Case №420/19263/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the refusal to recalculate the old-age pension, taking into account a certain indicator of the average salary.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, focused on the issue of compliance by the plaintiff with the terms of applying to the court. The court emphasized that a person must apply to the court within six months from the moment when they learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights. Since the pension is a monthly payment, a person has the opportunity to know its amount and, accordingly, promptly seek protection of their rights. The court also noted that the passive behavior of a person does not indicate compliance with the term of applying to the court. The court took into account that the plaintiff applied to the court with a significant omission of the established term, and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The Court also referred to its own practice, in particular to the ruling of March 31, 2021 in case №240/12017/19, where it deviated from previous conclusions regarding the application of the terms of applying to the court in social disputes.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the claims for the period from June 20, 2022 to December 18, 2023, and dismissed the claim in this part without consideration, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in the other part.
Case №560/10203/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notice-decision of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Khmelnytskyi region by the Limited Liability Company “Agrofirma Progres-V”.
2. The Supreme Court did not provide any arguments in the introductory and operative parts of the resolution. Unfortunately, the full text of the court decision is missing, so it is impossible to provide information about the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of LLC “Agrofirma Progres-V”, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №185/4826/22 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk region regarding the failure to accrue and underpayment to PERSON_1, as a child of war, of an increase to the pension in the amount of 30% of the subsistence minimum for persons who have lost their ability to work.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the following: The Law of Ukraine “On Social Protection of Children of War” as amended by Law № 76-VIII of December 28, 2014 empowers the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to establish the amount and procedure for payment of the increase to children of war; the defendant lawfully paid the plaintiff an increase to the pension.
to a child of war in the order and amounts established by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated December 28, 2011, No. 1381; the plaintiff’s reference to legal norms in the version that is no longer valid is unfounded; the courts correctly established that the plaintiff’s pension amount did not decrease from 01/06/2022; the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the consideration of the case by an unauthorized composition of the court in the court of appeal are unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/13305/24 dated 10/28/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition of decisions as invalid, the recognition of the actions of the state registrar as illegal, and the cancellation of the registration entry regarding LLC “Ekipazh”.
The Supreme Court, satisfying the cassation appeal of LLC “Ekipazh”, proceeded from the fact that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court did not take into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular those that were important for the correct resolution of the dispute. In addition, the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence submitted by the parties. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legality and validity of the court decision, as well as the need for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that there were grounds for canceling the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance.
The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the cassation appeal of LLC “Ekipazh”.
Case No. 320/60190/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is securing the claim of Converse Links Limited Liability Company by prohibiting the State Tax Service from taking certain actions regarding licenses for retail trade in fuel and registration of excise invoices.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances courts, noting that in order to secure a claim, it is necessary to establish a real threat of non-execution of the court decision or a significant complication of the protection of the plaintiff’s rights, as well as the proportionality of the measures to secure the claim with the claims. The court emphasized that sufficient evidence of obvious danger of causing harm to the plaintiff’s rights or the impossibility of their restoration without taking measures to secure the claim was not provided. In addition, the Supreme Court stressed that securing a claim should not actually resolve the dispute on the merits before the case is considered, and the proposed measures to secure the claim actually replace the court decision in the case and resolve the claims before the case is considered on the merits. The court also took into account that the grounds for securing a claim are оценочними (subjective) and must be established in each specific case, taking into account the evidence, as well as the specificf legal relations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and denied the application of Converse Links LLC for securing the claim.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341577](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341577)
**Case No. 200/673/25 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from an individual and the appeal of tax notices-decisions regarding real estate tax, other than land.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the plaintiff’s claims, based on the fact that, according to subparagraph 69.22 of paragraph 69 of subsection 10 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine (as amended until May 6, 2023), an individual is exempt from paying real estate tax located in territories where hostilities were conducted, for certain periods of 2021 and 2022. The court noted that the amendments to the legislation, introduced in April 2023, do not have retroactive effect, and therefore the previous version of subparagraph 69.22 should be applied to the disputed legal relations. The court also indicated that although the court of first instance mistakenly considered the case under the simplified procedure, this did not affect the correctness of establishing the actual circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341334](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341334)
**Case No. 440/8816/24 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries on the application of a fine to SK Poltava LLC for violation of advertising legislation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that SK Poltava LLC violated the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Advertising” by placing outdoor advertising using the trademark “Golden Gate Casino,” which is used by the gambling organizer, Ayfar Group LLC. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Advertising” directly prohibits advertising of trademarks under which gambling activities are organized and conducted, by means of outdoor advertising. The court rejected the arguments of SK Poltava LLC that the advertisement was placed to promote the sponsor’s trademark, not to advertise gambling, as the law makes no exceptions for sponsorship advertising. The court also indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of a commercial component in the distribution of advertising were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance, therefore they cannot be taken into account by the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SK Poltava LLC and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341571](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131341571)
**Case No. 640/12500/22 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC Ukrnafta ofarrears from the part of the net profit (income) of economic organizations that is withdrawn to the budget.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court rightfully overturned the decision of the court of first instance, because the case was considered under the procedure of simplified proceedings, although it was subject to consideration under the rules of general proceedings, which is a violation of procedural law. The appellate court reasonably accepted evidence of tax debt payment, which was not submitted to the court of first instance, because the decision of the court of first instance was overturned, inter alia, due to a violation of procedural law, namely, the consideration of the case without summoning the parties in the order of simplified proceedings. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court acted within its powers, conducted the consideration of the case in an open court session with the participation of representatives of the parties, ascertained the actual circumstances of the case, and rendered a new court decision. The court of cassation did not establish violations of the norms of procedural law by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 640/19572/20 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in enforcement proceedings in a case regarding the obligation of the tax authority to return overpaid income tax.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the application of the tax authority to replace a party in enforcement proceedings, because the Eastern Interregional Department of the State Tax Service has not ceased its activities and is not in a state of reorganization or liquidation, and therefore, there is no fact of legal succession with the transfer of rights and obligations to the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Poltava region. The court noted that a change in the place of registration of a taxpayer does not lead to automatic legal succession of the controlling bodies. The obligation to enforce a court decision rests with the body that was obligated by the court decision that entered into legal force, regardless of the change in the place of registration of the taxpayer. The court emphasized that legal succession is possible only in the event of the termination of the initial entity or the transfer of its functions to another body, which did not occur in this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 910/16017/24 dated 10/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) in part.
The decision does not provide any arguments that the court relied on, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is needed.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Ruten” LLC.
Engineering” to be dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances to remain unchanged.
Case No. 910/12917/20 dated 27/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings based on a complaint by a person who did not participate in the case against the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of the termination of obligations under credit agreements.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, based on the fact that the right to appeal lies with the parties to the case and persons whose rights, interests, or obligations are directly violated by the court decision. The court noted that the decision of the court of first instance does not contain any conclusions regarding the rights, interests, or obligations of the appellant (JSC “Pokrovsky GOK”), and therefore, the appellate court rightfully closed the appellate proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the connection between the appealed decision and the rights of the appellant must be obvious and unconditional, and not probable. Also, the court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments about the violation of the right to access to court, as this right is not absolute and is limited by the requirements of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 520/8464/24 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Department of Housing and Communal Services of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the improper consideration of the application for compensation for damaged property.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which refused to open appellate proceedings, as the Department missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance on the imposition of a fine for non-compliance with the court decision. The court noted that references to martial law, shelling of the city, technical failures, and property damage are not objective and insurmountable circumstances that made it impossible to file an appeal in a timely manner. The court also took into account that the Department did not take the opportunity to ask for a reduction in the amount of the fine or exemption from its payment, which indicates a reluctance to comply with the court decision. The court emphasized that public authorities must act in a timely manner and not benefit from violating their own procedures.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/3435/21 dated 28/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the joint-stock company “Operator of the Gas Distribution System “Mykolaivgaz”.
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the cassation appeal on the grounds of paragraph 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Uk
of Ukraine (Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine) is not subject to review, as it was not properly substantiated. Regarding the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1 and 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. Also, the court took into account the principle of finality of court decisions, emphasizing the importance of stability and predictability of law enforcement. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Mykolaivgaz”, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/3084/18 (910/2159/24) dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of real estate purchase and sale agreements as invalid, recovery of the value of the property, recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, and recognition of a mortgage agreement as invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not prove the fraudulent nature of the disputed contracts, since there was no established intent to cause harm to creditors when they were concluded, considering that the funds received from the sale exceeded the amount of debt; also, the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the property was alienated at an underestimated price, and the submitted expert opinions were recognized as improper and inadmissible evidence. The court also took into account that, as a result of the disputed transactions, the buyer paid funds and registered ownership of the purchased property, which confirms the occurrence of real legal consequences, and therefore there are no grounds to consider the transactions fictitious. In addition, the court noted that the claims for recovery of the value of the property, recovery of property from someone else’s possession, and recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid are derivative from the claim for recognition of the purchase and sale agreements as invalid, which was denied. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claims.
Case No. ЗПП/320/18/24 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is securing the claim by suspending the decision of the tax authority to cancel licenses for the wholesale trade of alcoholic beverages until the court decision in the case enters into force.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the cancellation of licenses may lead to the suspension of the enterprise’s economic activity, blocking sources of funds.of failure to fulfill obligations under supply contracts, which may lead to significant losses and complicate the resumption of operations in the future. The court noted that the purpose of securing a claim is to protect the plaintiff’s substantive legal interests from the defendant’s bad faith actions, to ensure the real enforcement of a court decision if it is rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The court also took into account that the main activity of LVR ALCO LLC is wholesale of beverages, which requires appropriate licenses, and their cancellation directly affects the possibility of conducting business. The court emphasized that the measures taken to secure the claim are temporary and do not resolve the dispute on its merits, but only preserve the existing situation until the case is considered on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts to grant the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 140/6001/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax notice-decision by which Logitrain LLC had its negative value of value-added tax reduced.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, which granted the claim of Logitrain LLC, based on the following:
* First, the courts took into account that the Company did not properly receive notification of the audit and the request for documents, which made it impossible to provide the necessary documents during the audit.
* Second, the courts took into account the primary documents provided by the Company during the trial, which confirm the reality of business transactions, in particular, foreign economic contracts, customs declarations, invoices, sales contracts, tax invoices and bank statements.
* Third, the courts took into account the prejudicial circumstances established in another administrative case No. 140/1146/24, where the reflection of indicators in the VAT return for February 2023 based on the documents available to the Company was recognized as lawful.
* Fourth, the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the plaintiff complied with the deadline for appealing to the court, as there was no proper evidence of receipt of the disputed tax notice-decision within the period specified by the tax authority.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 440/5676/25 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the tax authority’s order to cancel the license for retail sale of fuel and an application for securing the claim by suspending the effect of this order.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which granted the application
regarding the securing of the claim, citing the fact that the courts did not consider the necessity of proving a real threat of non-execution of the court decision or the complication of protecting the plaintiff’s rights in case of failure to take measures to secure the claim, and also did not assess the proportionality of such measures with the stated claims. The court noted that the mere fact of making a decision concerning the plaintiff’s rights is not an automatic basis for securing the claim, and the necessity of taking such measures must be substantiated by specific evidence. The court also emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not provide sufficient reasons to indicate that failure to take measures to secure the claim could significantly complicate the effective protection or restoration of the plaintiff’s violated rights. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the grounds for securing the claim are evaluative, and the court must, in each case, based on specific evidence, establish the presence of at least one of the circumstances provided for in Article 150 of the CAS of Ukraine, and assess whether the application of measures to secure the claim will cause even greater harm than the one that can be prevented.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and rejected the application of P.RETAIL LLC to secure the claim.
Case No. 340/686/25 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kirovohrad Region (HU PFU) to recalculate and pay the pension of PERSON_1 using the average salary indicator for 2020-2022.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court took a formal approach to the case, without examining the content of the attorney’s request with which the plaintiff applied to the HU PFU regarding the recalculation of the pension, and did not take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the priority of the content of the appeal over the form. The court emphasized that the refusal to consider the appeal only on the basis of non-compliance with the form, without assessing the essence of the person’s expression of will, is a manifestation of excessive formalism and violates the right to social security. Also, the court of cassation instance indicated that the court of appeal instance did not examine the issue of compliance with the term for appealing to the court with this claim. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the pension authority must act in good faith, transparently and effectively, promoting the realization of the right to pension provision, and not creating artificial obstacles.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the same court.
Case No. 420/5776/25 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the restriction of the amount of the plaintiff’s pension by applying reducing coefficients provided for by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the Law of Ukraine “P
regarding the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine effectively introduce temporary regulations that contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Persons,” which is a special law in this area. The court emphasized that changes to the terms of pension provision are possible only by amending the special law, and not by subordinate legislation. Furthermore, the court noted that the application of reduction coefficients limits the constitutional right to social protection, guaranteed by the special law. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which emphasize that the law on the State Budget cannot abolish or change the scope of rights and guarantees provided by other laws. The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget for 2025” does not contain any provisions regarding the authority of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to determine the forms and types of pension provision, nor any provisions regarding coefficients for reducing pensions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, supporting the position on the illegality of the actions of the pension authority.
Case No. 380/7706/22 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the reduction of the percentage value of the pension amount and the restriction of its maximum amount, as well as the obligation to recalculate and pay the pension in a larger amount.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which changed the method of execution of the court decision, obliging the Pension Fund to pay the accrued but unpaid amount of additional pension payments. The court noted that since December 2024, according to the amendments made to the CAS of Ukraine, non-execution of a court decision regarding pension payments within two months is an independent basis for changing the method of execution to the recovery of relevant payments. The court emphasized that the purpose of the changes is to ensure the actual execution of court decisions, and not a formal confirmation of the obligation of the subject of power. The court rejected the arguments of the Pension Fund about the impossibility of recovering funds due to budget constraints, stating that the change in the method of execution is not a review of the essence of the decision, but a mechanism to ensure its actual execution. The court also noted that the Pension Fund’s references to previous decisions of the Supreme Court are irrelevant, as they relate to the wording of the CAS of Ukraine that was in effect before the amendments were made.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 924/1027/24 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for
