Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 01/11/2025

Case №910/13394/23 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the right of permanent use of forest land plots between a communal enterprise and a state enterprise.

2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part regarding the recognition of the military administration’s order as unlawful and the cancellation of the state registration of the right of permanent use by SE “Forests of Ukraine”, since the satisfaction of these claims will not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights, and therefore, is an ineffective method of protection. The court noted that recognizing as illegal a decision of a government body that has already been executed is not a proper method of protection, as it does not restore the plaintiff’s rights. Regarding the claim for the cancellation of the state registration of the right of permanent use by SE “Forests of Ukraine”, the court indicated that the proper method of protection in such a case is the recovery of property, and not the cancellation of registration. At the same time, the court upheld the decision of the appellate court in the part recognizing the right of permanent use of the disputed land plots by the communal enterprise, since the plaintiff proved the existence of such a right based on previous decisions of the district state administration. The court emphasized that the absence of a state act for the right of permanent use does not indicate the termination of such a right, and the disputed order of the military administration was adopted without legal grounds for terminating the already existing right of the communal enterprise.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of SE “Forests of Ukraine”, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part regarding the recognition of the military administration’s order as unlawful and the cancellation of state registration, but upheld the decision regarding the recognition of the right of permanent use of land plots by SLCP “Orlan”.

Case №643/7668/23 dated 10/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is securing the claim by prohibiting the alienation of the defendant’s property, namely 1/2 part of the apartment, in the case of recognizing the debt obligation as a joint obligation of the spouses and recovering a part of the paid debt in the order of regress.

2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that securing the claim
The request to secure the claim is justified, as there is a risk of hindering or making it impossible to enforce the court’s decision if the claim is satisfied. The appellate court correctly considered the proportionality of the type of security for the claim to the stated claims, as the value of 1/2 of the apartment corresponds to the amount of the claims. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a counter-security proposal in the application for securing the claim is not an obstacle to granting the application, as the defendant is not deprived of the right to file a motion for counter-security separately. The court of cassation rejected the applicant’s reference to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances of the case under consideration differ.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.

Case No. 754/7383/20 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open proceedings on an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of a decision to dissolve a marriage due to the death of the defendant and the impossibility of legal succession in such disputes.

2. The court of cassation stated that the successor of the deceased defendant filed an application for review of the decision on divorce based on newly discovered circumstances, and the courts of previous instances refused to open proceedings, mistakenly citing the missed deadline for filing the application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the death of one of the spouses makes it impossible to restore family relations, which excludes legal succession in disputes on divorce, and therefore the courts should have refused to open proceedings on this basis, and not due to the missed deadline. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the cancellation of a decision on divorce after a significant period of time after the death of one of the spouses destabilizes private relations and does not comply with the principle of legal certainty. Thus, the disputed legal relations do not allow legal succession, which is the basis for refusing to open proceedings.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous courts, but upheld the decision to refuse to open proceedings.

Case No. 2-165/2004 dated 22/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of real estate and the recognition of the validity of a stock exchange contract for the sale of real estate.

The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the prosecutor’s office and the city council were not involved in the consideration of the case in the court of first instance and, accordingly, were not informed about the court proceedings, which is the basis for renewing the deadline for appeal. The appellate court mistakenly applied the provisions of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, refusing to open appellate proceedings.
since I did not take into account that the appellant was a person not notified of the case hearing. In addition, the appellate court did not give the applicant the opportunity to provide additional grounds for reinstatement of the appeal period, violating Article 357 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Given these violations, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court’s decision was illegal and unfounded, and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new hearing.

The court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case back to the court of appeal for a new hearing.

Case No. 448/778/23 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is granting permission to foreclose on real estate (a share of an apartment) that is used by the debtor’s minor children, as part of enforcement proceedings to recover the debt.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that in order to foreclose on property used by children, permission from the guardianship authority or a court decision is required. The court noted that the private enforcement officer reasonably appealed to the court, as he had received a refusal from the guardianship authority. The court also took into account that the children retain the right to use the dwelling regardless of the sale of the debtor’s share of the apartment, and therefore there are no grounds to believe that their housing rights will be violated. The court also noted that the previous courts did not take into account that the debtor is not complying with the court decision to recover the debt, and he has no other property that can be foreclosed on. The court of cassation emphasized the need to ensure a balance between protecting the rights of children and ensuring the enforcement of court decisions.

3. The court of cassation granted the private enforcement officer’s cassation appeal and granted permission to foreclose on the debtor’s share of the apartment, which is used by minor children.

Case No. 179/557/24 dated 10/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land auction results as invalid, initiated by LLC “Agroalliance” against Novomoskovsk SDVS and PERSON_1.

2. The court of cassation, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, emphasized that, according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the plaintiff, duly notified of the date of the court hearing, repeatedly fails to appear in court, and at the same time there is no application from him to consider the case in his absence, the court has the right to dismiss the claim. The court emphasized that the procedural law does not require taking into account the validity of the reasons for the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear, as this is related to the principle of dispositiveness of civil proceedings, where a party to the case independently disposes of its procedural rights. The Supreme Court also noted that dismissing the claim is not a restriction on access to justice, as
only the plaintiff has the right to apply to the court again after the elimination of the circumstances that served as the basis for leaving the claim without consideration. The court took into account that the plaintiff was duly notified of the date of the hearing, but repeatedly failed to appear, without filing a motion to have the case heard in their absence.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s ruling to leave the claim without consideration.

Case No. 570/1834/23 dated 08/10/2025

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of paternity of the deceased serviceman in relation to a child born out of wedlock and the making of relevant changes to the birth registration record.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the case is subject to consideration under civil procedure, since the dispute arose from family legal relations, and the plaintiff’s purpose is to establish the fact of paternity, which is a prerequisite for the child’s rights to benefits and financial assistance in the future. The court noted that cases on establishing facts on which the emergence, modification or termination of subjective rights depends should be considered under the rules of civil procedure. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the dispute is public law in nature, since there is no dispute with a subject of power, and the requirement to amend the birth registration record does not change the nature of the dispute. The court also indicated that it does not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellants referred to, since the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from these conclusions in its ruling of January 18, 2024 in case No. 560/17953/21.

3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the serviceman’s daughter and her legal representative, and to leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.

Case No. 522/16255/23-Е dated 22/10/2025

The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the order of inheritance by law.

The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, since the appellate court, according to the Supreme Court, re-evaluated the evidence provided by the court of first instance without proper justification and did not establish new facts that would confirm the plaintiff’s co-residence with the testator as one family for five years prior to the opening of the inheritance, as required by Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine for heirs of the fourth priority. The court of cassation emphasized that the recognition of a person as an heir of the fourth priority requires a set of evidence confirming the conduct of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, joint expenses, mutual rights and obligations, and the mere fact of caring for the testator and providing assistance is not a sufficient basis. The court of first instance, according to the cassation
the appellate court correctly assessed the evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion that there were no grounds for granting the claim.

The court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the claim.

Case No. 758/12530/24 dated 10/22/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in a civil case on the claim of the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine against an individual for reimbursement, by way of recourse, of the insurance compensation paid.

The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating that the appellate court took an excessively formal approach to the consideration of the defendant’s appeal. The Supreme Court noted that despite the error in indicating the type of court decision being appealed (ruling instead of decision), it was clear from the context of the appeal that the decision of the court of first instance on the merits of the dispute was being appealed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should not resort to excessive formalism that restricts access to justice. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate judge made the decision to return the appeal alone, which is a violation of procedural rules, since such a decision must be made by a panel of judges. The court of cassation emphasized that excessive formalism impedes effective access to the court, violating the right to a fair trial.

The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for consideration to the court of appeal.

Case No. 686/3625/23 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for collaborative activity and justification, recognition as lawful, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants.

2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, because the appellate court did not provide a comprehensive response to the arguments of the defense in the appeal regarding the incorrect qualification of PERSON_7’s actions under Part 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code, in particular, regarding the absence of repetition in the actions of the convicted person and the impossibility of qualifying the act as repeated without prior determination of the first act as a separate crime. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not conduct a comprehensive and complete analysis of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, despite the available procedural possibilities. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court must check all the arguments of the defense, both those to which it did not respond and those to which it has already responded. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring a person’s right to a fair trial, where the standards of proof must be the highest. Considering the risks of absconding from the court, the Supreme Court chose PERSON_7 as a measure of restraint.
a preventive measure in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention.

Case No. 686/18930/21 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict because the appellate court failed to comply with the instructions of the cassation court given in the previous ruling, namely, it did not properly verify the convicted person’s arguments about his non-involvement in the crime, which, according to him, are confirmed by data from the video recorder seized from his car. The court of appeal did not ensure a complete and objective examination of this material evidence, although it referred to the involvement of a specialist, but did not properly record the examination process and conclusions. Also, the appellate court did not analyze the defense’s arguments regarding the detection of genetic traces of the witness on the cigarette butt found near the victim’s body and did not compare this information with other evidence to assess the credibility of the statements of the convicted person and the witness. As a result, the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which could have prevented the adoption of a legal and well-founded decision.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.

Case No. 607/8088/23 dated 14/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 111 (treason) and Part 3 of Article 436-2 (justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, rejecting the defender’s cassation appeal. The operative part of the ruling does not contain specific arguments on which the court relied, but it is stated that the full text of the ruling will be announced later. It can be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in committing the crimes he was charged with, as well as the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the cancellation or change of the appealed court decisions. Also, the court could have taken into account the gravity of the crimes committed by PERSON_7 and the public danger of such acts in the context of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. In addition, the court could have taken into account the data on the convicted person
including the fact of a prior conviction.

The court ruled: the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7 shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel shall be dismissed.

Case No. 715/1486/22 dated 27/10/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of hereditary property in the form of building materials and equipment used in the construction of an unfinished construction object.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the plaintiffs’ ownership of building materials and equipment that were used in unauthorized construction, since the ownership of unauthorized construction does not pass by inheritance, but only the right to the materials from which it was built. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the unfounded appointment of an expert examination, since it was necessary to establish the list and value of building materials that are part of the hereditary property. The court noted that the heirs have the right to building materials used in construction, and not to the unfinished construction object itself, if it has not been put into operation. The court also indicated that the appointment of an expert examination does not violate the principles of adversarial proceedings, since the defendant did not provide evidence that would refute the expert’s opinion.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

Case No. 495/8674/19 dated 27/10/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the entry on the ownership of the apartment and the restoration of the plaintiff’s ownership of this apartment.

2. The court of appeal, the decision of which was upheld by the Supreme Court, partially satisfied the claims, canceling the decision of the state registrar on the registration of ownership of the apartment for the financial company, since at the time of registration the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Recovery of Property of Citizens of Ukraine Provided as Security for Loans in Foreign Currency” was in effect, which prohibited the forced recovery (alienation without the owner’s consent) of real estate that is the subject of a mortgage under a consumer loan in foreign currency, if this property is the borrower’s permanent place of residence and meets certain area criteria. The court noted that the moratorium does not provide for the creditor’s loss of the right to foreclose, but only temporarily prohibits forced alienation without the owner’s consent. The court also took into account that since January 16, 2020, the cancellation of the entry on state registration of a right as a way to protect violated property rights is no longer provided for by law, therefore it chose the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision as an effective way to protect.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
in.

**Case No. 161/21477/20 of 10/16/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of aiding and abetting the embezzlement of budget funds and official forgery.

2. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to the principle of presumption of innocence, the burden of proving the guilt of a person rests with the prosecution, which must present proper, admissible, and reliable evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The court noted that the prosecution had not proven the existence of direct intent, self-interest motive, or purpose of the acquitted person to aid and abet the embezzlement of budget funds, and also did not provide evidence of the connection of the acquitted person with officials involved in the crime. The court also emphasized the absence of special powers of the acquitted person to dispose of property, which is a mandatory element of the crime under Article 191 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the court pointed out that the documents, in the forgery of which the acquitted person was accused, were drawn up with the participation of representatives of the customer, who did not express any comments, which casts doubt on the existence of official forgery. The court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need for re-examination of the evidence, as it was not specified which circumstances remained unexamined.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, upholding the acquittal.

**Case No. 758/15128/21 of 10/23/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling on the conviction of a person for inflicting grievous bodily harm dangerous to life.

2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person’s guilt proven based on a combination of evidence, including witness testimonies, video recordings from the scene, expert opinions, and other case materials, assessed in interconnection. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, discrepancies in testimonies, and violations of procedural rights were thoroughly checked and rejected as unfounded. Also, the court indicated that differences in the presentation of the factual circumstances of the crime in the notice of suspicion and the indictment are not a significant violation if the indictment ensures a full understanding of the elements of the crime. The court also rejected the argument about the absence of the victim in the case, since harm to health was caused to the person, and the procedural rights of the witness were not violated.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.

**Case No. 915/1097/20 of 10/27/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal
of the appellate commercial court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings and returning the creditor company’s appeal in the bankruptcy case of a state-owned enterprise.

2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the return of the creditor’s appeal against the preliminary hearing ruling, considering it an erroneous interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that a ruling based on the consideration of an individual creditor’s claims cannot be appealed separately from the ruling issued as a result of the preliminary hearing, regarding specific creditors’ claims, but the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine does not contain a prohibition on appealing the preliminary hearing ruling without appealing the so-called “individual” ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate review of the preliminary hearing ruling can be carried out taking into account the conclusions of the local commercial court made both in the preliminary hearing ruling and taking into account the circumstances and motives reflected in the individual ruling issued as a result of considering the claims of an individual creditor. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not take this into account and came to the erroneous conclusion about the return of the creditor’s appeal.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate commercial court’s ruling in the part concerning the return of the appeal and remanded the case in this part for consideration to the court of appellate instance.

**Case No. 914/654/24 dated 10/15/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of a land plot, invalidation of the lease agreement, and obligation to return the land plot, since the prosecutor’s office believes that the designated purpose of the plot was groundlessly changed from the water fund to agricultural.

2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case. The courts did not properly assess the evidence of the presence of water objects and hydraulic structures on the plot, which is crucial for determining the legal regime of the land. The procedure for changing the designated purpose of the plot and the powers of local self-government bodies to dispose of it were also not verified. The courts did not investigate the issue of the ratio of the area of ​​the land plot and the real estate located on it, and did not assess the application of standards for the protection of property rights in the context of maintaining a balance between private and public interests.

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. 334/6987/24 dated 10/22/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the communal enterprise in favor of the plaintiff of the average earnings for the period of forced idleness, caused by
resulting from the occupation of the territory and the impossibility of performing labor duties.

2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the suspension of proceedings in the case, as the appellate court mistakenly applied paragraph 10 of part one of Article 252 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The appellate court suspended proceedings in the case until the completion of the review in cassation proceedings of another case, considering the legal relations in them to be similar. However, the cassation review in the other case was carried out by a panel of judges, and not by a chamber, joint chamber, or the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as provided for by the specified norm of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the suspension of proceedings is possible only if the case is being reviewed in cassation proceedings by a chamber, joint chamber, or the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, and when the legal conclusion in that case may affect the application of the rule of law in the case in which proceedings have been suspended. The court of cassation stated that the appellate court did not take these circumstances into account, which led to a violation of the norms of procedural law.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 522/6506/23 dated 10/15/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to use the residential premises due to the death of her husband, who was the tenant of these premises.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the plaintiff moved into the apartment as a member of the tenant’s family, lived there for a long time, shared a household with the tenant, and that these circumstances were confirmed by previous court decisions that have preclusive effect. The court also took into account that the defendant (the son of the deceased tenant) had not lived in the disputed apartment for a long time and did not object to the plaintiff’s residence there. In addition, the court noted that the long-term residence of a person in housing, regardless of its legal regime, is a sufficient basis for recognizing their right to housing within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also took into account that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to confirm the use of the property and moving into the apartment on legal grounds as a member of the tenant’s family. The court of cassation emphasized that in this case, the issue is the right to housing regarding premises that are not privately owned, and therefore such relationships, compared to private property relationships, increase the level of protection provided to individuals in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention.

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

Case No. 295/17640/23 dated 10/27/2025

1. The subject of
The subject matter of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 for compensation for moral damages allegedly caused by obstruction in career advancement.

3. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that in this case PERSON_2 acted as an official, temporarily performing the duties of the commander of the military unit, and his actions were related to the performance of official duties. The court noted that according to Article 1172 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, for damage caused by an official during the performance of official duties, the legal entity, i.e., the military unit, is liable, not the individual – the official. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not file a motion to replace the improper defendant, which is his right, but not the court’s obligation. Considering that the lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant, the courts reasonably dismissed the claim. The court of cassation instance confirmed that filing a lawsuit against an improper defendant is an independent basis for dismissing the claim.

4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 915/767/21 dated 10/24/2025

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to reinstate the term for filing a complaint against the actions/inaction of the state executive service (SES) body and leaving the complaint unconsidered.

2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the SES’s inaction regarding the non-return of the writ of execution to the claimant is a continuing offense, since the issuance of a decision to open enforcement proceedings when there are grounds for returning the writ of execution is an action, not inaction. The court noted that the opening of enforcement proceedings and the non-return of the order to the claimant are interrelated actions that cannot be considered separately. The Supreme Court emphasized that the ten-day period provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” should be applied to appeal decisions and actions of the state executor. Since LLC “Naval Park” missed this deadline and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing it, the court of first instance reasonably refused to reinstate the term and left the complaint unconsidered.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to reinstate the term for appealing the actions/inaction of the SES and leaving the complaint unconsidered.

Case No. 910/6472/23 dated 10/23/2025

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a natural gas transportation agreement, namely payment for daily imbalance, penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.

2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts
of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the GTS Operator, as they established that the calculation of the plaintiff’s debt was carried out taking into account the volumes of natural gas unlawfully additionally charged to the defendant’s consumer (LLC “CMK 103”) by the decision of JSC “Kyivgaz”, which was overturned by the court in another case. The court noted that since the court decision in another case established the absence of grounds for additional charges of gas volumes to the consumer, then the inclusion of these volumes in the calculation of the defendant’s daily imbalance is unreasonable. The courts also took into account that the defendant provided a counter-calculation, which took into account the correction of information on consumed gas, and this counter-calculation is more probable. In addition, the courts established that the debt was repaid by debiting funds under a bank guarantee. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it is a “court of law”, not a “court of fact”, therefore it only verifies the correct application of legal norms, and does not establish new circumstances of the case.

2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

Case No. 522/23619/20 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the registration of declarations of readiness of the object for operation, cancellation of decisions on state registration of property rights, recognition of certificates of ownership as illegal, recognition of the donation agreement as invalid, and obligation to vacate the illegally occupied land plot by demolishing the unauthorized construction.

2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the technical passports for the apartment before and after reconstruction, as well as the technical passport for the newly created apartment, which made it impossible to establish the fact of completion of the first floor at the expense of the communal land plot. The court noted that the courts did not take into account that to protect the rights of the owner of the land plot on which the unauthorized construction was carried out, the proper claim is the claim for the demolition of the illegally constructed real estate or the claim for recognition of ownership of the illegally constructed property, referring to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of November 15, 2023. The court also emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims or objections, and proof cannot be based on assumptions.

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

Case No. 465/107/22 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s refusal to restructure the credit debt as illegal and the obligation to conduct such a restructuring in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending”.

2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal, agreeing with the courts of previous instances in the part of obliging the bank to restructure the plaintiff’s loan debt, since the plaintiff met the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending” regarding mandatory restructuring. The court noted that the existence of overdue debt as of January 1, 2014, is not an obstacle to restructuring if such debt was repaid before applying to the bank with a request for restructuring. At the same time, the court of cassation did not agree with the claim to declare the bank’s refusal to restructure illegal, stating that the proper way to protect rights in this case is precisely to oblige the bank to conduct restructuring. Also, the cassation court reduced the amount of legal aid costs recovered from the bank in favor of the plaintiff, considering the partial satisfaction of the claim and the principle of proportionality.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of recognizing the bank’s refusal to restructure as illegal and dismissed the claim in this part, and also changed the decision in the part of the distribution of court costs, reducing the amount recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

Case No. 990/179/24 dated 27/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Council of Justice.

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

3. The court dismissed the claim.

Case No. 149/646/23 dated 27/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on termination of the land lease agreement, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement for the same land plot, and the cancellation of the decisions of the state registrar.

2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, which established that the director of “Schedra Nyva” LLC acted in bad faith and contrary to the interests of the company, entering into an agreement on the termination of the lease agreement, as this led to the loss of the right to lease the land, its removal from the company’s assets, and the causing of losses. The courts took into account that the director concealed the fact of the conclusion of the agreement, as well as the fact that the lessor received an advance rental payment for several years in advance. Considering these circumstances, the courts concluded that there was a malicious agreement between the director of “Schedra Nyva” LLC, the lessor, and “Khors 2020” LLC, which is the basis for recognizing the agreement as invalid based on Article 232 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, since the lease agreement with “Khors 2020” LLC was concluded as a result of this malicious
of prior agreement, it was also declared invalid.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed LLC “Hors 2020″‘s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case №545/2004/22 dated 21/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for intentional homicide committed by a person who had previously committed intentional homicide, with a request for mitigation of punishment.

The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as the conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the person’s guilt in committing the crime was not contested. The court noted that the issue of sentencing is a discretionary power of the court of first instance, but these powers have limits defined by law. The court took into account the degree of severity of the crime, data on the identity of the guilty person, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment. The appellate court reasonably excluded sincere remorse as a circumstance mitigating the punishment, as the accused partially admitted guilt and gave conflicting testimony. The court also confirmed the presence of recidivism of crimes as a circumstance aggravating the punishment, considering the outstanding conviction under the previous verdict. Considering all the circumstances, the court of cassation found no grounds to consider the imposed punishment manifestly unfair due to its severity.

The court decided to uphold the verdict and ruling, and to dismiss the cassation appeal without satisfaction.

Case №545/2004/22 dated 21/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under paragraph 13 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code (intentional homicide committed by a person previously convicted of intentional homicide).

This operative part of the resolution does not contain any arguments of the court. The text only shows that the cassation court agreed with the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and found no grounds to satisfy the defender’s cassation appeal. The full text of the resolution, which will be announced later, will likely contain a detailed justification of the court’s position, an analysis of the arguments of the cassation appeal, and the reasons why the court concluded that the previous court decisions were lawful and well-founded.

Court decision: the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court were upheld, and the defender’s cassation appeal was dismissed without satisfaction.

Case №201/6497/23 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a forest land plot into private ownership and its subsequent sale.

2. The court of cassation partially overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the claims for recognizing the city council’s decision to transfer land into ownership as illegal and declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid are not a proper way of protection, as they do not lead torestoration of state ownership of the land. At the same time, the court upheld the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of the land plot from illegal possession, since the plot was withdrawn from state ownership against the will of the state, and also upheld the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot. The court emphasized the importance of controlling the use of forest fund lands for their intended purpose and noted that the recovery of the plot meets the criteria of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality established by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also took into account that the defendant is not deprived of the opportunity to recover damages caused by the recovery of the property.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, overturning the decision of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the city council’s decision as illegal and the purchase and sale agreement as invalid, but upheld the decision regarding the recovery of the land plot and the cancellation of its state registration.

Case No. 504/3558/20 dated 10/23/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the punishment was assigned taking into account the severity of the crime and its consequences, as well as information about the identity of the guilty party. The SC emphasized that the courts of first instance and appellate instance have an advantage in assessing the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person. The SC also indicated that the victim’s position regarding the punishment is not binding on the court. Regarding the compensation for material damage, the SC emphasized that the convicted person admitted the claim in this part, and there was no information provided about applying to the insurer. The defense’s arguments about procedural violations in the appellate court were not supported, as the defense did not exercise the right to challenge the judges.

The court left the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.

Case No. 214/7059/17 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of crimes under the articles on robbery, murder for mercenary motives, and banditry.