Case No. 761/26593/22 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for treason, namely, for providing assistance to a foreign state in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as the courts of previous instances duly examined and assessed the evidence, in particular, witness testimonies, written evidence (extracts from registers, protocols of inspection of websites and video hosting services, copies of documents), which confirm the person’s guilt in treason. The court noted that the criminal proceedings were considered in the procedure of a special judicial review in the absence of the accused, but with the mandatory participation of a defense counsel, and all procedural rights of the accused were respected. The court also took into account that the notice of suspicion was served in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code, including publication in the mass media and on the official website of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The court emphasized that the possibility of appealing the verdict remains open to the convicted person in the event of valid reasons for renewing the appeal deadlines. The court also noted that the implementation of a special pre-trial investigation regarding a person who permanently resided in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine complies with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and does not indicate a violation of guarantees regarding the prohibition of discrimination.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 380/7820/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings, since the military unit missed the deadline for appealing, and the reasons for the omission were not recognized as valid. The court noted that compliance with the appeal deadlines is important for ensuring legal certainty. Non-payment of court fees due to lack of funds is not an objective and insurmountable circumstance, but a subjective reason for which the subject of power is responsible. The return of the appeal does not give the right to file it at any time without taking into account procedural deadlines. The court also emphasized that all parties to the case must exercise their procedural rights in good faith and fulfill their duties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 420/22951/24 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the reduction of the percentage of the pension and the termination of payment of the supplement and indexation of the pension.
2.The court of cassation noted that the basis for recalculating a pension is a change in the amount of at least one type of monetary allowance, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has the right to establish the conditions and procedure for recalculating pensions. The court indicated that the payment of a monthly supplement in the amount of UAH 2,000, provided for by Resolution No. 713, is not made if the pension was reviewed after 03/01/2018 in accordance with the procedure provided for by Article 63 of Law No. 2262-XII, and such review exceeded the amount of the supplement. The court also noted that recalculation of the pension due to an increase in the living wage is the basis for terminating the payment of indexation provided for by Resolutions No. 118, No. 168. At the same time, the court noted that the appellate court did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the reduction in the percentage of the previously assigned pension and did not establish the periods for which the pension was recalculated and the periods for which the plaintiff requests indexation. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of establishing the actual circumstances of the case and providing a legal assessment of all arguments of the parties to the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/16298/24 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty in the amount of UAH 8,189,467.43 for improper performance by FTB-Retail LLC of obligations under the contract for the provision of comprehensive warehouse logistics services.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting the position that the amount of the penalty charged by Zammler Ukraine LLC exceeds the limit established by law. The court noted that although the parties are free to determine the amount of the penalty in the contract, it cannot exceed twice the NBU discount rate, as provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Liability for Late Fulfillment of Monetary Obligations” and Article 343 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the arguments of Zammler Ukraine LLC regarding the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 231 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, indicating that established practice requires compliance with legislative restrictions on the amount of the penalty. The court also took into account that the Commercial Code of Ukraine is no longer valid. In addition, the court found reasonable the partial reimbursement of FTB-Retail LLC’s expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing their amount to UAH 15,000, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Zammler Ukraine LLC and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 160/4379/20 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of accruing penalties on the tax debt of an enterprise during the period of the moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that all penalties were accrued before the initiation of proceedings in
in the bankruptcy case, and no accruals were made during the moratorium period. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, pointing out that the courts of previous instances had not properly established the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the status of the controlling body as a secured creditor in the bankruptcy case had been confirmed and whether the amount of monetary claims against the Company had been confirmed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Law provides for a certain procedure for creditors to acquire the status of a participant in bankruptcy proceedings, which is formalized by a court ruling recognizing the creditor’s claims. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not investigate whether a court decision was made as a result of the consideration of the application of the controlling body for the recognition of monetary claims against the debtor within the framework of the bankruptcy case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statutory prohibition on the accrual of penalties during the moratorium period applies to non-fulfillment of obligations, the term of which occurred before the date of the introduction of the moratorium, and does not apply to current obligations.
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. 420/26766/24 dated October 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the tax authority on the refusal to register tax invoices and the obligation of the State Tax Service to register these tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the courts of previous instances, noting that the tax authority did not specify which aspects of business transactions raise doubts, which made it impossible for the taxpayer to provide reasonable explanations. The court indicated that the suspension of registration of tax invoices on the basis of paragraph 1 of the Risk Criteria for Transactions requires the controlling body to clearly indicate which documents must be submitted to refute the doubts. Also, the court emphasized that the controlling body should not conduct a full analysis of business transactions for their reality at the stage of resolving the issue of registration of tax invoices. The court took into account that the documents provided by the plaintiff comply with the requirements of the legislation for primary documents, and the defendant did not fulfill the obligation of proof provided for in Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which made it impossible to provide reasonable explanations regarding the relevant business transactions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 760/17052/22 dated October 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage and the recognition of property as jointly acquired property.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of cohabitation with the deceased man as a family without registration.
marriage registration, the existence of a common budget, and the running of a joint household. The court noted that the testimonies of witnesses were insufficient to confirm the existence of a family within the meaning of the Family Code of Ukraine. Also, the absence in the apartment purchase and sale agreement of an indication of marital relations or joint joint ownership became one of the court’s arguments. Since the claim for recognition of property as jointly owned property is derived from the claim for establishing the fact of living as one family, which was denied, the appellate court found no grounds for satisfying the derivative claims as well. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that in order to establish the fact of cohabitation, it is necessary to take into account a set of characteristics, including a common household, budget, expenses, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 761/415/24 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful of the decision of an employee of the operational dispatch service to refuse to service an ambulance call and compensation for property and moral damage caused by the untimely provision of medical care.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claim, recognizing as unlawful the decision of the dispatcher who did not redirect the call to the appropriate authority, but provided an additional phone number, which contradicts the norms of legislation on emergency medical care. The appellate court reasonably noted that for compensation of property damage, a causal link is necessary between the actions of the dispatcher and the death of the plaintiff’s father, which was not proven. Regarding moral damage, the court took into account the mental suffering of the plaintiff due to the unlawful actions of the dispatcher, but reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 5,000, considering it reasonable and fair. Also, the cassation court emphasized that in the absence of a petition from the defendant, the court cannot reduce the amount of expenses for legal assistance, but can apply the criteria of commensurability and proportionality.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 727/69/25 dated 23/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed on a large scale or by an organized group).
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeals of the defender and the convicted person. In fact, the court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, considering it reasonable and lawful. The arguments of the defense and the convicted person, presented in the cassation appeals, did not convince the Supreme Court of the need to cancel or change the decision of the appellate court. The court probably thoroughly checked…materials of the case, evidence, and compliance with the norms of procedural law before concluding that there are no grounds for granting the cassation appeals. Thus, the appellate court’s verdict remained in force, and the convicted person must serve the sentence imposed by this verdict.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the convicted person, and to leave the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 208/13022/24 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of a separate ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated May 19, 2025, against which PERSON_6 filed a cassation appeal.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments. The full text of the court decision is necessary to provide complete information.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially grant the cassation appeal of PERSON_6 and to overturn the separate ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated May 19, 2025.
Case No. 902/575/24 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the results of privatization, the decision of the executive committee, and the contract of sale of a share of a public building.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the claims, as they concerned a dispute that is not subject to review under commercial procedure, namely, challenging the results of privatization. The court noted that disputes regarding the privatization of state or communal property are considered under the rules of administrative procedure. In the other part, regarding the recognition of the illegality of the executive committee’s decision and the invalidity of the sale and purchase agreement, 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. At the same time, the specific reasons for the cancellation are not given in the text of the introductory and operative parts, but it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, which was the basis for canceling their decisions.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, closed the cassation proceedings regarding the claims to challenge the results of privatization, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance regarding the other part of the claims.
Case No. 160/13351/22 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of an individual against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of tax debt.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, motivating this by the fact that the appeal was filed after the established deadline, and the reasons for the delay were not recognized as valid. The court noted that a person is considered to have been duly notified of the decision of the court of first instance from the moment the postal mark is made indicating the absence of the addressee at the registered place of residence, and it is from this moment that the…
begins the running of the term for appellate appeal. The court also emphasized that compliance with appeal deadlines is important for ensuring legal certainty, and parties to the case must exercise their procedural rights in good faith, including timely обращения to the court with a complaint. The court of cassation did not assess the merits of the dispute regarding the tax debt, as the subject of the appeal was only the ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the institution of deadlines in administrative proceedings contributes to achieving legal certainty in public-legal relations.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling – without changes.
Case No. 600/3516/24-а dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to prepare and provide a certificate on the amount of monetary allowance of PERSON_1 as of January 1, 2024, for recalculation of pension.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that at the time of the plaintiff’s application for the issuance of the certificate (June 20, 2024), the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 481 was in effect, which established a fixed calculation value for calculating monetary allowance (UAH 1,762), and not the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law as of January 1 of the calendar year. The court emphasized that normative legal acts operate prospectively, that is, from the moment they come into force, and do not have retroactive effect. Thus, since resolution No. 481 was in effect at the time of the refusal to issue the certificate, the defendant acted lawfully. The court also noted that in case of disagreement with a normative legal act, it should be challenged in court, and not demand an individual recalculation from subjects of power who acted in accordance with this act.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 140/31759/23 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region regarding the overestimation of VAT budget reimbursement and the refusal to grant it.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, agreeing with the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the illegality of tax notices-decisions regarding the overestimation of budget reimbursement and partial refusal to grant it, since the courts of previous instances correctly concluded that the arguments of the tax authority were unfounded. At the same time, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of overturning the decision of the court of first instance regarding one of the tax notices-decisions and sent this part for a new review to the appellate instance, indicating the need for a more thorough investigation of the circumstances of the case.
avi. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court without stating any reasons.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, upholding the decisions of the previous instances regarding part of the claims and sending the case for a new hearing to the appellate court in another part.
**Case №376/3844/24 dated 10/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint against the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to recognize a person as a victim in criminal proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, because according to the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely Articles 307, 309 and 392, the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to satisfy the complaint about recognizing a person as a victim is not subject to appeal. The court noted that the right to appellate review, guaranteed by the Constitution, concerns the review of the case on the merits, and not every individual procedural decision. Also, the court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which allows for certain restrictions on the right of access to court, if such restrictions are proportional and pursue a legitimate aim. The court emphasized that the appellate court acted lawfully in refusing to open proceedings, since the appealed decision is not subject to appeal under the current Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_6, and to leave unchanged the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated February 12, 2025, refusing to open appellate proceedings.
**Case №380/16270/23 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of head of the department of urban planning and architecture of Zhovkva City Council, reinstatement in the position and 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 regarding the illegality of the plaintiff’s dismissal, since the employer did not prove the plaintiff’s systematic failure to perform his duties after the disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand was applied to him. The court noted that for dismissal under paragraph 3 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the fact of repeated violation of labor discipline after the application of a disciplinary sanction is necessary. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the decision of the courts of previous instances regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiff in the position of head of the Department of Spatial Development and Land Resources, since, according to Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the employee must be reinstated in the previous job, that is, in the position of head of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture. The court also pointed out the erroneous reference of the courts of previous instances to irrelevant case law. Regarding the recovery of average earnings, the Supreme Court recognized that the courts of previous instances incorrectlyThey calculated the amount because they did not examine the composition of the plaintiff’s income for the last two months before dismissal and incorrectly determined the period for calculation.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amended the decisions of the previous courts regarding reinstatement, instructing to reinstate the plaintiff to the position of head of the department of urban planning and architecture, and referred the case regarding the recovery of average earnings to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 240/36202/21 dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices, by which the enterprise’s tax liabilities for income tax and VAT were increased, and penalties were applied.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, agreeing with the tax authority’s conclusions regarding the enterprise’s understatement of the financial result before taxation. The court noted that the enterprise did not provide sufficient evidence of the reality of the economic transaction for the supply of goods, and the provided delivery note did not contain all the mandatory details of a primary document. The court also took into account that the enterprise did not provide explanations and evidence regarding the transportation of goods from the place of their import to the place of delivery to the buyer. The court emphasized that the presence or absence of individual documents is not a determining factor, but in this case, the combination of circumstances, including the lack of proper transportation documents and deficiencies in the delivery note, casts doubt on the reality of the economic transaction. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the circumstances of the case, but only verifies that the previous courts have complied with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the enterprise’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 990/167/25 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of the qualification exam of a candidate for the position of judge of the court of appeal.
2. The court, granting the claim, emphasized that the Commission, as a specially authorized body, is obliged to act within the law and adhere to the procedures approved by it in order to ensure the objectivity and transparency of the competition. The court indicated that the decisions of the HQCJU do not contain sufficient motivation regarding the grades assigned for practical tasks, which makes it impossible to verify the examination commission’s compliance with the approved criteria and approaches to evaluation. The court emphasized that the Methodological Guidelines for evaluating the practical task clearly define the elements to be evaluated and the number of points for each element, therefore, the evaluation should be carried out by checking each element. The court also noted that the lack of detail in the evaluation may raise doubts about the sp
of fairness and objectivity of the process. The court took into account that the plaintiff’s failure to obtain the minimum passing score is grounds for termination of participation in the competition, but such circumstances require proof, which the HQCJ did not do. The court also emphasized the need to adhere to the principle of good governance, which provides for transparency and clarity of actions of state bodies.
2. The court declared illegal and canceled the decision of the HQCJ in the part concerning the plaintiff and obliged the HQCJ to re-evaluate the plaintiff’s practical tasks, taking into account the Methodological Guidelines.
Case №947/31940/23 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused by a fire in the leased premises.
2. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, awarding property damage, penalties, and moral damage, considering the defendant’s guilt in the fire and the existence of a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s losses to be proven. The appellate court reversed the decision in the part of recovery of the penalty, since the lease agreement was extended, and reduced the amount of moral damage, based on the principles of reasonableness and fairness. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the proof of the defendant’s guilt and the existence of grounds for compensation for property and moral damage, taking into account the evidence provided and its assessment by the courts. The court of cassation rejected the defendant’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence and violation of the rules of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the lease agreement was concluded between an individual and a self-employed individual (FOP), and the subsequent registration of the plaintiff as a self-employed individual does not change the essence of the legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts, taking into account the changes made by the appellate court.
Case №553/173/22 dated 20/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdicts of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding a person convicted of intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
This operative part of the ruling does not contain any arguments of the court. The judges only indicated that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. Accordingly, it is currently impossible to find out what arguments the Supreme Court relied on when upholding the decisions of the previous courts and rejecting the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the representative of the victim. The analysis will be possible after the announcement of the full text of the decision.
The Supreme Court decided to uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the appellate court regarding the convicted person, and to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the representative of the victim.
Case №922/4793/24 dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return by the court of first instance of the bank’s claim to the guarantors due to violation of the rules of joinder
pleading requirements.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the bank’s claims against the guarantors are homogeneous, as they arise from a single general credit agreement, although secured by different guarantee agreements; at the same time, the legal grounds for the claim are the same for all guarantors. The court of cassation noted that the consolidation of claims makes it possible to achieve procedural economy and more effectively protect the violated right. The court also indicated that the volume of evidence attached to the statement of claim is not a decisive factor in resolving the issue of violation of the rules for combining claims. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments about failure to notify him of the case hearing, since the case materials confirm the proper notification of the defendant through the “Electronic Court” system. In addition, the court of cassation referred to the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated September 10, 2025, in case No. 367/252/24, which states that rulings of the court of first instance on the return of a statement of claim, after their review in appellate proceedings, are subject to cassation appeal regardless of the result of their review by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 916/5264/24 dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Southern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court, partially satisfying the cassation appeal and overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the courts did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case. In particular, it was not properly clarified whether the actions of the defendant (AMCU) actually violated the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff. The courts did not assess all the evidence submitted by the parties and did not establish whether the procedure for making the AMCU decision was followed. In addition, the courts did not take into account the specifics of antimonopoly legislation when considering the case. For the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish whether there was a violation of competition law, and whether the AMCU’s decision affected the plaintiff’s business activities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remitted the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast.
Case No. 373/1293/20 dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State of Ukraine for compensation for moral damage caused, as he claims, by the illegal actions of the prosecutor’s office and the court during the criminal prosecution.
2. The court of cassation noted that the proper defendant in cases of compensation for damage caused by state authorities is the State of Ukraine, and not individual bodies through which it acts, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court indicated that the appellate court mistakenly refused to grant the clathat the appellate court ignored previous instructions of the Supreme Court in the same case, made when the previous decision of the appellate court was overturned. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not review the case on the merits of the claims, limiting itself to a formal reference to an improper defendant, and did not motivate the rejection of the arguments of the appeal regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damages. The court also noted that the appellate court is not limited in considering the issue of involving third parties if, when verifying the circumstances established by the court of first instance, it concludes that the decision in the case may affect their rights and obligations, and without their participation it is impossible to ensure a complete and fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 759/19079/22 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of property as jointly owned property, and recognition of the right of ownership to a share of property acquired during cohabitation.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of living with the deceased man as one family as husband and wife without registration of marriage during the specified period, and also did not prove that the disputed apartment was purchased with joint funds and for the purpose of creating joint jointly owned property. The court took into account that at the time of purchasing the apartment, the man indicated in the purchase and sale agreement that he was not married or in actual marital relations and was purchasing the apartment as personal private property. In addition, the court noted that the photographs, receipts, and other documents provided by the plaintiff do not prove the fact of running a joint household, the existence of a common budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses. The court also took into account that the man was officially married to another woman until a certain time.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 686/23679/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the father in relation to the minor daughter, the appointment of a guardian, and the determination of the child’s place of residence.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to deprive parental rights, indicating that the appellate court did not fully establish the actual circumstances of the case and did not take into account the best interests of the child. In particular, the appellate court did not verify the existence of the father’s real interest in the child, did not properly assess the evidence.
that testify to the father’s evasion of parental responsibilities, and did not take into account the child’s opinion regarding the unwillingness to communicate with the father. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of taking into account the child’s opinion when resolving issues related to his/her life, and the need to ensure a fair balance between the interests of the child and the parents. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal did not state the motives for accepting or rejecting the evidence provided by the parties, and did not establish whether the court decision would ensure compliance with the best interests of the child.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 243/2721/22 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of agricultural land from the last acquirer, since the initial granting of this land into ownership was carried out in violation of land legislation.
2. The court of cassation established that the initial granting of the land plot was carried out in violation of the requirements of Articles 116, 118, 121 of the Land Code of Ukraine, since the citizen had already exercised her right to free privatization of land; considering that the plot was removed from the possession of the state against its will on the basis of an illegal decision of a state body, the court referred to Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulates the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer. The court took into account that after the case was considered by the courts of first and appeal instances, the Law of Ukraine No. 4292-IX came into force, which strengthens the protection of the rights of a bona fide acquirer and has retroactive effect. Since the courts of previous instances did not investigate the issue of the bona fides of the last acquirer, taking into account the provisions of the new law, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to send the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal to clarify these circumstances. The court emphasized that it is a court of law, not of fact, and cannot independently establish the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of reclaiming the land plot and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal to clarify the circumstances of the acquirer’s bona fides, taking into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine No. 4292-IX.
Case No. 755/1235/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living as one family without registration of marriage for the purposes of inheritance.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instance courts, was guided by the fact that the establishment of the fact of the applicant living as one family with the testator is necessary to resolve the issue of acquiring the right to inheritance, and since the Kyiv City Council and the Dniprovska District State Administration in Kyiv object to the stated claims, there is a dispute about the right to the inherited property. In such cases, according to the established practice of the Supreme
of the Supreme Court, the case cannot be considered in the order of a separate proceeding, but must be resolved in a claim proceeding, where all interested parties have the opportunity to fully exercise their procedural rights. The court also referred to the fact that the applicant is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a claim in the order of a general claim proceeding. The court took into account the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms, set forth in the resolutions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and dismissed the application of PERSON_1 to establish the fact of her living as one family with PERSON_2 without consideration.
Case No. 761/22716/24 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the exercise of the right to use and dispose of a land plot by demolishing an unauthorized multi-apartment building.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the claim for demolition of an unauthorized construction is a non-property claim, since the object of the claim is the action of the obligated party, which is not subject to monetary valuation, and the resolution of the dispute will not affect the composition of the plaintiff’s property. The court took into account that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against thirty defendants who own apartments in a multi-apartment building, and the claim for demolition of the building is made against all defendants simultaneously. The court noted that the presentation of separate lawsuits with identical claims to other defendants is impossible, therefore, the court fee must be paid based on one claim. The court also referred to previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, according to which, in the case of presentation of homogeneous non-property claims related to each other by the same basis of origin, the court fee is paid for each claim separately, but in this case the claim is single.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 947/8909/20 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the exercise of the right of ownership to the garage, the demolition of an illegally constructed fence, and the recognition of the illegal decision of the Odesa City Council to transfer the land plot into private ownership.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the construction was carried out without proper legal grounds, or that the defendant destroyed or occupied property that belonged to the plaintiff or was part of the common house territory. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her rights by the defendant, and also did not provide convincing evidence to support her claims regarding the illegality of the city council’s decision. The court also took into account the testimony of witnesses who denied the existence of a garage at the specified address, and the consent of the plaintiff’s husband to the construction of the fence. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not included
that falls within its competence, and agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/12373/24 dated 23/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decisions of the general meeting of the public organization and the reinstatement of the plaintiff to the position of a member of the board.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of PERSON_1 against the Public Organization “Expert and Analytical Center “Medical Constructor”. The courts of the first and appellate instances concluded that the defendant did not provide evidence of PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 acquiring the status of permanent members of the organization at the time of the general meeting, which casts doubt on the existence of a quorum when making decisions. Also, the courts established that the defendant did not prove the fact of the board’s approval of the amount and terms of payment of membership fees, and also did not provide evidence of proper notification of the plaintiff about the convocation of the general meeting. Considering the illegitimacy of the general meeting, the decision to exclude the plaintiff from the members and the board of the NGO was declared invalid, which became the basis for his reinstatement to the position.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 500/4405/24 dated 21/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the tax notice-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ternopil region regarding Bio-Lan LLC.
2. The Supreme Court, satisfying the cassation appeal of Bio-Lan LLC, pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not fully establish the circumstances of the case that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, primary documents were not examined, which would confirm or refute the arguments of the tax authority regarding violations by the taxpayer. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of all evidence in their entirety, as well as the obligation of the court to provide an appropriate assessment of each piece of evidence. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding similar legal relations. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
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. 404/5227/17 dated 22/10/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hooliganism).
In the operative part
the court’s decision contains no arguments. The court only indicated that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially granted, and the appellate court’s ruling was overturned with the appointment of a new hearing in the appellate court. The full text of the ruling, from which the court’s arguments can be understood, will be announced later.
The court ruled to partially grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s ruling, and order a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 910/14273/24 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Northern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, as the courts of the previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments. In particular, the courts needed to investigate the issue of whether there were violations of competition law, take into account the specifics of the Smila City Council’s activities and its powers, and also clarify whether the challenged decision of the Office violates the rights and legitimate interests of the Council. The cassation court pointed out the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case, taking into account all the evidence and arguments of the parties. Also, the courts should have assessed the legality of the Office’s actions in making the challenged decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/12135/24 dated 10/23/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 4,844,897.40.
The decisions of the previous courts were overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that the Supreme Court relied on when making such a decision from the provided part of the ruling. Usually, this is due to the fact that the previous courts did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law, or there were other violations that affected the legality and validity of the court decisions. A more detailed analysis requires the full text of the ruling, including the reasoning part.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial.
Case No. 910/12875/23 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 574,143,561.80.
2. The decision does not state the court’s arguments that it relied on when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. Usually, when overturning the decisions of previous instances, the Supreme Court points to the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, incomplete clarification
