Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 19/10/2025

Case No. 916/3636/24 of 14/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of LLC “Management Company “Morska Symfoniya” to transfer technical documentation for an apartment building to the Condominium Association “Morska Symfoniya.”

2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the obligation to transfer technical documentation arises for the former balance holder or building manager from the moment of state registration of the Condominium Association, and this obligation is unconditional. The court emphasized that the list of technical documentation defined by the Ministry of Regional Development is not exhaustive. It is important that the presence or absence of documentation with the defendant does not release him from the obligation to transfer it, and in case of absence, to restore it at his own expense. Also, the court noted that the key factor is the fact of registration of the Condominium Association, and the question of whether the building is residential is beyond the scope of this dispute. The court emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances, and its powers are limited to verifying compliance with the rule of law.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Management Company “Morska Symfoniya” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

Case No. 160/29715/23 of 13/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions by which LLC “FIRM “WIZARD LTD” was reduced the amount of negative VAT value, the amount of budget reimbursement, and accrued penalties.

2. The Supreme Court partially agreed with the arguments of the tax authority. The court noted that to confirm the legitimacy of the tax credit, it is necessary to prove the use of purchased goods, services, or non-current assets in the economic activity of the payer, aimed at generating income. In this
regarding the case, although the plaintiff provided documents on the purchase of aircraft and aviation fuel, they did not prove their use specifically in economic activity, in particular, did not substantiate the economic feasibility of purchasing aircraft, considering the ordering of aircraft rental services from other companies, and did not provide evidence of the use of aviation fuel for the needs of the enterprise. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the controlling body did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the absence of real changes in the assets and liabilities of “FIRM “WIZARD LTD” LLC as a result of the separation of the new enterprise, and also did not prove the illegality of including the cost of inventory used in the production of popcorn in the tax credit. The court emphasized that the absence of individual accounting documents cannot be the basis for concluding that there is a complete absence of raw materials at the enterprise.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and partially overturned the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim regarding the reduction of the negative VAT value in the amount of UAH 436,065.89, related to the purchase of aircraft and aviation fuel, and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged in the remaining part.

**Case No. 552/330/25 dated October 14, 2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state of Ukraine, the National Police of Ukraine, and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation of property and moral damage caused by the inaction of law enforcement agencies in criminal proceedings regarding the fraudulent seizure of her funds.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, as it found that there is already a court decision between the same parties that has entered into legal force regarding the same subject matter and on the same grounds. The court emphasized that the principle of legal certainty requires respect for the principle of res judicata, according to which no party has the right to demand a retrial if there is already a final court decision. The court also noted that the identity of claims is determined by the coincidence of the parties, grounds, and subject matter of the dispute, and in this case, all these elements coincide with the previously considered case. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about new circumstances, such as the ruling of the appellate court in the criminal case, as they do not change the essence of the grounds of the claim, but are only new evidence that does not affect the identity of the dispute.

3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

**Case No. 620/2326/24 dated October 14, 2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kyiv region to include the periods of the plaintiff’s work in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone in the preferential service.
regarding seniority under List No. 1 and recalculate the pension.

2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify all periods of the plaintiff’s work in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, which she asked to be included in her preferential seniority, limiting themselves to only some of them. The courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and evidence confirming her work during the disputed periods, and did not verify whether the company in which the plaintiff worked was included in the list of enterprises whose employees are entitled to preferential pension provision. In addition, the courts did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the non-inclusion of certain periods of work in a specific company in the preferential seniority if that company is not included in the relevant list. Given that the court of cassation has no right to establish new circumstances of the case and examine evidence, it cannot verify the correctness of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the merits of the dispute.

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 for a complete and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case.

Case No. 420/15374/23 dated 10/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the correctional colony regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration and financial assistance for health improvement to the plaintiff as a person of rank and file staff.

2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff was entitled to receive additional remuneration, since he served in an institution located in the territory where assistance was provided under the “eSupport” program, which was provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court noted that the concept of “service” is identical to “performing service,” and the absence of orders for payment does not cancel the right to receive remuneration, but indicates illegal inaction. Also, the court took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, which stated that the receipt of additional remuneration does not depend on direct participation in hostilities or guard duty. The court did not agree with the defendant’s arguments about the need to perform official duties precisely during the occupation period, since the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not contain such restrictions.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which partially satisfied the claims.

Case No. 916/183/21 dated 10/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of LLC “Odesa Regional Energy Supply Company” against the decision of the state executor to suspend enforcement proceedings to recover debt from SE “Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi Sea Trade Port” in connection with the inclusion of the latter
included in the list of small privatization objects.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, as the dispute is not subject to resolution in the order of commercial court proceedings. The court noted that in this case, the enforcement proceedings were combined into consolidated enforcement proceedings, which include enforcement documents issued based on decisions of courts of different jurisdictions. Considering that the current legislation does not regulate the procedure for appealing the actions of the executor in consolidated enforcement proceedings with different jurisdictions, such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The court also took into account the previous ruling of the Supreme Court in this case, which indicated the need to investigate the jurisdiction of the courts whose decisions are enforced in the consolidated proceedings. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the consolidated enforcement proceedings, as the courts took into account the instructions of the Supreme Court outlined in the previous ruling in this case.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.

**Case No. 910/11640/24 dated 10/10/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the return of the enforcement document without acceptance for execution.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the order of the commercial court complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” as it contained all the necessary identification data of the parties, namely the full name and location of legal entities, as well as identification codes in the Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine (YeDRPOU). The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” does not require specifying in the enforcement document who exactly is the creditor and who is the debtor, it is sufficient to indicate data that allows their identification. The court also emphasized that the terms “creditor” and “debtor” are clearly defined in the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” and an analysis of the content of the court order allows identifying the parties to the enforcement proceedings. Thus, the actions of the state executor regarding the return of the order were deemed unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

**Case No. 910/14587/22 dated 07/10/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a contract for the provision of a parking lot for operation between an individual entrepreneur and a communal enterprise as concluded for a new term.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, arguing that the contract for the provision of a parking lot for operation is void, as it was concluded in violation of
public order for the transfer of land plots for hire. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly qualified the disputed legal relations, as the agreement on the provision for operation of a parking area is a lease agreement for communal property, not a land lease agreement, and is governed by special legislation on the lease of communal property, not land legislation. The Court also pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, set out in the постанові [resolution] of March 15, 2024, in case No. 910/1248/23, which deviated from previous conclusions regarding the legal nature of such agreements. The court of cassation emphasized the need to establish the presence or absence of the plaintiff’s preemptive right to conclude a contract for a new term in accordance with the terms of the contract and the norms of legislation governing the procedure for acquiring such a right.

3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.

**Case No. 496/2558/17 dated 10/08/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a loan agreement, a guarantee agreement, a mortgage agreement and an agreement on amendments to the mortgage agreement, as well as the application of the consequences of the invalidity of transactions.

2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized as invalid the additional agreement to the loan agreement and the agreement on amendments to the mortgage agreement, based on the following:
* The plaintiff acknowledged the fact of receiving funds under the loan agreement.
* The additional agreement did not change the amount of funds provided for consumer purposes.
* The conclusion of an additional agreement indicates a change in existing credit legal relations, and not the conclusion of a new agreement.
* At the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the plaintiff was provided with complete information.
* The agreement was performed by the parties for a long time.
* The absence in the case file of an application for the transfer of funds under the additional agreement is not a sufficient basis for recognizing it as invalid.
* An error in specifying the address of the mortgage object was not indicated by the plaintiff in the content of the claim as a basis for canceling the registration action.

3. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the satisfied claims and issued a new decision to refuse the satisfaction of the claims.

**Case No. 484/3679/23 dated 10/15/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for evasion of military service.

2. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, releasing the person from criminal liability.
on the basis of Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code. The criminal proceedings were closed on the basis of Clause 1, Part 2, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court made this decision, probably taking into account the circumstances that allow a person to be released from liability, provided for in Article 401 of the Criminal Code, namely the expiration of the statute of limitations. Although the operative part does not specify specific reasons, it can be assumed that the court found no elements of a crime in the person’s actions or the existence of grounds for release from criminal liability, provided for by law. The person was released from custody. The full text of the ruling with justification will be announced later.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruling of previous instances and released the person from criminal liability, closing the criminal proceedings.

Case No. 953/4418/22 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason).

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys, overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance. In making this decision, the court probably found certain violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. It is possible that the appellate court did not fully examine the arguments of the defense attorneys’ appeal or did not properly assess the evidence presented by the parties. Also, the court of cassation instance chose a preventive measure in the form of detention, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which give grounds to believe that the convicted person may hide from the pre-trial investigation bodies and the court, obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case, or commit another criminal offense. The choice of a preventive measure by the Supreme Court may be due to the fact that the case is under cassation proceedings and the court must ensure the proper behavior of the convicted person during the new appellate review.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention.

Case No. 278/2024/23 dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the possession and use of a land plot, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the land.

2. The court refused to satisfy the initial claim, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the defendant had arbitrarily built a structure on his plot, since the technological platform existed before the plaintiff acquired ownership of the land. The court also noted that the defendant has the right to
the registration of the right to use or own land under their property. In rejecting the counterclaim, the court pointed to the lack of evidence of overlapping plots. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of their rights.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

Case No. 760/18574/22 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the child’s place of residence and the procedure for the mother’s participation in the upbringing of the child after the termination of the relationship between the parents.

2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the equality of the rights and obligations of the parents regarding the child, taking into account their proper housing conditions, income, and desire to participate in the upbringing. The court also took into account that there is a conflict between the parents, which makes it impossible to reach an agreement on the child’s place of residence out of court. Considering these circumstances, as well as the absence of evidence of the child’s greater affection for one of the parents, the court decided to establish joint physical custody, determining the child’s alternating residence with each of the parents for two weeks. The court believes that this decision is in the best interests of the child, as it ensures their connection with both parents and promotes their harmonious development. The court rejected the mother’s request to withdraw the counterclaim and support the original claim regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence with the father, as it believes that this decision is not in the best interests of the child and is inconsistent with the mother’s previous position.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, confirming the decision on the child’s alternating residence with each of the parents.

Case No. 640/13380/20 dated 13/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions and omissions of the Western Interregional Department of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers by LLC “Flextronics TzOV”.

2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments that it used when making the decision. There are only introductory and operative parts of the ruling. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Lviv District Administrative Court.

Case No. 523/7180/14-ц dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of sales contracts as invalid, the recognition of the certificate of ownership of a real estate object as illegal and its cancellation.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court refused.
denying the application for review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances, upholding the decisions of lower courts. The court was guided by Articles 416, 418, 419, 423, 429 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for reviewing court decisions based on exceptional circumstances. The court carefully analyzed the applicant’s arguments regarding the existence of grounds for review provided for by procedural law, but did not find them sufficient to overturn previous court decisions. The Grand Chamber took into account that exceptional circumstances must be truly extraordinary and have a significant impact on the correctness of the case’s resolution, which was not established in this case. The court also took into account the arguments of representatives of the Odesa City Council and the Office of the Prosecutor General, who denied the existence of grounds for review.

3. The court refused to grant the application for review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances and upheld the decisions of lower courts.

Case №619/4125/24 dated 14/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft).

2. The Supreme Court granted the convicted person’s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court’s decision. The court took into account the term of imprisonment already served by the convicted person under a previous verdict, and the day of detention in the current criminal proceedings. Based on this, the court applied Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, crediting this term towards the sentence under the new verdict. As a result of the recalculation, the Supreme Court found that the convicted person had fully served the sentence imposed by the appellate court and ordered his release from places of deprivation of liberty. The court of cassation, thus, corrected the error of the appellate court, which did not take into account the previously served sentence.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to amend the appellate court’s verdict, credit the served term of imprisonment under the previous verdict, and release the convicted person from places of deprivation of liberty, as he had fully served the sentence.

Case №757/18643/25-к dated 14/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accused’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. Usually, a decision to refuse the transfer of criminal proceedings from one court to another is based on the absence of grounds provided for by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, such as the impossibility of conducting court proceedings by a certain composition of the court, the presence of circumstances that cast doubt on the objectivity and impartiality of the court, or the impossibility of ensuring the safety of participants in the court proceedings. The court probably did not find sufficient evidence of the existence of these
circumstances in this case. Also, the court could have taken into account the consistency of judicial practice regarding the consideration of cases at the place of the crime, unless exceptional circumstances require a change of jurisdiction. The lack of justification in the operative part of the ruling does not allow to accurately determine the motives of the court, but it can be assumed that the court did not establish sufficient legal grounds to grant the defendant’s motion.
3. The court ruled to deny the defendant’s motion to send the materials of the criminal proceedings from one court to another.

Case №685/509/24 dated 10/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the deprivation of parental rights of the father and an increase in the amount of child support.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as it was not established that the father definitively and deliberately evaded the fulfillment of his duties regarding the upbringing of the child, as well as the negative influence of the father on the child; the court noted that the child’s residence with the mother and her new husband does not indicate the biological father’s unwillingness to participate in the upbringing of the child; the court took into account that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that does not correspond to the interests of the child if the issues of upbringing can be resolved by less radical means; the court also noted that the conclusion of the guardianship authority is advisory in nature and is not an unconditional basis for deprivation of parental rights; the courts of previous instances established that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of exceptional grounds for deprivation of parental rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case №446/1588/21 dated 10/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding a person convicted of inflicting minor bodily injuries, regarding the application of the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal responsibility.
2. The court of cassation established that at the time of consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the statute of limitations for bringing the person to criminal responsibility for the committed criminal offense had expired. The court took into account that the person did not object to the closure of proceedings in the court of cassation. The court also took into account the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, according to which a person is subject to exemption from criminal responsibility by the cassation court if the statute of limitations expired before the verdict became legally binding, the person did not file a motion for release in the court of appeal, and expressed consent to such release in the court of cassation. The court noted that if there is consent of the person to be released from criminal responsibility and closure of proceedings, the cassation court has the rightthe procedural possibility to make a final decision in the case. Also, the court took into account that in connection with the closure of the criminal proceedings, the victim’s civil claim should be dismissed without consideration, with the right to appeal to the court in the order of civil proceedings.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and the ruling of the court of appeal, released the person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and closed the criminal proceedings, and dismissed the civil claim without consideration.

Case No. 204/8028/22 dated 09/10/2025
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 attempted premeditated murder (Part 2 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, reclassifying the actions of the convicted person from attempted premeditated murder to intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim (Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court took into account that the conflict between the accused and the victim arose suddenly due to a debt, they had been in a friendly relationship for a long time, the accused had not been previously prosecuted, is positively characterized, and the alcohol content in his blood was insignificant. The court also took into account that the knife may not have been prepared in advance, and the victim was provided with assistance by other persons at the scene. The court emphasized that proving intent to kill requires a set of evidence that excludes any other reasonable explanation, and all doubts are interpreted in favor of the accused.

3. The court decided to amend the court decisions, reclassifying the actions of the convicted person under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but left the imposed punishment unchanged.

Case No. 509/2967/23 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty for late payment of alimony.

2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the court of appeal, proceeded from the fact that in order to recover a penalty for late payment of alimony, the alimony payer’s guilt in the occurrence of the debt is necessary. In this case, the debt arose due to the state executor’s incorrect determination of the amount of alimony, and the defendant promptly repaid the debt after its recalculation. The court of first instance correctly established the absence of the defendant’s guilt, and the court of appeal unreasonably re-evaluated the evidence. The court of cassation referred to the постанову (resolution) of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated December 14, 2020 in case No. 661/905/19, which states that the recovery of a penalty is possible only if the debt arose due to the fault of the person obliged to pay alimony, and if the alimony payer proves that he took all measures dependent on him to properly fulfill the obligation, then there are no grounds to recover a penalty (fine).
i.

3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.

Case No. 640/2/22 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice, by which the tax liability of JSC “UkrSibbank” for the tax on non-resident income was increased.

2. The court agreed with the position of the previous instances, emphasizing that the bank rightfully applied the rate of 0% when paying dividends to the French company BNP Paribas SA, as properly оформлені residency certificates were provided, confirming the status of BNP Paribas SA as a tax resident of France. The court noted that the form of the residency certificate, approved in France, does not require mandatory indication of the income amount, and the competent authorities of each country have the right to independently determine the form of the residency certificate. Also, the court rejected the arguments of the tax authority regarding the taxation of the bond purchase transaction as interest payment, emphasizing that the essence of the transaction was precisely the purchase and sale of securities, and not the payment of interest for the use of funds. The court took into account that the accrued coupon income is an integral part of the bond’s value, and not a separate income in the form of interest.

3. The court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of JSC “UkrSibbank’s” actions.

Case No. 910/11308/24 dated 23/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Tech-Soft Atlas” for the protection of business reputation by признання information disseminated by LLC “Information Agency “Teka News” in an article on the website as unreliable, and obligating the defendant to remove this article.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, which established that the disputed article does not contain data on illegal actions of LLC “Tech-Soft Atlas” or its officials, but only mentions the company in the context of a court order in criminal proceedings. The courts also took into account that the information in the article was made with reference to official data from open sources, and individual statements are оценочными judgments of the author, based on his personal interpretation of the information received. In addition, the courts noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of violation of his personal non-property rights as a result of the dissemination of information, and the expert opinion was assessed in conjunction with other evidence. The court also took into account that the defendant corrected inaccuracies in the article regarding the trademark owner after the plaintiff’s обращение. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to satisfy a claim for the protection of business reputation, it is necessary to prove a совокупность of circumstances, including the dissemination of unreliable information that violates the personimmoral rights of the plaintiff, which was not done in this case.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Tech-Soft Atlas” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 910/19617/21 dated 10/15/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the return of the application of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine (State Treasury) regarding the correction of an error in the order of the commercial court, where the State Treasury was mistakenly indicated as the debtor instead of the state of Ukraine.

2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the norms of procedural law, in particular, they approached the issue of the State Treasury’s authority to submit an application for correction of an error in the order in an excessively formal manner. The Supreme Court emphasized that although the State Treasury was not a party to the case, it was indicated in the court order as the debtor, which affects its interests. The court also noted that the procedure for submitting applications for correction of an error in the writ of execution is regulated by the section of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) relating to the execution of court decisions, and not by the general provisions on applications of parties to the case. Considering that one of the main principles of commercial court proceedings is the binding nature of a court decision, as well as the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” the court of cassation instance concluded that the State Treasury had the right to submit an application for correction of an error in the order. The court emphasized the inadmissibility of excessive formalism, which restricts the right of access to the court.

3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for consideration of the State Treasury’s application on the merits.

Case No. 916/3226/23 dated 10/14/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the general meeting of members of the “Tian Kong” Service Cooperative as invalid and the cancellation of the corresponding records in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Formations.

2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the courts should take into account the established practice, according to which not every violation in the convening and holding of a general meeting is grounds for recognizing its decisions as invalid. The court of appeal established that the plaintiff was properly notified of the holding of meetings on April 24, 2023, and April 27, 2023, and these meetings had a quorum for making decisions. Although the convening of the meeting took place by an unauthorized person, the plaintiff did not prove how this affected the adoption of decisions by a majority of votes. The court also took into account that the decision of the meeting on April 27, 2023, brought the cooperative’s charter into compliance with the requirements of the law, and the decision of April 24, 2023, implemented the right of cooperative members to elect a new head.
Regarding the arguments about amendments to the charter that were not included in the agenda, the court noted that these circumstances were not established by the appellate court.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claims for invalidation of the decisions of the general meeting of April 24, 2023, and April 27, 2023, as well as the cancellation of the corresponding entries in the register, and upheld the additional decision of the court of first instance.

Case No. 495/8627/22 dated 01/10/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds acquired by the defendant without sufficient legal basis, due to the non-conclusion of the main contract of sale of the apartment on the basis of a preliminary contract.

2. The court granted the claim, as the defendant received funds from the plaintiff for the execution of the preliminary contract, but the main contract was not concluded within the established period, which indicates the acquisition of funds without sufficient legal basis. The court rejected the defendant’s application for the application of the statute of limitations, considering that the payments under the preliminary contract constitute a single amount related to the acquisition of the apartment, and the statute of limitations should be calculated from the moment when the plaintiff became aware of the violation of his rights. The court also noted that it is considering the case within the limits of the claims declared by the plaintiff, who did not challenge the validity of the preliminary contract, but demanded the return of funds due to the non-conclusion of the main contract. The court took into account that the defendant continued to accept payments after the expiration of the preliminary contract, which confirms his intention to implement the contract. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as the cases referred to by the defendant had different factual circumstances.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

Case No. 826/12348/18 dated 01/10/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of decisions on state registration of ownership rights to real estate, cancellation of entries on ownership rights, and termination of the defendant’s ownership rights to this property.