Case №320/41914/23 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the State Food and Consumer Service on the application of financial sanctions to an individual entrepreneur for violating the ban on smoking hookahs and promoting the sale of tobacco products in a restaurant establishment.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts that recognized as unlawful the fine for smoking hookahs in a restaurant, imposed on the entrepreneur by the State Food and Consumer Service. The court noted that current legislation, namely the Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Prevent and Reduce the Use of Tobacco Products and Their Harmful Effects on Public Health,” establishes a complete ban on the use of hookahs in restaurant establishments. Providing a hookah preparation service is considered to be promoting the sale of tobacco products, even in the absence of direct advertising. The court emphasized that an updated version of the law has been in effect since July 11, 2022, which has strengthened restrictions on the consumption of tobacco products, including hookahs, in public places. The court also took into account Ukraine’s international obligations regarding tobacco control, in particular the WHO Framework Convention.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and rejected the entrepreneur’s claim.
Case №120/8169/24 dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against tax assessment notices and decisions on the application of штрафних sanctions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Vinnytsia Oblast.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the lower courts to dismiss the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide the evidence requested by the court necessary to resolve the dispute. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the validity of the reasons for not submitting the evidence, and the reference to the transfer of accounting documentation to the legal successor is not an objective obstacle to providing the necessary documents to the court. Also, the court took into account the repeated non-appearance of the plaintiff’s representative in court sessions, which indicates improper performance of procedural duties. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must actively use his procedural rights to help establish the actual circumstances in the case. The court also noted that Article 80 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine contains alternative options for the actions of the court of first instance in case of evasion from fulfilling the requirements regarding the provision of evidence by the Plaintiff. Along with dismissing the claim, the court, depending on the importance of the requested evidence, may recognize the circumstance for the clarification of which the evidence was requested, or refuse to recognize it, or consider the case on the evidence available in it.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
**Case No. 367/6570/17 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of property as jointly acquired property and its division between former partners.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim in part, establishing the fact of living as one family without marriage, recognizing the apartment as jointly acquired property and dividing it, and awarding compensation for the car. The appellate court overturned the decision in the part of establishing the fact of living as one family and dividing the apartment, considering the evidence insufficient to confirm cohabitation and joint household management. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, pointing to the presence of sufficient evidence confirming the cohabitation, joint household management and family relations of the parties, in particular, photographs, witness testimonies and other written evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not adequately substantiate the rejection of witness testimonies and did not indicate violations of procedural law by the court of first instance in assessing the evidence. Considering the established fact of cohabitation, the Supreme Court concluded that there were grounds for recognizing the disputed apartment as jointly acquired property.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part of rejecting the claim for establishing the fact of the parties’ cohabitation, recognizing the right of ownership to 1/2 of the disputed apartment and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and also recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the court fee for filing a cassation appeal.
**Case No. 380/6494/25 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the application of reducing coefficients and the limitation by the maximum amount when paying a pension to the plaintiff, as a person dismissed from military service.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Some Other Persons” is a special law that regulates pension provision for military personnel, and amendments to it can be made only by amending this law or the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which introduced reducing coefficients, actually establish a regulation different from the special law, which is unacceptable. In addition, the court noted that limiting the amount of the pension to the maximum amount is also illegal, since the relevant provisions of the law were declared unconstitutional. The court emphasized that the application of reducing coefficients
and the limitation of the maximum pension amount leads to the restriction of the constitutional right to social protection. The Court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, supporting the position that the application of reduction coefficients and the limitation of the maximum amount when paying a pension to a serviceman are unlawful.
Case No. 904/37/24 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds held in the VAT payer’s account in the electronic VAT administration system (EVA VAT) of the debtor, to which the recoverer had erroneously transferred funds.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, stating that, according to current legislation, in particular the Tax Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” funds held in the accounts of taxpayers in the electronic VAT administration system cannot be seized or recovered under enforcement proceedings. The court noted that the funds in the EVA VAT account are not bank accounts that the STS or the Treasury can freely dispose of, and that the transfer of funds from such accounts is carried out by the Treasury exclusively on the basis of STS registers. The court also emphasized that the private enforcement officer mistakenly identifies the funds in the EVA VAT account with the funds belonging to the person who is indebted to the debtor, since the owner of these funds is the debtor himself. Given the lack of evidence of indisputable debt of interested parties to the debtor, the court concluded that there were no grounds for granting the private enforcement officer’s application.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 380/1520/25 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine to reduce the amount of pension for years of service by terminating the accrual and payment of pension indexations provided for by resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts because they did not examine all the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the payment of the pension to the plaintiff was terminated during his re-service, whether a decision was made to award a new pension after the initial award, and also did not ascertain whether the increase in the plaintiff’s monetary allowance was a regulatory increase or whether it was due to other circumstances, such as career advancement. The court noted that the lower courts, when applying exclusively the rule of Part 2 of Art. 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision of Persons
, dismissed from military service, and certain other persons” and the provisions of Resolutions No. 118, No. 168, and No. 185, disregarded the fact that, contrary to the content of the specified norm of the Law, the body of the Pension Fund of Ukraine did not terminate the payment of the plaintiff’s length of service pension in the period from 06/25/2019 to 09/26/2023, and subsequently did not request the plaintiff to return such paid amount as unduly received. Also, the courts did not examine the materials of the pension case of PERSON_1 to determine whether the defendant made a decision to assign the plaintiff a pension after 03/21/2019 (that is, after the initial assignment of the length of service pension).
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 300/7308/24 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the termination of accrual and payment of pension indexation to the plaintiff.
2. The cassation court, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the recalculation of a serviceman’s pension due to an increase in the subsistence minimum, which affects the amount of financial support, is the basis for terminating the payment of indexation provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168. The court noted that since the plaintiff’s pension was recalculated based on a court decision and took into account the increased amount of financial support due to the increase in the subsistence minimum, there are no grounds for indexing the pension in accordance with the specified resolution. At the same time, the court recognized as unlawful the termination of the payment of indexation accrued in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 118, since the defendant did not provide evidence of recalculation of the pension due to an increase in financial support, in particular due to the increase in the subsistence minimum as of January 1, 2022. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the recalculation of the pension taking into account the subsistence minimum is an increase that excludes indexation.
3. The cassation court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and made a new decision to partially satisfy the claims, recognizing as illegal the termination of the payment of indexation established by Resolution No. 118, and obliging to resume its payment, but refused to satisfy the claims regarding indexation provided for by Resolution No. 168.
**Case No. 824/76/25 dated 10/23/2025**
The subject of the dispute is an application to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC at the UCCI) regarding the recovery from a Czech company in favor of the Ukrainian JSC “ANTONOV” of penalties, obligation to return the prepayment and products.
The Supreme Court agreed with the decision
of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application to set aside the ICAC decision, emphasizing that the party filing the application to set aside the arbitral award must prove the existence of grounds for doing so. The court noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of the incapacity of the person who signed the arbitration agreement, and also did not prove that the enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to the public order of Ukraine. The court pointed out that the arbitration court had already assessed the arguments regarding force majeure circumstances and concluded that they were not proven. The Supreme Court emphasized that the review of decisions of international commercial arbitration on the merits is not within the competence of the national court.
The court upheld the decision of the appellate court, meaning that the ICAC decision remained in force.
Case No. 134/243/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the consumer’s appeal against the illegal charging of the volume of electricity consumed and, as a result, the debt on the personal account.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the calculation of the volume of electricity consumed was carried out on the basis of the meter replacement act, which contains shortcomings and does not properly confirm the fact that the plaintiff consumed exactly this volume of electricity. The court noted that the defendants did not prove the fact of proper drafting of the act, in particular, there is no evidence of the consumer’s presence during the drafting of the act and his familiarization with it. Also, the court took into account the shortcomings in the execution of the act, such as the arbitrary writing of meter readings and the lack of reference to the attached photographs. Considering the inadequacy of the act as evidence, the court concluded that the charging of debt to the consumer was unfounded. The appellate court indicated that the satisfaction of the claims is an effective way of protection, as it restores the violated right of the plaintiff and establishes legal certainty regarding the absence of debt.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 686/12358/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of housing by settling the plaintiff into the apartment, the right to use of which she lost after donating her share to her son, who later donated the apartment to his wife.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that at the time of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the owner of the apartment was another person who was not involved in the case, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court noted that the plaintiff did not file a motion to replace the improper defendant, and the court has no right to involve other defendants on its own initiative without the plaintiff’s consent. The court indicated that filing a claim against an improper defendant is self-constitutes an independent basis for denying the claim, which does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to appeal to the court with a claim against the proper defendant. The court rejected the reference in the cassation appeal to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases differ. The court also closed the cassation proceedings on the complaint of the previous defendant, since the decision of the court of first instance, which he appealed, was overturned by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, and closed the cassation proceedings on the previous defendant’s complaint.
Case No. 420/16547/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a serviceman’s appeal against the decision of the housing commission of the Odesa garrison regarding the allocation of housing in a new building.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the serviceman’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the decision of the housing commission on the allocation of housing does not create direct legal consequences for the plaintiff, since the final allocation of housing is approved by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine. The court noted that the housing commissions of garrisons do not have the authority to determine the percentage allocation of residential premises, and their decisions are only proposals. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of a violation of his rights specifically at the time of applying to the court. The court of cassation took into account the court’s decision in another case, which overturned the decision of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine approving the allocation of disputed apartments, due to the failure to take into account the number of persons entitled to receive housing for permanent residence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 288/745/21 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 to recognize him as the father of PERSON_4 and to make appropriate changes to the birth certificate of the child.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the fact that the defendant evaded conducting a forensic genetic examination, which is the most accurate method of establishing paternity. The court noted that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court and the practice of the ECHR, according to which the evidentiary value of a DNA test significantly outweighs other evidence. Also, the court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the circumstances that cast doubt on the validity of the reasons for the defendant and the child’s failure to appear for the examination. Taking these circumstances into account, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which
prevented the establishment of factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 340/2017/25 dated 22/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Department of Social Policy regarding the appointment of the plaintiff as a permanent caregiver for his disabled mother and the obligation of the defendant to take actions for such appointment.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse to open proceedings in the case, since a similar dispute had already been the subject of consideration in another case, where the court ordered the Department to consider the plaintiff’s application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the execution of a court decision is carried out within the framework of enforcement proceedings, and not by filing a new lawsuit with similar claims. The court noted that if the plaintiff disagrees with the actions of the defendant in the execution of the previous decision, the plaintiff has the right to use the mechanism of judicial control over the execution of the decision, provided for in Article 383 of the CAS of Ukraine, and not to file a new administrative claim. The court also indicated that the plaintiff did not appeal the notification of refusal to pay assistance, which was adopted as a result of consideration of his application, which could be a separate subject of appeal.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 199/6340/23 dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim to remove the defendant from the right to inherit by law after the death of his father, on the grounds of evading providing assistance to the testator, who was in a helpless state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, since the plaintiff had not proven the totality of circumstances necessary to remove a person from the right to inherit, namely: the defendant’s evasion of providing assistance to the testator when it was possible to provide it, the defendant’s culpable conduct, as well as the testator’s helpless state and his need for assistance specifically from the defendant. The court emphasized that deprivation of the right to inherit is an extreme measure that is applied taking into account the nature of the defendant’s conduct. The court also noted that the courts correctly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations and the norms of substantive law that are subject to application, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts and amount to a revaluation of the factual circumstances of the case, which is not within the powers of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 755/11286/20 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on correcting a clerical error in a decision regarding the division of marital property.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, in granting the application to correct a clerical error in a previous decision regarding the division of property (an apartment and a beauty salon), made new clerical errors, in particular, in the applicant’s last name, the date of the decision, and the street name, which significantly affects the content of the court decision and its execution. The court of cassation emphasized that the correction of clerical errors should not change the essence of the court decision, but only eliminate inaccuracies that affect the possibility of its implementation. Since the appellate court made new errors, this is a violation of the norms of procedural law, which makes it impossible to correct the clerical errors by the ruling of the appellate court. The court of cassation refers to its own previous decisions, which explain that the clerical errors must be of a significant nature and their correction should not change the essence of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated April 22, 2025, and referred the issue of correcting the clerical error to the appellate court for a new hearing.
**Case No. 320/41914/23 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection on the application of financial sanctions to a sole proprietor (ФОП) for violating the ban on smoking hookahs and promoting the sale of tobacco products in a restaurant establishment.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasized that since July 11, 2022, there has been a complete ban on smoking, consumption, and use of hookahs in restaurant establishments, as provided for by the amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Prevent and Reduce the Use of Tobacco Products and Their Harmful Effects on Public Health.” The court noted that providing hookah preparation services in an establishment where it is prohibited is a promotion of the sale of tobacco products, even if there is no direct advertising. Also, the court indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which concerned a different version of the law, when the ban on hookahs was not absolute. The court emphasized that Ukraine, having ratified the WHO Framework Convention, has committed itself to implementing strict norms on tobacco control, including a ban on promoting its consumption.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the sole proprietor’s claim.
**Case No. 824/76/25 dated 10/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery from a Czech company in favor of the Ukrainian JSC “Antonov” of a penalty, the obligation to return the prepayment and products, as well as compensation for arbi
of procedural expenses.
2. The introductory and operative parts of the ruling do not contain the court’s arguments. It is only stated that the case is complex, therefore the full text of the decision will be drawn up later. It is currently only known that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Czech company, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal remained unchanged. Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, but the reasons for such a decision are still unknown. A full analysis requires the full text of the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 460/10097/24 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Rivne region to recalculate the pension of a person with a III group disability, whose disease is related to the Chornobyl disaster, in the amount of six minimum old-age pensions.
2. The court of cassation left unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff in the part of the claims for the period from 07/01/2021 to 02/29/2024 due to the expiration of the six-month period for applying to the administrative court. The court noted that the term for applying to the court is calculated from the moment when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights, and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the law was officially published, which made it possible for interested parties to find out about it. The court also indicated that the pension is a monthly payment, and the person has the opportunity to find out its amount and components, and applying to the pension authority with a request to recalculate the pension three years after the grounds for this arose cannot be considered timely. The court emphasized that there are no special provisions regarding the calculation of the terms for applying to the court in cases where the legal relations were regulated by the norms of the law declared unconstitutional.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 620/13008/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the termination of the payment of pension indexation to the plaintiff, as a person dismissed from military service, after the recalculation of his pension.
2. The court of cassation, partially satisfying the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, proceeded from the fact that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court had already considered a similar dispute in model case No. 400/6254/24 and came to the conclusion that in the case of recalculation of the pension of a serviceman on the basis of a court decision, taking into account the amounts of the official salary and the salary for the special rank, determined by multiplying the amount of the living wage for able-bodied persons established by law as of January 1 of the year
of the corresponding year by the corresponding tariff coefficient constitutes a pension recalculation with an increase. And according to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, such recalculation is a legitimate basis for non-payment of indexation for 2023. At the same time, since the recalculation of the plaintiff’s pension in connection with the increase in the monetary allowance of the relevant categories of military personnel in 2022 was not carried out, the termination of the payment of indexation accrued on the basis of Resolution No. 118 is unlawful. The court also took into account that this case meets the characteristics of a typical case defined in model case No. 400/6254/24.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, overturning the decisions of previous instances in the part of the obligation to pay indexation on the basis of Resolution No. 168, and refused to satisfy this claim, and in the other part left the decisions of the courts unchanged.
Case No. 520/5817/25 dated 21/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal to the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to non-payment of court fees.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that in order for the appeal to be accepted for consideration, the appellant must provide evidence of payment of court fees or substantiate the grounds for exemption from its payment. Since the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not provide such evidence and did not eliminate the deficiencies of the appeal within the established period, the appellate court rightfully returned the appeal. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the introduction of martial law is an unconditional basis for exemption from payment of court fees, as no evidence of the impact of martial law on the institution’s funding was provided. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court acted within the limits of procedural law, without allowing violations that could lead to the cancellation of the appealed decision.
The court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 591/7260/23 dated 21/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Executive Committee of the Sumy City Council for compensation for moral damage in the amount of UAH 1,150,000.00, caused, in his opinion, by the illegal removal of his father from the housing register.
The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the decision to remove the plaintiff’s father from the housing register was made on the basis of the Housing Code norm in force at that time, and this decision was not appealed and canceled in court. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of illegal actions of the defendant that would violate his rights and interests, and did not provide evidence of discrimination. The recognition by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of the unconstitutionality of the norm on the basis of which the plaintiff’s father was removed from the register does not affect
the court’s conclusions, since at the time of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the relations regarding removal from the housing register had already ceased. The court also emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence, as this is beyond its authority.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case №560/11474/24 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions, by which the enterprise’s negative value of the object of taxation by income tax was reduced, the monetary obligation for VAT was increased, and penalties were applied.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the taxpayer rightfully included tax invoices registered in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices in the tax credit, as the tax authority did not prove any violations in their compilation. Also, the court agreed that the enterprise is not a tax agent regarding payments to individual entrepreneurs, therefore it is not obliged to reflect these payments in the reporting. Regarding the reduction of the negative value of income tax, the court indicated that funds received by the municipal enterprise from the budget as contributions to the authorized capital are not gratuitously received assets and should not be included in the composition of income. The court of appeal emphasized that the current legislation does not contain an imperative that the contribution of funds to the authorized capital must necessarily be preceded by a decision to increase the authorized capital.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case №420/17240/24 dated 10/22/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions and decisions of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region by the Subsidiary Enterprise “Odesa Oblavtodor”.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the tax authority, found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence that is important for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the issue of the legality of the formation of the tax credit and the validity of the expenses incurred by the enterprise was not investigated. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of all the circumstances of the case, as well as an assessment of all the evidence in their entirety. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the courts must take into account the practice of the Supreme Court when resolving similar disputes. Taking into account these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
of prior instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 640/25254/21 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from an individual based on tax assessment notices issued by the controlling authority.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that for the satisfaction of the claim for the recovery of tax debt, the existence of an agreed monetary obligation, the components of the debt, the grounds for its occurrence, the moment of occurrence, and the fact of non-payment of the debt voluntarily are important. The court noted that sending a tax demand to the address that is in the State Tax Service database, but is not the actual place of residence of the payer, does not affect the legality of applying to the court, since the tax demand is only intended to inform the payer about the existing debt. The court also noted that the applicant’s arguments regarding the illegality of the audit could only be assessed if the tax assessment notices had been appealed, which was not done. The court emphasized that the controlling authority complied with the requirements for applying to the court, namely: the existence of an agreed monetary obligation, the structure of the debt, the grounds for occurrence, the moment of occurrence, and the fact of non-payment of the debt voluntarily.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 240/6401/23 dated 10/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay a serviceman additional monetary remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in national security and defense measures in the period from 02/24/2022 to 05/29/2022.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the serviceman’s claim, citing the lack of evidence of the plaintiff’s direct participation in hostilities necessary to receive additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not clarify what tasks and where the plaintiff performed during the disputed period, and whether it could have happened that the defendant did not record the plaintiff’s participation in hostilities in the relevant documents. The Supreme Court emphasized the court’s obligation to establish the actual circumstances of the case, regardless of the position of the parties, and to take measures to identify and request the necessary evidence, referring to the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case in administrative proceedings. The court also noted that the criterion of the validity of a court decision requires an analysis of all relevant and important arguments of the parties.
3. The court ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 640/5772**
**Case № 826/17420/18** Decision dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the tax authority filed the appeal after the expiration of the one-year period from the date of the full text of the first instance court’s decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the statutory one-year term is preclusive and not subject to renewal, except in cases where the subject of power was not notified of the case or was not involved in it, and the court ruled on its rights and/or obligations. In this case, the tax authority was notified of the case and submitted a response, so the exception does not apply. The court also emphasized the obligation of the parties to the case to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to take measures to obtain information about the status of the proceedings in a timely manner.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case № 320/7475/23 dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv Oblast regarding the failure to accrue and pay Person_1 an increase to the pension as a non-working pensioner residing in the territory of the guaranteed voluntary resettlement zone, in accordance with Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster.”
2. The Supreme Court, considering this case, took into account that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine reinstated Article 39 of Law No. 796-XII as amended until January 1, 2015, which provides for the payment of a supplement to the pension of non-working pensioners residing in areas of radioactive contamination. The court also took into account the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicated that from the moment the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was adopted, the plaintiff’s right to receive an increase to the pension as a non-working pensioner residing in the territory of radioactive contamination was restored. The court noted that the determining factor for the application of this norm is the place of residence of the person and his/her status as a non-working pensioner, and not the status of a person affected by the Chernobyl disaster. Also, the court took into account that, according to Law No. 1774-VIII, the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established on January 1 of the relevant calendar year, and not the minimum wage, should be used to calculate such payments.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and ordered the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv Oblast to accrue and pay Person_1 an increase to the pension as a non-working pensioner residing in the territory of the guaranteedof voluntary resettlement, in the amount determined by Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster,” which is equal to two subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, established as of January 1 of the corresponding calendar year.
Case No. 620/16861/23 of 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax assessment notice by which the enterprise was charged a fine for violating the requirements regarding settlement operations.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared the fine imposed on the enterprise unlawful. The court noted that, according to current legislation, the mandatory requisites of a fiscal receipt are those defined in Regulation No. 13. A key point in the case was that the enterprise’s payment terminals were not connected or linked to the RRO (cash register) for reasons beyond the enterprise’s control. The court emphasized that since the payment terminals were not integrated with the RRO, filling in lines 11-18 of the fiscal receipt was not mandatory. Accordingly, the absence of these requisites cannot be considered a violation that entails financial liability. The court also took into account the enterprise’s explanation that the settlements were carried out through banking mobile applications that are not integrated with the PPRO (software cash register).
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 520/16550/24 of 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar of the Kharkiv Region (KDCA) on bringing a lawyer to disciplinary responsibility.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since the person who filed the appeal (PERSON_2) was not a party to the case in the court of first instance, and the court’s decision did not concern her rights, freedoms or obligations. The court noted that in order for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal the decision, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly affects her rights and obligations, and such a connection must be obvious and unconditional. In this case, although the court of first instance assessed the circumstances of the execution of the contract between the lawyer and PERSON_2, this was done only in the context of the disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer, and not to resolve civil law issues under the contract. The court also emphasized that the civil law aspect of the contract execution, which the appellant insisted on, is beyond the scope of the disputed legal relationship and was not assessed by the court of first instance.
3. The cassation appeal of PERSON_2 was dismissed, and the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of the appellate proceedings was upheld.
