/16, regarding the application of Articles 126, 127 of the CPC of Ukraine in conjunction with Articles 284, 286, 287 of this Code.
3. The court of cassation ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and to uphold the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 953/2563/22 dated 20/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a patent for a utility model and the establishment of the right of prior use of an industrial design.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the patent for the utility model and the certificate for the industrial design were issued in violation of the plaintiff’s rights, since the relevant intellectual property objects did not meet the criterion of novelty at the time of filing the application by the defendants. The court noted that a proper evidence in such cases is an expertise, and the expert opinions available in the case file confirmed the lack of novelty. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff is an improper one, since any interested party whose rights are violated can file a claim for invalidation of a patent. The court took into account that the plaintiff is the head of an enterprise that produced similar products before the defendants obtained the patent, and that a criminal case was initiated against the plaintiff on the basis of this patent. The court also indicated that the existence of criminal proceedings is not an obstacle to the consideration of a civil case, since the decision in the criminal proceedings does not have prejudicial significance for the civil dispute.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decision of the appellate
of the court – without changes.
**Case №243/7540/19 dated 22/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of actions as unlawful and the cancellation of decisions of the executive committee of the Sloviansk City Council regarding a land plot, which, according to the plaintiff, violates her rights as a co-owner of the house.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that the appealed decisions violated her rights to use the land plot where her house is located; the courts established that the plaintiff and the defendant are co-users of the land plot in equal shares, since each of them owns 1/2 of the residential building; the issue of allocating the land plot in kind, determining the boundaries, and the procedure for use has not been resolved; the overlapping of land plots does not necessarily indicate a violation of the plaintiff’s rights, since it has not been proven that this happened at the expense of her part of the plot; the court noted that in the event of determining the procedure for using the plot and allocating a share into ownership, the plaintiff will be able to apply to the court with a claim for reclaiming part of the plot if the overlapping persists; the courts took into account that the plaintiff prematurely believes that her rights have been violated, since a specific procedure for using the land plot has not been determined.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case №193/566/22 dated 17/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the decision of the village council, which canceled the previous decision to exclude the apartment from the number of official apartments, which prevented the plaintiffs from privatizing housing.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the village council, by canceling the decision to exclude the apartment from the number of official apartments, acted unlawfully, since it did not provide any reasonable grounds provided by law for canceling the previous decision. The court noted that local self-government bodies have the right to cancel their own decisions, but only in cases where these decisions do not comply with the Constitution or laws of Ukraine. In this case, the village council did not prove that the decision to exclude the apartment from the number of official apartments was illegal. The court also emphasized that human rights and freedoms determine the content and direction of the state’s activities, and local self-government bodies must act responsibly towards citizens. Since the village council did not substantiate the need to cancel the previous decision, the court признал its actions as unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №587/2165/20 dated 18/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is o
complaint against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the reclassification of the defendant’s actions from intentional murder to intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim, as well as the issue of the amount of compensation for material and moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, pointing out that the court of appeal did not properly assess the arguments of the appeal complaints of the prosecutor and the representative of the victims regarding the incorrect classification of the defendant’s actions, namely the absence of intent to kill. The court of cassation stated that the circumstances established by the court of first instance, which were agreed upon by the court of appeal, in particular, the infliction of numerous blows incompatible with life, indicate the presence of direct intent to kill. Also, the Supreme Court pointed to the inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of appeal, which, on the one hand, agreed with the factual circumstances established by the court of first instance, and on the other hand, found the arguments of the appeal complaints regarding the incorrect classification of the defendant’s actions to be unfounded. In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal that the accused was in a state of strong emotional distress, referring to the expert opinion, according to which he could be aware of his actions and control them.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the ruling of the court of appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal, and also imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
Case No. 160/6463/24 dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions, which increased the enterprise’s tax liabilities for rent, income tax and VAT.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position of the taxpayer. The court pointed out that the tax authority did not prove the legality of the accrual of land rent, since no evidence of a change in the designated purpose of the land plot in the relevant period was provided. Regarding income tax, the court agreed that a technical error in the payment order cannot be the basis for recognizing financial assistance as irrevocable. Also, the court noted that the tax authority did not refute the reality of fuel supply transactions, and deficiencies in the execution of TTN (waybill) are not a sufficient basis for concluding that there was no transaction. The court emphasized the obligation of the tax authority to prove the legality of its decisions, which in this case was not done. The court also indicated that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Zhytomyr region to recalculate and pay the pension of PERSON_1 using the average wage (income) indicator in Ukraine for 2021-2023.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, noted that for the transfer from a disability pension to an old-age pension using the average salary indicator for the last three years, simultaneous compliance with three conditions is necessary: continued work after the appointment of a disability pension, acquisition of at least 24 months of insurance experience after the appointment of a pension, and the transfer from a disability pension to an old-age pension for the first time. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the existence of the necessary insurance experience and did not investigate the evidence available in the case files, in particular, the documents provided by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine. Also, the courts did not establish the fact of a previous recalculation of the disability pension, which affects the calculation of insurance experience. Since the court of cassation does not have the right to establish the circumstances of the case, it was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive clarification of all the circumstances.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 369/13444/20 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution based on the assignment agreement.
gi (assignments).
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSC) reviewed a case regarding the replacement of the claimant in an enforcement writ based on an assignment agreement concluded after the court’s decision to recover the debt. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the application for the replacement of the claimant, considering that the assignment of the right of claim under a court decision by concluding a civil law agreement is not provided for by law. The GCSC disagreed with such conclusions, noting that in private legal relations everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted, and there is no norm that would prohibit the conclusion of such an agreement. The court emphasized that the fact of the court decision does not change the obligation between the parties, but only confirms its existence. Also, the GCSC emphasized the importance of the presumption of legality of the transaction, if the assignment agreement is not declared invalid in accordance with the established procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
**Conclusion:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the legal position stated in the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of August 19, 2014, in case No. 923/945/13, and in the resolutions of the Supreme Court of July 10 and 11, 2018, in cases No. 922/3535/15 and No. 908/1490/17, regarding the impossibility of assigning the claimant’s right of claim under a court decision by concluding a civil law agreement.
Case No. 569/24295/23 dated 09/10/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – compensation for earnings lost as a result of illegal actions of the investigation and prosecutor’s office, funds for legal assistance, and moral damage.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that as a result of the illegal criminal prosecution of the plaintiff, he was illegally removed from office, which caused him material and moral damage, which is subject to compensation by the state. The court took into account the length of time the plaintiff was under investigation and trial, the depth of his moral suffering, as well as the costs of legal assistance, which were documented. The court noted that compensation for moral damage during the period of investigation or trial is carried out based on the amount of at least one minimum wage for each month of investigation or trial. The court also indicated that the costs of legal assistance are subject to reimbursement if they are documented and related to the provision of legal assistance during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. The court of appeal changed the decision of the court of first instance only in the part indicating that the collection of funds should take place from the State Budget of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the partial satisfaction of the claim.
