[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130683358](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130683358)
**Case No. 686/16243/21 dated 09/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements and a counterclaim for the recognition of these agreements as invalid.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for debt recovery, since the plaintiff provided the original receipts confirming the conclusion of loan agreements and the transfer of money. The court noted that the defendant did not provide proper evidence of the loan being gratuitous or of being misled. Also, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the violation of his procedural rights, since his representative was duly notified of the court hearings. The court of cassation agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances, and found no grounds for reevaluating this evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681246](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681246)
**Case No. 914/2568/24 dated 09/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the recovery from a limited liability company in favor of the Department of Economic Development of the amount of a share contribution, penalty, inflationary losses and three percent per annum in connection with non-performance of obligations under the agreement on equity participation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the agreement on equity participation was concluded in fulfillment of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development Activities”, which at that time obliged construction clients to participate in the development of the infrastructure of the settlement. The court emphasized that although Article 40 of this Law was excluded, agreements concluded before January 1, 2020, remain valid until full performance. The Supreme Court confirmed that the obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the requirements of the legislation. The court also indicated that the accrual of inflationary losses is lawful from the moment of delay in the monetary obligation, that is, after the date of acceptance of the object into operation, and not from the date of the conclusion of the agreement. The court found no grounds for reviewing the decision of the appellate court, as no incorrect application of the norms of substantive law was found.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681376](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681376)
**Case No. 916/3300/24 dated 10/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages in the amount of UAH 512,108.46 caused by overstating the volumes and cost of wor
of the performed works under the contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the appellant missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the obligation to prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline rests with the appellant, and in this case, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of objective obstacles to timely appeal to the court. The court also took into account that improper organization of the enterprise’s work cannot be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline. In addition, the court emphasized the importance of complying with the appeal deadlines to ensure legal certainty and efficiency of legal proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence provided by the court of appeal.
3. The Court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the private enterprise “Vasolbudstroy”, and to leave the ruling of the Southwestern Economic Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 911/3363/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate the decision of the village council, cancel the state registration of ownership and the land lease agreement, as it partially overlaps with the lands of the forest fund.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances to dismiss the claim, but for other reasons. The court noted that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, since in this case the proper method of protection is a vindication claim, that is, reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court emphasized that the requirement to cancel decisions on state registration is not necessary for the effective restoration of the right, since the satisfaction of the vindication claim is the basis for making a corresponding entry in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly proceeded to consider the case on the merits, without taking into account that an incorrectly chosen method of protection excludes the examination and resolution of the dispute on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 991/9538/25 dated 10/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the accusation of serviceman PERSON_4 of providing unlawful benefit to an official (operative of the Security Service of Ukraine) for non-performance of actions related to documenting possible embezzlement of military property.
2. The High Anti-CorruptionThe court found PERSON_4 guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering the defendant’s full admission of guilt and the absence of dispute over the factual circumstances of the case. The court noted that the crime under Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is a crime with a formal composition and is considered completed by the fact of providing undue advantage. The court also took into account that the operative officer of the SBU is an official within the meaning of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the undue advantage was provided for failure to perform actions that are part of his official duties. When imposing the sentence, the court took into account the sincere repentance of the accused, his positive characteristics, his military service, the presence of four minor children in his care, and the absence of aggravating circumstances. Regarding the funds that were the subject of the crime, the court applied special confiscation in favor of the state, as it was proven that they were the subject of a criminal offense.
4. The court found PERSON_4 guilty and sentenced him to a fine of UAH 17,000, applying special confiscation to funds in the amount of USD 52,500 in favor of the state.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681334](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130681334)
**Case No. 910/11845/24 dated 01/10/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – recognition as invalid of the equipment pledge agreement concluded between Wind Energy LLC and Closed Non-Diversified Venture Corporate Investment Fund “Brickers” JSC, as a fraudulent one.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the pledge agreement is fraudulent, since it was concluded during the period of significant debt of Wind Energy LLC to Financial Company Solutions Factor LLC and the consideration of the case on its recovery, between related parties, without proving economic feasibility. The court took into account that the conclusion of the pledge agreement created unjustified advantages for Brickers JSC as a creditor, since it received the possibility of priority satisfaction of its claims at the expense of the pledged property, which complicated or made it impossible to enforce the court decision in favor of Financial Company Solutions Factor LLC. The court also noted that the conclusion of the disputed agreement took place in a situation of actual insolvency of the debtor and caused additional restriction of the creditor’s opportunities for real satisfaction of its claims. The court emphasized that for the qualification of a transaction as fraudulent, it is important not only to formally establish individual characteristics, but also a comprehensive analysis of all the circumstances of the case and the direction of the parties’ actions to evade debt obligations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeargument of Wind Energy LLC without satisfaction, and the resolution of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 916/249/25 dated 23/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of electric energy transmission services, including the principal amount of the debt, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeal, partially agreed with the arguments of the appellant. The court noted that according to part 2 of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the accrual of 3% per annum is the right of the creditor, not the obligation of the court, and is aimed at protecting the property right and interest of the creditor. The court departed from previous conclusions regarding the possibility of the court reducing the amount of 3% per annum if they are established by law and not by contract. The court emphasized that the court’s reduction of annual interest is possible only to an amount not less than 3% per annum, unless a different amount is established by contract or law. At the same time, the court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the postponement of the execution of the court decision, since the courts took into account all the circumstances of the case, including the financial condition of the defendant and the state of war in the country.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover UAH 463,871.23 of 3% per annum and issued a new decision to satisfy these claims, and in the part of postponing the execution of the decision, left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 907/421/24 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds in the amount of UAH 938,478.13.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the claim of MOECOTAXI LLC against Private Entrepreneur Dutko Ye.V. for the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds. The courts established that Private Entrepreneur Dutko Ye.V. received from MOECOTAXI LLC UAH 14,131,789.73 of repayable financial assistance, of which only UAH 13,193,311.60 was returned. Since no written repayable financial assistance agreement was concluded between the parties, as required by the Civil Code of Ukraine, the courts recognized the remaining funds in the amount of UAH 938,478.13 as unreasonably acquired property subject to return. The court of cassation instance rejected the arguments of Private Entrepreneur Dutko Ye.V. that an oral agreement actually existed, as well as regarding the use of his account to minimize taxes, since the defendant did not provide proper evidence to confirm these circumstances. The court also took into account that at the time of sending the electronic copy of the appellate court’s resolution to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, one of the judges was temporarily suspended.
from the administration of justice, therefore her EDS was replaced with the EDS of the court chairman, which is not a violation.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal of FOP (Individual Entrepreneur) Dutka Ye.V. without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 916/4411/23 dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from borrowers and guarantors under a loan agreement, where the defendants refer to force majeure circumstances that made it impossible to fulfill the obligations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, pointing out the need to establish a causal link between the force majeure circumstances and the impossibility of fulfilling the obligations under the loan agreement, and also emphasized that the mere fact of the territory’s occupation is not an unconditional basis for exemption from fulfilling obligations. The court indicated that the appellate court did not investigate whether the occupation actually led to a complete impossibility of conducting economic activities, whether the defendants had production facilities in other territories, whether they continued operations after the occupation, and whether they had other sources for fulfilling the obligations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding force majeure circumstances is not irrefutable evidence, but should be assessed in conjunction with other evidence, and that the party invoking force majeure must prove the causal link between these circumstances and the impossibility of fulfilling a specific obligation. The court also noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations, which is a violation of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 907/864/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an interest-free repayable financial assistance agreement, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instance courts to close the proceedings in the case, as the defendant’s obligations to the plaintiff were terminated due to the set-off of counter homogeneous claims based on the defendant’s statement. The courts established that the claims are counter and homogeneous, and their term of performance has come. In addition, the courts referred to the fact that the statement on the set-off of counter homogeneous claims was not declared invalid in court, and therefore it is lawful. The court of cassation also noted that the presence of a dispute
regarding the content, conditions of execution, and amount of obligations is an important condition for offsetting claims, but in this case, this condition was met. The court also took into account that the existence of the plaintiff’s debt to the defendant is confirmed by a court decision in another case that has entered into legal force.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 916/2175/25 dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for securing a claim by imposing an arrest on the property and funds of the defendant within the amount of the claims.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s funds. The court noted that securing a claim is an important mechanism for protecting the rights of the plaintiff and ensuring the real execution of a court decision. The court took into account that the defendant had previously failed to comply with a court decision on the return of property, which indicates a potential possibility of evading the execution of a future decision. The court also emphasized that the arrest of funds does not block the defendant’s economic activity, as the funds remain in his possession, and the restrictions only concern the temporary disposal of them. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the existence of a dispute, the risk of failure to ensure effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights, the proportionality of the type of security of the claim, and the absence of abuse of rights are of decisive importance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 1/B-294 dated 10/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling and decision of the courts of previous instances in the bankruptcy case of OJSC “Ternopil Association “Texterno”.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, presumably agreeing with their conclusions. It is possible that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when considering the bankruptcy case. Also, it is possible that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his cassation appeal, or his arguments were found to be unfounded. The lack of detailed information about the court’s motives in the introductory and operative parts complicates a complete analysis. For a deeper understanding, it is necessary to analyze the full text of the decision, which sets out the reasons for the decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold
