Case No. 991/7181/25 dated July 22, 2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in criminal proceedings regarding corruption crimes related to the embezzlement of funds from a state enterprise and official forgery.
2. The court, in approving the plea agreement, was guided by the fact that the agreement complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the voluntariness of its conclusion, the existence of the victim’s consent, the agreement of the agreement with the head of the SAPO (Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office), as well as the compliance of the agreed punishment with the sanctions of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the accused fully admitted his guilt, provided truthful incriminating testimony regarding other persons, compensated for the damage caused, and also undertook to cooperate with the prosecutor in further investigation. Also, the court took into account the public interest in ensuring a speedy trial, exposing a greater number of criminal offenses, and the inevitability of punishment. The court was convinced that the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons, and also that the accused has the ability to fulfill his obligations.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and sentenced the accused to the punishment agreed upon by the parties in the form of 8 years of imprisonment with confiscation of part of the property, a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, releasing him from serving the main sentence with probation.
Case No. 991/6746/25 dated September 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the decision is the accusation of the director of a state enterprise of embezzling the enterprise’s funds by abuse of office and drawing up false official documents by prior conspiracy of a group of persons.
2. The court established that the director of the SE (State Enterprise), abusing his official position, organized a scheme for the restoration of old parts of the enterprise and their subsequent registration as a new supply from a controlled firm, which led to the illegal transfer of funds to this firm. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, including correspondence and financial documents, which confirm the conspiracy between the director of the SE and the head of a private firm. The court also took into account the conclusion of the expert examination, which confirmed the amount of damage caused to the state enterprise. The court emphasized the particular public danger of crimes in the field of defense procurement, especially in wartime, as this undermines the country’s defense capabilities. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the absence of claims regarding the performance of the state contract, noting that the essence of the accusation is not in violation of the terms of the contract, but in abuse of office for the illegal embezzlement of funds.
3. The court found the director guilty under Part 5 of Art. 191 and Part 2 of Art. 28 Part 1 of Art. 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to…a penalty of imprisonment for a term of 10 years with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, as well as a fine.
**Case No. 535/646/24 dated 08/10/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – deprivation of parental rights of a mother who has been living abroad for a long time and has alimony arrears.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights of the mother, based on the fact that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in exceptional cases, when the behavior of parents is a conscious neglect of their duties and poses a real threat to the child. The court noted that the very fact that the mother lives abroad, the existence of alimony arrears and irregular communication with children are not unconditional grounds for depriving her of parental rights. The court also took into account that the mother expressed a desire to communicate with the children and intends to return to Ukraine. At the same time, the court of cassation supplemented the decisions of the courts of previous instances with an indication of a warning to the mother regarding the need to change her attitude to the fulfillment of her parental responsibilities, warning that otherwise this may be the basis for re-applying to the court with a claim for deprivation of parental rights.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the courts of previous instances by supplementing their operative parts with a warning to the defendant about the need to change her attitude to her obligations regarding the upbringing of children.
**Case No. 336/1617/23 dated 08/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the order of dismissal, recovery of underpaid wages, severance pay, average earnings for delay in settlement upon dismissal, and compensation for moral damage.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove violations of labor legislation by the employer. The court noted that the surcharge for IT is not mandatory and its accrual depends on the decision of the management and the results of the employee’s work. Also, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the employer did not comply with labor laws, the terms of the collective or labor agreement, or committed mobbing. The court emphasized that changing the basis for dismissal is not a basis for satisfying the claim, since the plaintiff did not demand reinstatement. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the infliction of moral damage, since the fact of violation of his labor rights was not established. The court referred to the fact that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 185/5047/24 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the apartment sale and purchase agreement as invalid and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, did not take into account that the plaintiff in the appeal stated about the preliminary calculation of court costs. In addition, the appellate court, pointing to the failure to submit evidence of the incurred costs, should have left the application without consideration, and not refuse to satisfy it. Also, the appellate court did not assess the fact that the plaintiff requested to recover the costs incurred both in the court of first instance and in the court of appeal. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the right to establish new circumstances and evaluate evidence that was not examined by the courts of previous instances. Taking into account the specified violations, the cassation court decided that the case is subject to transfer for a new consideration to the appellate court.
3. The cassation appeal of LLC “Financial Company “Dniprofinansgroup” was partially satisfied, the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal was canceled, the case was sent for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance.
Case No. 523/719/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the court fee to the plaintiff in connection with the closure of proceedings in the case.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application for the return of the court fee, was guided by the fact that according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, the paid court fee is subject to return in case of closure of proceedings in the case. However, taking into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the issue of the return of the court fee is resolved after the expiration of the deadline for submitting an application for sending the case under the established jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff did not apply within the established period with an application to transfer the case to the administrative court, the Supreme Court decided that there are grounds for returning to her the court fee paid for filing a cassation appeal. The court noted that the return of the court fee for filing aFiling of the statement of claim and appeal is impossible, as the Supreme Court is not the recipient of these funds.
3. The court partially granted the plaintiff’s motion, ordering the return of the court fee paid for filing the cassation appeal, and denied the return of the court fee for filing the statement of claim and appeal.
Case №357/9150/24 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of death of a serviceman who died in the combat zone.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances granted the application for establishing the fact of death, considering the provided evidence sufficient to confirm the fact of death of the serviceman at a specific time and under specific circumstances, and also taking into account the impossibility of obtaining a death certificate in another manner due to the occupation of the territory. The Supreme Court overturned these decisions, stating that the provided evidence is not irrefutable proof of death, but only provides grounds for a reasonable assumption of death. The court noted that in such cases, one should apply to the court with a motion to declare the person deceased, and not to establish the fact of death, since the procedures have different grounds and consequences. The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the fact of death requires irrefutable evidence, and declaring a person deceased is based on circumstances that give reason to assume death.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to grant the motion to establish the fact of death.
Case №352/515/25 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute was compensation for moral damages caused by the death of the plaintiffs’ son as a result of the defendant’s actions.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering UAH 250,000 from the defendant in favor of each of the plaintiffs. The court proceeded from the fact that the criminal proceedings against the defendant were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, which is a non-rehabilitating circumstance, and this does not release the person from the obligation to compensate for the damage caused. The court took into account the depth of the plaintiffs’ mental suffering caused by the loss of their son, and proceeded from the principles of reasonableness and fairness in determining the amount of compensation. Also, the court noted that it cannot re-evaluate the facts established by the courts of previous instances and the amount of moral damages, if they are determined taking into account the requirements of the law. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to examine the materials of the criminal case, since the ruling on the closure of the criminal proceedings is already binding on the court in terms of establishing the fact of the commission of the act by the defendant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 489/6074/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the employee’s right to receive payments upon dismissal, namely compensation for unused vacation, severance pay and average earnings for the delay in settlement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, emphasizing that the payment of average earnings under Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is compensatory in nature, not punitive, and the courts must take into account the principles of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality when determining the amount of compensation. The court noted that the establishment of a maximum six-month period for calculating average earnings does not negate the need to assess the proportionality of the amount of compensation to the circumstances of the case, the amount of debt and the behavior of the parties. The court also agreed that the employer’s actions to cancel the bonus order after the employee’s dismissal do not affect the scope of rights acquired by the employee at the time of dismissal and are not an effective means of protection. The appellate court, by reducing the amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement in proportion to the satisfied claims, ensured a fair balance of the parties’ interests.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
**Note:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated from the conclusion of the Administrative Court of Cassation in the ruling of December 6, 2024 in case No. 440/6856/22, regarding the impossibility of reducing the amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal due to the entry into force of the norm of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the new version.
Case №756/11940/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of chief project engineer as illegal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of wages for the time of forced absence and moral damages.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the decision of the appellate court, which considered that the plaintiff was transferred, not moved, to another position, and the contract did not become indefinite. The Supreme Court emphasized that relocation implies the immutability of the essential terms of the contract, while in this case there was a change of position, which indicates a transfer to another job. Since no additional agreement to the contract was concluded, its terms could not be extended to the new working conditions, and from the moment of the transfer, the contract ceased to be valid, and labor relations were regulated by the provisions of the Labor Code. Therefore, dismissal based on the terms of the old contract was illegal. At the same time, the court of cassation noted that since the order on transfer was fixed-term and was valid until May 05, 2024, the plaintiff is not subject to reinstatement.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decision of the appellate court in the part of recognizing the dismissal as illegal and recovering moral damages, leaving the decision of the court of first instance in this part in force, amending the decision of the appellate court in the part of reinstatement to work, stating the reasoning part in a new wording, and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court in the part of recovery of average earnings.
Case №757/57382/20-ц dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of the employee and reinstatement to work.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, by which the employee’s claims were satisfied. The court proceeded from the fact that the reduction of the employee’s position excludes the possibility of dismissal on the basis of paragraph 6 of the first part of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (refusal to continue working due to changes in essential working conditions). Since there was a reorganization of the department where the plaintiff worked, with a reduction of positions, and the plaintiff was not offered a specific position in the newly created department, the courts reasonably found the dismissal illegal. The court also took into account that the order to transfer the plaintiff to the new department was not canceled and was not of a temporary nature, and the defendant did not prove the fact that the plaintiff refused to continue working. The court noted that the offer to take other positions is not a change in essential working conditions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case №569/23621/24 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of
debt under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court erroneously refused to open appellate proceedings, considering that the decision of the court of first instance was rendered in absentia and that the defendant did not comply with the procedure for appealing a decision rendered in absentia. The Supreme Court emphasized that a combination of conditions is necessary for an in absentia hearing, including the absence of a response from the defendant to the lawsuit. In this case, the defendant filed a response, which precludes the possibility of an in absentia hearing. In addition, the operative part of the decision of the court of first instance contained contradictory instructions regarding the procedure for appealing, which misled the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized that in such cases, when there is legal uncertainty regarding the procedure for appealing, it should be assumed that the decision is appealed in the general procedure. Considering the presence of the defendant’s response and the contradictory instructions in the decision of the court of first instance, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant lawfully appealed the decision in the appellate procedure.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 761/27052/19 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State of Ukraine for compensation for property and moral damages caused, as she claims, by the inaction of the Main Department of the National Police in the city of Kyiv (MDNP in Kyiv) in the criminal proceedings regarding a crime committed against her.
2. The court, when considering the case, noted the following:
* The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the criminal actions of another person, which are being investigated by the police, she lost ownership of the apartment and suffered moral distress due to the inaction of law enforcement agencies.
* The court of appeal partially agreed with this, establishing that the MDNP in Kyiv committed unlawful inaction by failing to make a procedural decision in the criminal proceedings within a reasonable time, which led to the plaintiff’s mental suffering.
* The court took into account that the plaintiff assisted the investigation, but despite this, no one was notified of suspicion, and the proceedings were not closed.
* The appellate court noted that the MDNP in Kyiv did not provide evidence to justify the delay in the investigation by objective circumstances.
* At the same time, the court rejected the claims for compensation for property damage, since it found that the loss of the apartment was a consequence of the plaintiff’s own actions when concluding loan and mortgage agreements, although she claimed that she was misled.
* The court also took into account that the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit within the framework of the criminal proceedings, which gives her the opportunity to protect her right to compensation for property damage in another way.
3. The court decided to partially satisfy the claim, recovering from the Stateto the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 5,000.00 as compensation for moral damages, and dismissed the claim in the remaining part.
Case No. 191/807/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. Subject matter of the dispute – recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from work as illegal and reinstatement in her position, as well as recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” violated the plaintiff’s labor rights when she was dismissed, since the employer did not offer her all available vacant positions that she could hold according to her qualifications, simultaneously with the warning of dismissal. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was acquainted with the order of dismissal on September 5, 2022, and received the list of vacant positions only on September 9, 2022, which indicates a violation of the dismissal procedure. In addition, the courts took into account that the plaintiff has a child with a disability, and her husband is a serviceman, which was taken into account when renewing the term for appealing to the court. The court of cassation also emphasized that the burden of proving the legality of the dismissal rested on the employer, who did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the legality of their actions. Regarding court costs, the court of cassation agreed with their recovery, since they were documented and justified, and the defendant did not file a motion to reduce them.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railway”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 711/2278/23 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the loan agreement as invalid, the recovery of debt and compensation for moral damages, since the plaintiff believed that he was misled regarding the financial condition of the defendant at the time of the conclusion of the agreement.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant intentionally misled him regarding the circumstances that were essential for the conclusion of the loan agreement, in particular, regarding the existence of other credit obligations; the courts of previous instances took into account that the plaintiff did not refute the presumption of legality of the transaction and did not prove the fact of deception on the part of the defendant; the courts also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of contacting the defendant regarding the lack of information regarding the subject of the contract at the time of its conclusion; the courts assessed the testimony of the witness (the plaintiff’s wife) critically, taking into account her interest in the outcome of the case; the courts proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff was familiar with the terms of the contract and voluntarily signed it, and the existence of other obligations of the defendant does not affect the validity of the contract; the appellate court additionally noted that the plaintiff did not prove the impossibility of submitting evidence to the court of first instance.
instance, which excludes their acceptance by the appellate court.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 761/14724/22 dated 10/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic rules, resulting in grievous bodily harm, and for abandoning in danger.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment without the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is justified, considering that the convict committed the crime while being deprived of the right to drive vehicles, which indicates a lack of proper conclusions and will not contribute to the purpose of the punishment. At the same time, the court of cassation granted the convict’s request for release from criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, since at the time of the case’s consideration by the appellate court, more than three years had passed since the commission of the offense under Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is a basis for closing the criminal proceedings in this part. The court took into account that the convict expressed consent to be released from criminal liability under the specified article. The Supreme Court noted that the clerical errors made by the appellate court do not affect the correctness of the decision and can be corrected in accordance with Article 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal but released the convict from criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, thus reducing the scope of the charge.
Case No. 482/220/22 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for termination of the lease agreement because the plaintiff did not prove the fact of systematic violation by the defendant of the obligation to pay rent. The court took into account that for previous periods, the defendant paid rent in an amount exceeding that established by the agreement, and these circumstances had already been established by a court decision that has preclusive effect. Also, the court took into account the evidence provided by the defendant on the payment of rent for the disputed periods, and the expert opinion provided by the plaintiff was recognized as inadmissible evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the payment of rent by the defendant in an improper amount, including taking into account indexation and penalties for overdue obligations.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/23213/22 dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral and material damage caused to a person as a result of illegal criminal prosecution.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim for damages. The court proceeded from the fact that the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff were closed due to rehabilitating circumstances, which entitles him to compensation for moral damage in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Exercising Operational Investigative Activities, Bodies of Pre-trial Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court.” The court took into account the conclusion of a psychological examination, which confirmed the presence of moral suffering in the plaintiff as a result of illegal criminal prosecution. The amount of compensation for moral damage was reduced by the appellate court, based on the principles of reasonableness and fairness, as well as taking into account the period of the plaintiff’s detention and investigation. The court also upheld the plaintiff’s right to reimbursement of legal aid and examination costs, in proportion to the satisfied claims.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №947/17407/22 of 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of marital property, namely apartments, parking spaces, and a car acquired during the marriage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing that the property acquired during the marriage is jointly owned property and is subject to division. The court took into account the established procedure for using the property, its value, and concluded that the division of property with the allocation of separate objects to each of the spouses and the payment of compensation is the most appropriate way to resolve the dispute. The court also noted that there is no evidence of the possibility of actual division of each real estate object between the parties. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances in those cases differ. The court also rejected the arguments about the unfounded refusal to attach new evidence, since no evidence was provided of the impossibility of submitting it to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case №202/4888/19 of 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of donation agreements for a non-residential building, concluded by the debtor after the opening of enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid foreclosure on the property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the donation agreements were concluded in order to avoid the fulfillment of the debtor’s monetary obligations to the plaintiff, which is an abuse of rights. The court emphasized that civil law contracts should not be used to avoid paying a debt or enforcing a court decision. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff applied to the court in a timely manner, since he was not a party to the donation agreements and learned about their existence only during the enforcement proceedings. The court noted that for the qualification of a fraudulent transaction, it is important that as a result of its commission, it becomes impossible to foreclose on the debtor’s property or the volume of his property decreases. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff has the obligation to prove that he did not know and could not have known about the violation of his right.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case №906/1220/24 of 15/10/2025
Subject of the dispute – reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance to the Khoroshiv Village Council in connection with the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court.
The court, considering the application for reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, the representative of the Khoroshiv Village Council complied with the deadlines for submitting the application and evidence. Secondly, the court took into account the criteria…
reasonableness of expenses, as defined by the CPC of Ukraine, namely the complexity of the case, time, scope of services provided, the price of the claim and the importance of the case for the party. The court noted that the case did not require a significant amount of legal work, as the defendant’s position did not change during the consideration of the case in various instances. Also, the court took into account the lawyer’s participation in only one court session. At the same time, the court rejected Nadra Invest LLC’s argument that the dispute arose due to the defendant’s unlawful actions, as the Supreme Court had previously established that the Khoroshiv Village Council acted in good faith. Taking into account all the circumstances, the court found the partial reimbursement of legal aid costs to be justified.
The court partially satisfied the application of the Khoroshiv Village Council and ordered Nadra Invest LLC to pay UAH 10,000.00 in legal costs for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 524/4183/23 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against court decisions to close criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 on charges of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).
2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the district court and the court of appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance. The reasons for the cancellation are not specified in the operative part, but it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law that prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision. It is possible that the evidence was incorrectly assessed, important circumstances of the case were not taken into account, or the rules of substantive law were incorrectly applied. To accurately understand the motives of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to read the full text of the resolution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 278/3431/23 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the court of appeal regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 186 (robbery) and Part 4 of Article 296 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 552/3301/22 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal regarding a person convicted of crimes related to narcotic substances (Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of appeal, dismissing the cassation appeals of the convicted person and her defense counsel. The judges probably agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the previous courts and found no grounds for
reversal or amendment of the judgment. At the same time, the full text of the ruling with detailed reasoning will be announced later, which may contain a more detailed justification of the court’s position. It is important to note that the Supreme Court acted within its powers, verifying the legality and validity of court decisions, but not establishing the actual circumstances of the case. The finality of the decision emphasizes the completion of the judicial process in this case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment and dismissed the cassation appeals.
Case No. 752/13587/24 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 197-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized occupation of a land plot and unauthorized construction).
2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordering a new trial in the appellate court. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court of cassation from the provided operative part. Typically, such decisions are made in cases where the appellate court committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, failed to take into account important circumstances of the case, or reached unreasonable conclusions. To fully understand the position of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to review the full text of the ruling, which will outline the reasons for the decision. Without the full text, it is difficult to say exactly what errors of the appellate court led to the reversal of its ruling.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7 and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 611/138/25 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the municipal enterprise in failing to provide information on the quality of drinking water and the obligation to respond to a consumer’s request.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings, motivating this by the fact that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not take into account the grounds for the claims, namely the defendant’s failure to fulfill contractual obligations under the contract for the provision of centralized heating, cold water supply and sewerage services, as well as violation of consumer rights. The court noted that the plaintiff requested information that related to private law relations, and not public information of the municipal enterprise. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the dispute depends on the nature of the disputed legal relations, the legal status of the subject of the application and the subject of the claims, and the right to choose the method of judicial protection belongs to
