Case №753/13527/22 dated 10/15/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recognition of apartment sale and purchase agreements as invalid, which, according to the plaintiff, were fictitious and concluded in order to avoid foreclosure on the property of the suspect in criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, supporting their conclusions that the plaintiff did not prove the fictitiousness of the disputed agreements, since they were actually executed, certified by a notary, and the ownership of the apartment was re-registered to the new owners. The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the agreements, the defendant was not officially aware of the civil claim filed against her, and suspicion in criminal proceedings is not the same as awareness of a civil claim. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff had already recovered damages from another person in another court process. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that although the sale price of the apartment was lower than the market price, this does not indicate a single purpose of avoiding foreclosure on the debtor’s property. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s complete insolvency as a result of the alienation of the property.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case №6-5250/11 dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the decision of the court of appeal regarding the replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution and the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution.
2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal, considering the issue of replacing the claimant, correctly recognized the legal succession of JSC “Alfa-Bank” regarding the rights and obligations of PJSC “Ukrsotsbank”, but mistakenly replaced the claimant in the enforcement proceedings, and not in the writ of execution, as requested by the applicant. Regarding the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution, the court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal did not take into account the mandatory cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance in the event that a party to the case was not properly notified of the consideration of the case, which was established by the court of appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that the consideration of the case in the absence of proper notification of the party is a violation of his constitutional rights and the right to a fair trial. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that procedural succession aims at the implementation by the successor of rights regarding the execution of a court decision in enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal regarding the replacement of the claimant, amending the operative part of the decision of the court of appeal, and granted the cassation appeal regarding the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution, canceling the decision of the court of appeal and sending the case for a new trial.
Review by the court of appeal.
**Case No. 344/20811/24 dated 08/10/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035153](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035153)
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a father’s independent upbringing of two minor children in order to obtain a deferral from mobilization.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for the establishment of the fact of the father’s independent upbringing of the children, motivating this by the fact that the obligation of parents to raise children is inalienable, and the establishment of the fact of independent upbringing is possible only in a dispute about the deprivation of parental rights. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which did not assert that the requirement to establish the fact of independent upbringing must necessarily be combined with the requirement for the deprivation of parental rights. The court also noted that the courts violated the principle of disposition by not considering on the merits the dispute in the father’s claim for independent upbringing of children, although such a method of protection is provided for by the Family Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation cannot establish new circumstances of the case, therefore the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 607/16246/24 dated 15/10/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035165](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035165)
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the father’s communication with the child and the determination of the method of his participation in upbringing.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing that it is necessary to ensure the father’s opportunity to participate in the upbringing of the child, taking into account the principle of equality of parental rights. The court proceeded from the priority of the child’s interests, in particular, his/her right to communicate with both parents, which is important for harmonious development. The absence of evidence of the father’s negative influence on the child and the existence of warm relations between them was also taken into account. The court noted that the established schedule of communication takes into account the child’s age, his/her daily routine and the possibility of attending clubs, ensuring a balance between the rights of parents and the interests of the child. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding domestic violence and disruption of the child’s sleep regime were not confirmed by proper evidence. The court emphasized that in the event of a change in circumstances, the mother has the right to apply to the court with a claim to change the schedule of communication.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 463/6781/24 dated 16/10/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035150](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131035150)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land technical documentation as invalid, illegal actions of the state cadastral registrar andrescission of a decision on state registration of a land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the closure of proceedings in the case, as the dispute is not subject to review under civil procedure. The court noted that the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights from violations by a subject of power, in particular, regarding non-compliance with the land plot registration procedure, is the task of administrative proceedings. State registration of a land plot in the State Land Cadastre is not identical to state registration of property rights to real estate. Since neither the plaintiffs nor the third party have completed the procedure for acquiring ownership of the land, the dispute arose between participants in public law relations. Also, the technical documentation on land management is not a title document and does not create legal consequences, therefore, the claim to declare it invalid cannot be an independent subject of judicial review.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 686/2651/22 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an order as invalid, the cancellation of decisions on the registration of ownership rights to land plots, and their recovery from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not fully take into account the circumstances of the case when determining the start of the limitation period, in particular, it was not taken into account when exactly the plaintiff learned or could have learned about the violation of her inheritance rights, and proper assessment was not given to the criteria for compatibility of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that in cases of protection of property rights, when applying Article 261 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, one should proceed from the presumption of the possibility and obligation of the owner to know about the state of their property rights, and therefore the plaintiff herself must prove not only the fact due to which she did not know about the violation of her right, but also that she could not have known about the violation of her property right. In addition, the appellate court, when deciding on the recovery of the above-mentioned disputed land plots, must assess the criteria for the compatibility of the measure of interference with the peaceful enjoyment of property with the guarantees of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As a result, the court of cassation decided that the appellate court had violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the satisfied claims and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 707/2874/20 of 10/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a land plot of the water fund into private ownership.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized as illegal the transfer into private ownership of a land plot belonging to the lands of the water fund, since such lands have a special legal regime and are limited in circulation. The courts established that the disputed plot was recorded as land for general use (artificial reservoirs) and is located within the technical and operational zone of the protective dam, which makes its transfer into private ownership impossible. The court also noted that form 6-zem is a proper proof confirming the intended purpose of the land plot. The court pointed out that the claim for the return of the plot is a negative claim, which can be filed throughout the entire time the owner’s rights are violated. The court also took into account the public interest in restoring the rule of law in the transfer of water fund lands and protecting the right of ownership to the land of the Ukrainian people.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131067451″>**Case No. 766/13733/21 of 10/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was reinstatement to work and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, since the plaintiff was dismissed due to staff reduction.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of average earnings. The court of cassation noted that since the claim for recovery of average earnings was returned to the plaintiff by a court ruling that entered into legal force, the court of first instance had no grounds to consider this claim. The court of cassation emphasized that the court considers cases within the scope of the stated claims, and the principle of disposition in civil proceedings does not allow the court to independently formulate claims instead of the plaintiff. The court of cassation also noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a separate claim for recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131067013″>**Case No. 904/88/25 of 10/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council against the Kamianske City Council for the recovery of immovable property (pharmacy points) from another’s illegal possession.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council transferred the Municipal Institution “Kamianske City Hospital No. 9” to the Kamianske City Council together with all the property assigned to it under the right of operational management, without any exceptions regarding specific items.of disputed premises, as confirmed by the acceptance certificate and inventory list. The court noted that the plaintiff had not proven ownership of the disputed premises, the fact of illegal removal of these premises from their possession, or violations of the law during the registration of the right of communal ownership of the integral property complex of the hospital by the Kamianske City Council. The court also took into account that the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council did not dispute the decision to transfer the hospital’s property to the communal ownership of the city. In addition, the court emphasized that the owner has the right to determine the legal fate of their property, including its transfer to other persons.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 922/2955/24 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the procurement of works for the overhaul of intra-block roads and sidewalks.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the decisions of the lower courts, which satisfied the claim, reasoning that the courts did not fully examine the acceptance certificates of the performed works, did not establish and properly substantiate which works were performed and which were not, and what are the discrepancies between the price agreed by the parties in the contract and the debt claimed by the plaintiff, especially considering the defendant’s objections regarding the scope of work performed. The court also noted that the courts did not verify the circumstances of the actual performance of the works in the volumes and under the conditions stipulated in the contract, and also did not take into account the provisions of the contract regarding the possibility of reducing the volume of work procurement depending on the actual financing. In addition, the courts did not verify the compliance of the performed works with the design and estimate documentation, which is important for the correct resolution of the dispute. The court of cassation emphasized that the court’s obligation is to comprehensively, fully and objectively clarify the circumstances of the case and evaluate the evidence, which was not observed in this case.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 918/1061/24(450/2330/24) dated 30/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment, concluded between two individuals, based on the claim of a third party who claims that this contract violates their property rights.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, which granted the claim to declare the preliminary contract for the sale of the apartment invalid. The court noted that for the validity of a transaction, it is necessary to comply with the requirements established by Article 203 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in particular, the content of the transaction may not contradict the Civil Code of Ukraine and other acts of civil law.
legislation. The court pointed out that an interested party challenging a transaction must prove specific facts of violation of their property rights and interests. In this case, the courts established that at the time of conclusion of the preliminary contract, the seller did not have the right to dispose of the apartment, as the term of the joint venture agreement under which he acted had expired, and the owner of the construction object was the plaintiff in the counterclaim. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the extension of the joint venture agreement and the need to apply the analogy of law, as the parties’ legal relations were governed by the contract and the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 757/39395/17-ц dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of the domain name cryomec.com and the obligation to transfer this ownership.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as a service agreement was concluded between PERSON_1 and Internet Invest LLC, according to which the parties agreed on the procedure for providing services established by ICANN. Internet Invest LLC rightfully refused to re-delegate the domain name, as it received a decision from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, which decided to transfer the domain name “cryomec.com” to Fives Cryomec AG. The court noted that Internet Invest LLC did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights, but acted in accordance with the terms of the service agreement. The arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to their own interpretation of the norms of legislation and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation. The court of cassation did not find any violations of procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 913/89/25 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a credit line agreement, namely: the principal of the loan, interest on the use of the loan, and commission.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the bank’s claims. The courts established that the bank provided credit funds in tranches, and each tranche is a separate obligation with its own term of performance. Accordingly, interest on the use of each tranche is accrued until the deadline for its return, and not until the final date of the credit line. The court also took into account that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its постанові [resolution/ruling] of April 5, 2023, clarified its previous position regarding the accrual of interest on loan agreements, noting that after the expiration of the loan term or presentation
of requiring early repayment of the loan, not interest for using the loan is accrued, but interest for violation of a monetary obligation. The court of cassation emphasized that accruing interest for using the loan after the loan term expires violates the balance of interests of the parties.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the bank’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 702/748/24 dated 17/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of the will’s belonging and recognition of ownership of the inherited property under the will.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the claim to establish the fact of the will’s belonging is not an effective way of protection, since it is sufficient to establish this fact within the consideration of the claim for recognition of ownership to recognize ownership of the inherited property. The court noted that the previous instances correctly established that the testator, when drawing up the will, mistakenly indicated the surname of the grandson, but her will was directed specifically at him, and at the time of the testator’s death, the grandson was a minor, and therefore, is considered to have accepted the inheritance. The court also took into account that the previous instances properly assessed the testimony of witnesses, in particular, the secretary of the village council who drew up the will, and other evidence in the case. The court of cassation emphasized that the previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law that regulate the disputed legal relations, and their conclusions are consistent with the practice of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 911/447/24 dated 14/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of property, namely an ambulance, from the illegal possession of the Communal Non-Commercial Enterprise “Vasylkiv Multidisciplinary Hospital of Intensive Treatment”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that the ownership of the disputed car did not pass to the hospital, since no transaction was concluded between the parties regarding the alienation of property. The court noted that the signed acceptance certificates only indicate the transfer of the car into actual possession, but are not the basis for the emergence of ownership. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff waived ownership, since sufficient evidence was not provided to confirm such intention. The court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the right to re-evaluate these circumstances. The court took into account that the plaintiff continued to consider himself in
as the owner of the car after its transfer to the military, and his actions do not indicate a waiver of ownership.
4. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №948/209/23 dated 15/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the advance payment and recovery of material damages under a preliminary contract for the sale of real estate, which was not concluded within the stipulated term.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to recover from the defendant, as an heir, the advance received by his predecessor, since the main contract of sale was not concluded within the specified period, and the advance is subject to return. The court noted that the absence of a certificate of inheritance is not an obstacle to satisfying the claims against the heir, since the inheritance belongs to the heir from the moment of its opening. The court also pointed out that the heir who objects to the claims of the predecessor’s creditor must prove the value of the inherited property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the plaintiff’s failure to fulfill her obligations, as it was not established that the sellers offered the plaintiff to conclude the main contract, which she refused. The court also took into account that the sellers did not fulfill the obligation to prepare all the necessary documents for the notarial certification of the contract, in particular regarding the assignment of a cadastral number to the land plot.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, additionally recovering from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 5,000 to reimburse the costs of legal assistance during the cassation proceedings.
**Case №522/17370/21 dated 14/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the appellate court, which mitigated the punishment of PERSON_6, convicted of illegal sale of narcotic substances.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decision of the appellate court, which recognized sincere remorse and treatment for drug addiction as mitigating circumstances, since PERSON_6 did not admit the intent to sell drugs, and her version of purchasing a large quantity of drugs “on promotion” is implausible. Also, the court noted that PERSON_6’s stay in the center of social and psychological assistance is not proof of treatment for drug addiction, since the letter about this was provided by a public organization, not a medical institution. In addition, the appellate court formally stated that the mitigating circumstances significantly reduce the degree of severity of the crime, despite the absence of confirmation of this by the case materials. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court should check whether the crime was committed with a mercenary motive to resolve the issue of confiscation of property.
3. The Supreme
The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 918/124/23 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decisions of the general meeting, the charter of the enterprise, the termination of ownership of shares in the authorized capital, the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer under the contracts of sale of shares, and the recognition of ownership of a share in the authorized capital.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established violations of the procedure for convening a general meeting, in particular, failure to provide the plaintiff with the necessary information and documents, which made it impossible to exercise her corporate rights. The court also agreed that when amendments were made to the charter, the plaintiff’s preemptive right to acquire the share was violated, as well as the procedure for making decisions regarding the disposal of the share, which requires the unanimous consent of all participants. The court noted that since the plaintiff sought to protect her violated preemptive right to acquire the share, the appropriate method of protection is to transfer the rights and obligations of the buyer to her. The court also took into account that the application of such a method of protection will not lead to the need to re-apply to the court, since the other participants recognized the claims.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 909/934/20 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the recovery from JSC “Tysmenycya Gas” in favor of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” of the principal debt, penalty, 3% per annum and inflation losses accrued in connection with the improper performance of the natural gas transportation agreement, as well as obliging LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” to bring its actions in line with the terms of the agreement and the GTS Code.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the initial claim, recovering from the defendant the principal debt, reduced penalty, 3% per annum and inflation losses, and also closed the proceedings on the counterclaim. The court of cassation emphasized that reducing the amount of the penalty is the right of the court, which is implemented on the basis of an assessment of the evidence and circumstances of the case in their entirety. The court noted that the courts of previous instances took into account the financial condition of the defendant, the accrual of other sanctions (3% per annum and inflation losses), as well as the fact that the penalty is not a means of unjust enrichment of the plaintiff. The court of cassation indicated that it does not see any incorrect application of the norms of substantive law by the courts of previous instances, since the decision to reduce the penalty was made taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and in compliance with the principle of balancing the interests of the parties. The court of cassation also noted that its task is only to verify
and the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of previous instances based on the established factual circumstances of the case, and not in the reevaluation of these circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” without satisfaction, and left the appellate court’s ruling and the court of first instance’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 917/1003/24(917/330/25) dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate commercial court’s ruling on the partial satisfaction of LLC “Agro Expert”‘s application for the recognition of monetary claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy case of SFH “Grekov”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which recognized the monetary claims of LLC “Agro Expert” in the amount of UAH 1,804,823.10 as justified. The main argument was that LLC “Agro Expert,” as a previous creditor under a financial agrarian receipt, fulfilled its obligations to PE “BVK Company” (the successor of LLC “Agrii Ukraine”) at the expense of its own property, which, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Agrarian Receipts,” entitles it to the transfer of creditor’s rights in the amount paid. The court also took into account the prejudicial significance of court decisions in case No. 911/1795/22, which established the circumstances of indebtedness under the financial agrarian receipt. In addition, the appellate court reasonably refused to recognize the claims for the payment of court fees, as they are not secured by a financial agrarian receipt.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PE “BVK Company” without satisfaction, and left the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.
Case No. 911/3247/24 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms of performance of a construction contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, reducing the amount of penalties by 40% on the basis of Articles 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine and 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court took into account the financial condition of the parties, the absence of evidence of actual damages to the plaintiff, the nature of the delay related to martial law, and the balance of interests of the parties, since the plaintiff actually accepted the performed work. The court of cassation emphasized that the issue of reducing the amount of penalty is the discretionary right of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the Supreme Court only verifies the correct application of the rules of law. The court noted that the absence of damages is not an independent ground for refusing to recover the penalty, but is one of the criteria for reducing its amount.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal as illegal due to staff reduction, reinstatement to work, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and moral damage.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim. The court noted that the plaintiff was dismissed in compliance with the requirements of labor legislation, as she was offered all available vacant positions, which she refused. The court also took into account that at the time of dismissal, the plaintiff was no longer a member of the trade union, therefore, the consent of the trade union body to her dismissal was not required. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding non-familiarization with the list of vacant positions, as the case materials confirm the contrary. The court also rejected the arguments about the illegality of the dismissal warning, as it found that the person who signed the warning had the authority to do so.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 372/4061/24 dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of a mother of parental rights to a child.
2. The court dismissed the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in exceptional cases where it is impossible to change the behavior of the parents. The court took into account that the mother objects to being deprived of her parental rights and intends to participate in the upbringing of the child. Also, the court noted that the plaintiff has not proven the mother’s deliberate evasion of fulfilling her parental responsibilities.
and the opinion of the guardianship authority does not contain convincing arguments regarding the expediency of depriving the mother of parental rights. The court also took into account that there is a prolonged conflict between the parents, which affects the psychological state of the child, but does not exclude the possibility of restoring relations with the mother. The court emphasized the importance of preserving family ties, if it is in the best interests of the child, and the absence of evidence of a threat from the mother to the child.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, refusing to deprive the mother of parental rights.
Case No. 550/53/25 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the son’s request to the court to recognize the father as having lost property and personal non-property rights related to paternity, due to cruel treatment and evasion of parental duties during the plaintiff’s childhood.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the plaintiff’s claim is actually a claim for deprivation of parental rights of an adult son, which does not correspond to the tasks of civil proceedings, since there are other ways to protect the rights of adult children in cases on recovery of alimony for the maintenance of parents. The courts referred to the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the closure of proceedings in cases that are not subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings. The Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances violated the principle of disposition, closing the proceedings in the case on a claim that was not actually filed, and did not consider the case on the merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts do not have the right to change the basis of the claim, but must consider the case within the limits of the stated claims. The Supreme Court also noted that the conclusions of the courts regarding the plaintiff’s attempt to create prejudicial circumstances for another case are not a legal basis for closing the proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 600/6374/23-а dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the dismissal of the head of the staff of the Commercial Court of Chernivtsi region in connection with the expression of no confidence in her by the meeting of judges, as well as the refusal to grant social leave to care for a child.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasized that the decision of the meeting of judges to express no confidence in the head of the court staff must be оформлене оформлене as a separate document, and not only the minutes of the meeting, otherwise the order of dismissal is illegal. The court also indicated that the refusal to grant social leave to care for a child is illegal, since the employer is obliged to grant such leave at the request of the mother. The court emphasized that с
Social guarantees of an employee cannot depend on shortcomings in the organization of work with the employer’s documents. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms, set forth in the decision of the Supreme Court after the filing of the cassation appeal, must be taken into account by the court of cassation instance. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the employer’s obligation to grant social leave upon a properly оформленій employee’s application.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, recognized the order of dismissal as illegal, reinstated the plaintiff to her position, recognized the inaction regarding the failure to grant leave as illegal, and ordered that leave for childcare be granted, but refused to recognize the decision of the meeting of judges as illegal.
Case No. 910/13673/24 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of the authorized capital of “Talan Systems” LLC and the sizes of the shares of its participants.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the participants of “Talan Systems” LLC (PERSON_5 and PERSON_6) alienated their shares in the authorized capital by way of donation to PERSON_1, without paying for them in advance, which is a violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” and the company’s charter. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, noting that the circumstances in the case referred to by the appellant were different, since there the already paid part of the share was alienated, and a different law was applied. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that he contributed funds to pay for the share, since the courts found that the amount of the obligation was determined incorrectly. In addition, the court rejected the reference to another court case, since there was a different subject of the dispute and other plaintiffs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 757/35823/16-ц dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, leaving the decision of the court of first instance in force, but changed its reasoning part. The court noted that the mere fact of the existence of a court decision recognizing the results of public auctions as invalid is not an unconditional basis for recovering property from a bona fide purchaser, especially when this property was the subject of a mortgage, and the borrower did not fulfill the obligations under the loan agreement. The court took into account that the recognition of the auctions as invalid concerned violations of the procedure for the sale of property, and not the fact of non-fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement. The court also took into account that the defendant acquiredownership of the apartment is lawful, as the seller (the winner of the auction) was the legal owner at the time of the sale and purchase agreement. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the debtor and the rights of a bona fide purchaser, and also noted that a claim for unjust enrichment (Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) is not an appropriate remedy in this case. The court indicated that the measures taken by the court to secure the claim in a commercial case cannot be the basis for satisfying a claim for recovery of property, if the court decision in such a case did not become the basis for claiming the disputed real estate.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and amended the decision of the court of first instance, upholding the refusal to satisfy the claim for recovery of property.
Case No. 910/11743/22 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the decision of the presidium of the Cycling Federation of Ukraine on holding a reporting and election conference.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that the plaintiff was not the current president of the Federation at the time of the challenged decision, and therefore his rights as a leader were not violated, since another person was the legitimate leader. Also, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of his membership in the Federation, which makes it impossible to establish a violation of his rights as a member of the organization. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case or re-evaluate evidence. Additionally, the court took into account that it had already made decisions in similar cases involving the same plaintiff, where the unreliability of the information about his leadership of the Federation in the relevant period was established. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 903/1015/24 dated 10/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transition to the debt repayment procedure and the recognition of an individual as bankrupt in the insolvency case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not properly assess the evidence in the case and the arguments of the participants, in particular, did not fully investigate the debtor’s financial condition, did not clarify the circumstances that led to his insolvency, and did not assess the proposed restructuring plan for its feasibility and compliance with legal requirements. The court noted that although certain inaccuracies in the declaration of financial condition are not an unconditional basis for closing the proceedings, the courts should have assessed the corrected declarations and clarified whether the debtor provided
complete information about their expenses and property. Also, the courts did not clarify whether the family members of the debtor provided answers to the requests of the bankruptcy trustee regarding their financial status. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial control in bankruptcy cases, which requires courts to establish objective circumstances and ensure a balance of interests between creditors and the debtor.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 120/4135/23 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman for participating in combat operations.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that to confirm the right to additional remuneration, one of the documents provided for by Order No. 164-AH is sufficient, namely: a combat order, a combat log, or a commander’s report. The court indicated that a certificate of participation in combat operations issued by a military unit is proper evidence, and the authorized commander is responsible for its content. The Supreme Court also noted that the absence of a serviceman in the lists sent between military units cannot be the basis for refusing payment if other evidence confirms his participation in combat operations. The court took into account that the defendant did not deny the fact of the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations, and the available reports contained requests for payment of additional remuneration to the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the state cannot refuse payments provided for by current legislation if the person meets the conditions for receiving them.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which satisfied the serviceman’s claim.
Case No. 501/2695/20 dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision on state registration of ownership of a country house, the recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreements of this house, and the termination of ownership of it.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the claim. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the violation of her rights by the defendant in connection with the registration of ownership of the country house. In particular, it was not proven that the building that the plaintiff considers hers (a guardhouse built in 1999) and the country house for which the defendant registered ownership are one and the same object. Also, the plaintiff did not prove the fact of forgery of the certificate on the basis of which the defendant’s ownership was registered. The court of cassationthat each party must prove the circumstances they rely on as the basis for their claims or objections, and that proof cannot be based on assumptions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 677/1040/24 dated 10/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a lawsuit filed by a former teacher against the gymnasium for reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and moral damages, as she was dismissed for immoral conduct.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the teacher’s dismissal was lawful, as she committed an immoral act consisting of psychological and physical violence against students during the lesson. The court took into account numerous complaints from parents, witness testimonies, and materials from the gymnasium’s internal investigation, which confirmed the facts of the teacher’s improper behavior. The court emphasized that the personal example of a teacher is of utmost importance in the formation of young people, and the commission of an immoral act undermines the authority of the educator. The court also noted that for dismissal on this basis, it is not necessary to bring a person to disciplinary responsibility, but it is sufficient to establish the very fact of immoral conduct. The court indicated that it does not take into account the teacher’s previous behavior, but only considers the incident that caused the dismissal.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 201/9323/21 dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of state enforcement officers regarding the calculation of alimony arrears and obliging them to perform certain actions in enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the closure of proceedings in the part of the claims, since the disputed legal relations arose within the enforcement proceedings for the compulsory execution of a court decision on the recovery of alimony. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to procedural legislation, appealing the actions of a state enforcement officer during the execution of a court decision should be done by filing a complaint to the court that issued the writ of execution, and not through filing a separate lawsuit. The court also noted that the issue of the correctness of the state enforcement officer’s determination of the amount of alimony and arrears on them should be resolved in the order of judicial control over the execution of court decisions. The court took into account that the plaintiff is a debtor in the enforcement proceedings and challenges the actions of the enforcement service in the order of execution of a court decision, without making claims directly to the claimant. Taking into account the above, the Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of previous instances correctly applied
violated the norms of procedural law by closing the proceedings in the case regarding the appeal of the state enforcement officer’s actions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/12039/24 dated 10/16/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of UAH 1,731,051.00 and the obligation to perform certain actions.
Unfortunately, the court decision lacks the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. Typically, the court of cassation reviews the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances based on the evidence in the case and the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation may agree with the conclusions of the previous courts if they are correct, or overturn them if they are based on an incorrect application of the law or an incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 907/439/22 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual entrepreneur of unjustifiably retained funds that were transferred by a charitable organization as payment for spare parts for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which were never delivered.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which concluded that there were grounds for recovering the unjustifiably retained funds from the individual entrepreneur. The court noted that the charitable organization transferred funds to the individual entrepreneur for the supply of spare parts for the repair of vehicles for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as evidenced by payment orders. At the same time, the individual entrepreneur did not provide evidence of the supply of spare parts or the return of funds, and did not prove the existence of contractual relations with the charitable organization. The court also took into account that the individual entrepreneur did not exercise the right to provide a response to the claim and did not substantiate the impossibility of submitting evidence to the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case or re-evaluate evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the individual entrepreneur and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 523/19757/20 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the suretyship agreement as terminated and violating the plaintiff’s rights as a consumer of financial services.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court had violated the norms of procedural law by closing the appellate proceedings instead of resolving the issue of replacing a party in the case due to the assignment
claim rights under a factoring agreement. The court noted that the appellate court should have resolved the issue of procedural succession, as OTP Factoring Ukraine LLC had assigned the claim right to Reliance Finance LLC. Additionally, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the appellate court had not adequately investigated the transfer of the claim right, in particular, had not paid attention to the fact that the factoring agreement did not contain specific provisions regarding the assignment of the claim right specifically under the loan agreement that is the subject of the dispute, and had not verified whether the conditions for the transfer of the claim right stipulated by the factoring agreement had been fulfilled. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is a fair and impartial consideration of the case, and ensuring the right to appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of justice.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.
**Case No. 924/922/21 dated 10/09/2025**
1. Subject of the dispute – imposition of joint liability on the head of a bankrupt enterprise for failure to satisfy creditors’ claims due to untimely filing with the court of an application for the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.
2. The court of cassation established that, in order to impose joint liability on the debtor’s manager, it is necessary to establish the fact of a threat of insolvency, namely: the existence of obligations to at least two creditors, the term of performance of which has expired, and the excess of the amount of obligations over the value of the debtor’s assets; the courts of previous instances did not investigate the value of the debtor’s assets at the time of the threat of insolvency, and limited themselves only to establishing the fact of the existence of debt; the obligation to apply to the court with an application for bankruptcy is also imposed on the newly appointed manager, if at the time he takes office there are already signs of insolvency; when deciding on joint liability, the debtor’s financial condition and the actions of the management after the entry into force of the Bankruptcy Code (from 10/21/2019) should be analyzed; the courts must actively clarify the circumstances of the case, fully and objectively examine the evidence.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 920/265/24 dated 10/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of the authorized capital and the size of the shares of the participants of the limited liability company.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the dispute is corporate, since the plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased participant of the company, who applied to the court with a demand to determine the size of their shares in the authorized capital, after they were refused
