**Case №174/803/23 dated 09/24/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533097](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533097)
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the establishment of the fact of living as one family with the testator for the purpose of inheritance оформлення.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court because the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law when opening appellate proceedings. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the reasons for the prosecutor’s missing the deadline for appealing, who acted in the interests of the local self-government body. The court did not take into account that the term for appealing for the prosecutor begins from the moment the decision is received by the local self-government body, and not from the moment the decision is discovered in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. In addition, the appellate court did not assess the application of the local self-government body to consider the case in the absence of a representative and to resolve it at the court’s discretion, which indicates the absence of a dispute between the applicant and the local self-government body. As a result, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of complying with the principle of legal certainty and the need to justify the renewal of the term for appealing, referring to the practice of the ECHR.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
**Case №344/4414/19 dated 09/25/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533102](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533102)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a power of attorney for the disposal of a vehicle issued by the plaintiff to the defendant as invalid, due to the allegedly invalid passport of the plaintiff at the time of issuing the power of attorney.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he did not issue the power of attorney, and the discrepancy in the passport execution (lack of a seal) does not indicate the absence of the plaintiff’s will to issue the power of attorney. The court took into account the explanations of the notary, who had no doubts about the identity of the plaintiff, and the expert’s conclusion, which confirmed the plaintiff’s signature in the register of notarial acts. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff had been using the passport for a long time and did not apply for its exchange. The court noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence, unless there were violations of the procedure for their submission and receipt.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case №711/7955/14-ц dated 09/24/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533096](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533096)
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings due to death
of the debtor and the need to execute the court decision on bringing the hereditary property to its previous state.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that the obligations of the deceased debtor are not subject to legal succession, without taking into account that the heirs who accepted the inheritance replace the debtor in all legal relations that existed at the time of the opening of the inheritance. The court noted that the obligation to restore real estate is not inextricably linked to the person of the debtor and passes to his heirs. Also, the court took into account that non-execution of the court decision violates the property rights of the claimant and complicates the realization of his rights to the property. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of ensuring the execution of court decisions, which is part of justice, and the need to remove obstacles to the exercise of the right to use property.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 358/157/21 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the trade union to exclude the plaintiff from membership in the trade union and compensation for moral damages.
2. The court, closing the proceedings in the case, proceeded from the fact that the decision on expulsion from trade union membership is within the exclusive competence of trade unions and their internal organizational activities, since it is related to issues of membership in a public organization. The court noted that such disputes should be resolved in accordance with the statutory documents of trade unions and the legislation governing the basics of their activities. The court also took into account that the relations between the parties are not of a labor nature. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that interference in the internal activities of trade unions is inadmissible. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to appeal his exclusion from the trade union in accordance with the statutory documents of the trade union. Claims for compensation for moral damages are derived from claims for recognition of the trade union’s decision as illegal.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 756/4907/22 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract for the assignment of the right of claim (cession) in the part of the assignment of the rights of claim to the plaintiff, since, according to the plaintiff, the defendant did not have the right to assign such a right of claim to an individual who does not have a special legal status of a financial institution.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the disputed contract is not a factoring contract, since it does not contain signs of providing financial
services, but is an agreement on assignment of claim, the conclusion of which is regulated by Articles 512-519 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, where the subject composition is not limited. The court noted that the right of claim against the plaintiff passed to the new creditor precisely for reimbursement in the order of recourse of the paid insurance amount, and not the right to carry out financial transactions. The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement on assignment of claim, the insurance company had already paid the insurance compensation to the bank. The court indicated that the possible difference between the value of the right of claim and the price of its sale may be due to the liquidity of this property right and does not in itself mean the existence of a financial service. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the subject composition of transactions on assignment of claim is not limited by law, unlike factoring agreements.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case №760/23769/21 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of technical premises of an apartment building that were converted into apartments, the cancellation of state registration of ownership of these apartments, and the obligation to take actions to terminate property rights to them.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, as it did not properly notify one of the parties to the case, namely PERSON_7, about the date, time and place of the court hearing, which is mandatory in accordance with Article 366 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of appeal sent a notification to the address that did not correspond to the registered place of residence of PERSON_7, although information about his actual address was available in the case file. Improper notification of a party to the case about the consideration of the case is a violation of his right to participate in the trial and the principle of openness of the trial. Considering that PERSON_7 substantiated his cassation appeal precisely with this violation, the court of cassation concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial. The court of cassation did not analyze other grounds for opening cassation proceedings, as a sufficient ground for canceling the decision was established.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case №4813/2108/2409/2024/001 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of an application for the issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory execution of the decision of the arbitration court and an application for the cancellation of the same decision in the case of debt collection under a loan agreement.
2. In the text of the decision
the main arguments that the court relied on when making the decision are missing, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. A complete analysis requires the full text of the court decision, including the reasoning part. Without it, it is impossible to understand why the Supreme Court decided to change the appellate court’s decision and which arguments were decisive.
3. The court partially satisfied the appeal of PERSON_1 and amended the decision of the Odesa Court of Appeal, setting out its reasoning part in a new wording.
Case No. 175/2201/22 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the State Geocadastre’s order on the transfer of ownership of a land plot located in the coastal protection zone of the Sea of Azov.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of recognizing as illegal the order of the State Geocadastre, was guided by the fact that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right. Since the courts of previous instances have already satisfied the requirement to recover the land plot from illegal possession, which is an effective method of protection, then a separate appeal against the order of the State Geocadastre will not lead to the restoration of possession of the land plot. The court noted that the owner can claim property from the last acquirer, regardless of the number of resales, and for this it is not necessary to appeal the previous decisions of state authorities or contracts. The requirement to recognize the order as illegal is not inextricably linked to the requirement to recover the land plot, therefore, this requirement should be dismissed.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of recognizing as illegal the order of the State Geocadastre and refused to satisfy this claim.
Case No. 569/1175/18 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unlawful inaction of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) and the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals (DGF) regarding the improper supervision of the activities of PJSC “JSB “Kyiv” as the manager of the Construction Financing Fund (CFF), as a result of which the plaintiff did not receive the investment object and could not return the invested funds.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the NBU supervised the banking activities of PJSC “JSB “Kyiv” within its powers, in particular, agreements were concluded on eliminating violations and improving the financial condition of the bank, and later a temporary administration was introduced. During the period of the temporary administration, a residential building was commissioned, in the construction of which the plaintiff invested. The court noted that the NBU is not responsible for the obligations of banks to their clients, and the DGF does not have the authority to supervise the activities of CFF managers. The court also indicated that the plaintiff did notthat the inactivity of the defendants led to the violation of his rights and the impossibility of obtaining the investment object or returning the funds. The court took into account that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to file a civil lawsuit against the guilty parties for damages.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №760/27764/21 dated 09/24/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533093](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533093)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to refuse to provide a serviceman with housing for permanent residence by excluding it from the number of official housing.
2. The court, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff has a length of service of more than 20 years, is on the housing register and occupies official housing. The court noted that the defendant did not prove the validity of the refusal to exclude housing from the number of official housing, which limits the plaintiff’s rights to housing, guaranteed by law. Also, the court pointed out that the defendant’s reference to the need to comply with the order of priority is unfounded, since the plaintiff is already provided with official housing in the order of priority. The court took into account that there are no circumstances that would give grounds for removing the plaintiff from the housing register. The Supreme Court emphasized that providing the plaintiff with housing that he already occupies does not violate the rights of other persons, since it does not require additional actions to search for or build housing. The court also took into account that the defendant did not prove the urgent need to maintain the status of official housing for the disputed apartment.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
**Case №705/3901/21 dated 09/24/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533098](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130533098)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession in favor of the Uman City Council.
2. The court granted the prosecutor’s claim, as it found that the land plot was disposed of from communal ownership illegally, on the basis of a forged decision of the executive committee of the city council, and the defendant acquired it free of charge. The court noted that for the recovery of property, it is sufficient to establish the fact of illegal disposal of property from the ownership of the territorial community, and challenging subsequent decisions of authorities is not an effective method of protection. The court also took into account that the defendant is not a bona fide acquirer, since he received the plot as a gift, that is, free of charge. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the city council learned about the violation of its right only after acquiring the status of a victim in criminal proceedings. The court also recognized as proper evidence the conclusions of examinations conducted within the framework of criminal proceedings, and noted that they relatecircumstances that are subject to proof in this civil case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 361/8953/21 dated 09/24/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of invalid assignment agreements for claims under a mortgage agreement and for satisfaction of the mortgagee’s claims, since the plaintiff believes that these agreements violate his ownership of the land plots acquired by him at electronic auctions.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove that the assignment agreements for claims and for satisfaction of the mortgagee’s claims violate his rights, since at the time of conclusion of these agreements, he was not yet the owner of the disputed land plots. The court noted that the agreement on pledging property rights, on the basis of which the disputed agreements were concluded, is valid, and the plaintiff did not prove which requirements of the law the disputed transactions did not meet. In addition, the court took into account that the legality of the notary’s actions in certifying the agreement on satisfying the mortgagee’s claims had already been established in another case. The court also emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is to protect violated rights, and the plaintiff did not prove that his rights were violated by these agreements.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 440/15044/23 dated 09/25/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Kremenchuk City Council regarding the holding of public hearings on amendments to the detailed plan of the territory and the recognition of these hearings as not having taken place.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the city council complied with the requirements for publishing information about the holding of public hearings, in particular, through a newspaper and a web portal. The court noted that the plaintiff’s comments did not directly concern the content of the amendments to the detailed plan, but expressed disagreement with previous decisions and procedural aspects. The court also indicated that no circumstances were established that would require the mandatory creation of a conciliation commission, since the plaintiff’s comments did not contain proposals that required approval. The court took into account that at the time of the cassation review, a final decision had already been made in the case regarding the appeal against the decision of the city council on approval of amendments to the detailed plan of the territory.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 640/14172/21 dated 09/26/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the appeal against inaction
Regarding the non-payment of indexation of the monetary allowance to the plaintiff by the Financial Department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the Financial Department filed an appeal after the expiration of the one-year period from the date of drawing up the full text of the first instance court’s decision. The court emphasized that, according to the CAS of Ukraine, for entities vested with public authority, such as the Financial Department, missing the one-year period is an unconditional ground for refusing to open appellate proceedings, regardless of the validity of the reasons for the omission. An exception is the situation when the entity vested with public authority was not notified of the case consideration or was not involved in it, but the court made a decision regarding its rights and/or obligations; however, in this case, the Financial Department was duly notified of the case and participated in it. The court also noted that the parties to the case are obliged to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and take measures to obtain information about the status of the court proceedings in a timely manner.
3. The Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Financial Department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and to leave the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/14897/22 dated September 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State Enterprise of Special Communications in favor of the Full Partnership “Lombard “Golden Chest” Shcherbatskyi and Company” of the amount of the unreceived valuable shipment.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to review the decision of the court of first instance based on newly discovered circumstances. The courts of previous instances, in refusing to satisfy the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, proceeded from the fact that the applicant had not provided evidence confirming the existence of newly discovered circumstances that refute the facts underlying the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that it is necessary to distinguish between newly discovered circumstances (as facts) and new evidence (as confirmation of a fact), and that evidence that is new evidence by its nature cannot be considered newly discovered circumstances. Also, the court of cassation noted that one of the conditions for reviewing a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances is the materiality of these circumstances for resolving the dispute, and the result of the review depends on whether these circumstances refute the facts that formed the basis of the court decision. The court also took into account that the applicant did not comply with the deadlines for filing an application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal.
and the ruling of the court of first instance – unchanged.
**Case No. 910/5643/21 dated 09/25/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – compensation for material, moral damage and lost profits caused to TDO “Tkhorivske” as a result of non-return of property seized during the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that TDO “Tkhorivske” did not prove the illegality of the actions of the defendants (prosecution and fiscal service) regarding the non-return of property, since part of the property is material evidence in another criminal proceeding, and also did not provide proper evidence of ownership of the disputed property. The court noted that the obligation to prove the existence of all elements of a civil offense, including the illegality of actions, the existence of damage, and a causal relationship, lies with the plaintiff. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances investigated the procedural documents of all criminal proceedings regarding the disputed property in their entirety. The court also noted that only the circumstances investigated and established by the court on the basis of certain evidence have preclusive effect, and not the legal assessment given by the court to certain facts when considering another case, which is not binding on the commercial court.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of TDO “Tkhorivske” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 906/891/25 dated 09/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return by the appellate commercial court of the appeal of the prosecutor of the Department of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to secure the claim.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, which returned the appeal, since the prosecutor of the Department of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office did not have the right to file it. The court noted that according to the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, only the prosecutor who filed the claim or the heads of the prosecutor’s office of a higher level have the right to file an appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance, which does not concern the substance of the dispute. Since the department prosecutor did not file the claim and is not a higher-level manager, he did not have the right to appeal the ruling. The court also rejected the arguments about restricting access to justice, since the prosecutor is not deprived of the opportunity to file an appeal in compliance with the established procedure. At the same time, the Supreme Court признал признал incorrect the appellate court’s reference to the absence of a copy of the prosecutor’s service certificate in the materials of the complaint, since this is not provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, но это не повлияло на законность решения.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case №752/14070/23 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a preliminary contract for the sale of a vehicle and a credit agreement, recovery of losses, inflation losses, 3% per annum, and compensation for moral damage.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they did not take into account that the incorrect legal qualification of the disputed legal relations by the plaintiff does not release the court from the obligation to apply the appropriate provisions of legal norms; the courts did not pay attention to the fact that Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine applies to violations of any monetary obligation, regardless of the grounds for its occurrence; the courts did not clarify how the preliminary contract for the sale of a vehicle should be qualified (as unconcluded, void, disputable, or concluded), which affects the resolution of other claims. The courts did not investigate all the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not pay attention to the absence of signatures of the parties on the copy of the preliminary contract, which is important for the qualification of this contract. Also, the courts did not give due assessment to the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unfair business practices of the defendants.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №906/1219/24 dated 09/29/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the Khoroshiv Settlement Council in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court granted the application of the Khoroshiv Settlement Council for the recovery of UAH 15,000 from Nadra Invest LLC for expenses for professional legal assistance, as the council provided evidence of the expenses incurred, and Nadra Invest LLC did not exercise its right to object to their amount. The court took into account the criteria of validity, proportionality to the subject of the dispute, and reasonableness of the amount of expenses. The court referred to the fact that obligations that have arisen between a lawyer and a client in the context of resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs are not binding on the court. When resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs, the commercial court must take into account that the amount of reimbursement of court costs not related to the payment of court fees must not be disproportionate to the subject of the dispute. The court also noted that the interested party must take certain actions aimed at recovering expenses for professional legal assistance from the other party, and the other party has the right to object to such claims accordingly.
3. The court ruled to grant the application of the Khoroshiv Settlement Council and recover UAH 15,000 from Nadra Invest LLC to reimburse expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case
**Case No. 922/1121/21 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land lease agreement as invalid and the obligation to return the land plot, since the prosecutor’s office believes that the Kharkiv City Council leased the land plot to “Avtodent Metal” LLC in violation of the norms of land legislation, in particular, regarding the area of the plot, which significantly exceeds the area of the buildings located on it.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the prosecutor did not prove the need for “Avtodent Metal” LLC to use a smaller land plot, and also did not provide evidence of defects or inaccuracies in the land management project. The court noted that the mere fact that the area of the land plot exceeds the area of the buildings is not a sufficient basis for recognizing the transfer of land as illegal. The court also took into account that the provisions of the State Building Codes (ДБН), referred to by the prosecutor, do not establish rules for determining the size of the land plot for the operation of existing facilities. In addition, the court emphasized that the formation of land plots exclusively under buildings is not always a rational use of land, and it is necessary to take into account urban planning documentation and other factors. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the prosecutor did not refute the legality of granting “Avtodent Metal” LLC a land plot of the appropriate size for the maintenance of real estate.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 904/488/24 dated 09/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties from the supplier for untimely fulfillment of obligations for the supply and installation of protective structures.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which calculated the penalty and fine not from the total value of the contract, but only from the value of that part of the goods that was delivered overdue, since the specification to the contract contained a detailed list of goods with the cost of each item and place of delivery, which made it possible to accurately determine which part of the goods was delivered with a delay. The court also took into account that the terms of the contract provide for the preparation of an act on defects in case of non-compliance with the quality of the goods, which contradicts the plaintiff’s position on a single product. The court of cassation noted that there are no grounds for forming a new conclusion regarding the application of the norms of substantive law, since the courts of previous instances correctly applied them, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the terms of the contract. The court also referred to its previous practice in a similar case, where it was decided that only the actually delivered goods, the value of which is specified in the specification, are subject to payment.
3. The Supreme Court
left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 201/6640/22 dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a forestry land plot from the illegal possession of a private individual in favor of the state.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully establish the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not clarify what result the prosecutor wants to achieve as a result of the resolution of the dispute, did not determine which method of protecting the rights of the state in the disputed legal relations is appropriate, whether there are grounds for the prosecutor to file a claim for recovery and its combination with the claims to challenge the decision of the local self-government body, to recognize the subsequent contract of sale of the disputed land plot as invalid, to terminate the ownership of the land plot of the last acquirer, as well as to cancel the state registration of this land plot in the State Land Cadastre. The court also pointed out that the courts did not take into account that during the consideration of the case in a dispute based on a claim for recovery, in which the assessment of the decision of a state authority or local self-government body as legal or illegal may affect the resolution of the dispute, a rejection of the claim is not allowed on the grounds that the decision of the state authority or local self-government body has not been appealed, the corresponding claim has not been filed. Also, the court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the expert opinion made within the framework of the criminal proceedings, indicating that the expert opinion obtained in accordance with the requirements of the law in a criminal case is admissible evidence in a civil case, which the court must evaluate and motivate whether it recognizes the evidence or rejects it, in conjunction with other evidence examined by the court. The court of cassation also pointed out the erroneousness of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances about the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protecting the rights of the state, while considering the claim unsubstantiated, as well as indicating a disproportionate interference with the peaceful possession of property by the final acquirer.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 920/1305/23 dated 09/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of the authorized capital and the determination of the owner of the authorized capital of the private enterprise “Jem-M”.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff in the case is the enterprise “Jem-M” itself, and not its participant, although the dispute concerns corporate rights, which are usually protected by the participants of the company, and not by the company itself; the court noted that
that the claim was actually filed in the interests of one of the founders, which contradicts procedural law, as the company cannot have an interest in restoring the corporate rights of its participants; the court indicated that the proper way to protect the rights of a participant is a claim for determining the amount of the authorized capital and the sizes of the participants’ shares, where not only the participants, but also the company itself, are the defendants; the court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the courts of previous instances ignoring the norms of legislation on limited liability companies and the conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the appellant arbitrarily interprets these conclusions and norms of law; the court also noted that the defendant’s acknowledgment of the claim is not an unconditional basis for satisfying the claim, especially when there are no legal grounds for this.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/13237/24 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties (fine and penalty) from Olteks LLC in favor of Military Unit NUMBER_1 of the National Guard of Ukraine for violation of the terms of delivery of goods under the contract.
2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decision of the appellate court to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the following:
* Olteks LLC failed to fulfill the obligation to deliver the goods within the period specified in the contract and application.
* Olteks LLC’s arguments about force majeure circumstances (lockdown at the production factory in China due to COVID-19) were not properly proven, as these circumstances were foreseeable at the time of the contract.
* Obtaining a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding force majeure circumstances is not an unconditional basis for exemption from liability.
* The court of appeal rightly found no grounds to reduce the amount of the penalty, as the defendant did not prove the existence of circumstances that would provide sufficient grounds for this.
* Olteks LLC’s references to the practice of the Supreme Court are unfounded, as the legal relations in the cited cases are not similar to this case.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal come down to a revaluation of the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of Olteks LLC, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 461/3477/22 dated 09/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the acquittal of PERSON_7 on charges of organizing the smuggling of the precursor pseudoephedrine in particularly large quantities.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court formally considered the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal, did not carefully check the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unreasonableness
