Here is the translation of the provided legal texts:
**Case No. 461/6724/21 dated 10/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of local self-government bodies and the university regarding the provision of an apartment to another person as illegal, as well as the cancellation of title documents for this apartment, since the plaintiff believes that he had the priority right to receive it.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because at the time of applying to the court, the plaintiff was no longer registered for housing at the place of work, which indicates that he did not need housing at that time; in addition, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the disputed apartment, in case of cancellation of the defendants’ ownership right, would be given to him; the court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where it had already been established that the cancellation of individual decisions regarding the inclusion of the defendant in the lists for receiving housing is not an unconditional basis for depriving him of the ownership right to this housing; the court emphasized that in order to satisfy the claim, it is necessary to prove the existence of a violated right, which was not done in this case, since the plaintiff did not prove that his right was violated as a result of providing the apartment to the defendant, especially considering that the plaintiff was excluded from the control lists for receiving housing.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 752/716/18 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the mortgage agreement concluded between the bank and the plaintiff’s ex-husband as invalid, since, in her opinion, she was misled regarding the terms of this agreement.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff is not a party to the mortgage agreement, and therefore, the provisions of Article 230 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulates the consequences of one party to a transaction misleading the other party, cannot be applied to her. The court noted that deception can only occur with respect to the parties to the transaction, and the plaintiff only gave consent to the conclusion of the mortgage agreement. Also, the court of appeal indicated that the court of first instance went beyond the stated claims, satisfying the claim on the grounds of the absence of the plaintiff’s notarized consent to the conclusion of the mortgage agreement, although the plaintiff challenged the agreement on other grounds. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not prove the fact that she was misled by the party to the mortgage agreement, and her arguments amount to disagreement with the assessment of the evidence, which is not a basis for cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. …**
**Case No. 711/4522/24 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living as one family without marriage registration for the purpose of inheritance оформлення.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim, establishing the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased lived as one family on the basis of witness testimonies, joint photographs, travel tickets and other documents confirming the conduct of a joint household, the existence of a common budget and mutual rights and obligations. The courts took into account that in order to acquire the right to inherit by law on the basis of Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to establish the fact of living as one family with the testator for at least five years before the time of the opening of the inheritance. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the insufficiency of evidence, noting that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that registration of the place of residence at different addresses does not disprove the fact of cohabitation as one family.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 450/453/22 dated 10/31/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the assignment agreement of the right of claim under a loan agreement concluded between a bank and an individual.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that his rights were violated as a result of the conclusion of the assignment agreement of the right of claim, and also did not provide evidence of the invalidity of the transferred claim. The court noted that the lawfulness of the contract is presumed, unless otherwise established by law or court. The court also indicated that the amount of debt under the loan agreement is not a determining factor for recognizing the assignment agreement of the right of claim as invalid. It is important that the debtor has the right to raise against the claims of the new creditor the same objections that he had against the original creditor. The court emphasized that the issue of proper performance of obligations under the loan agreement should be considered within the framework of a dispute over debt collection, and not in the context of the validity of the assignment agreement of the right of claim. In addition, the very fact of the conclusion of the assignment agreement of the right of claim does not oblige the plaintiff to pay the debt in the specified amount, and he may challenge the amount of the debt by presenting the relevant evidence.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 910/11820/23 dated 10/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the securities account servicing agreement and the obligation of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals to include the amount of debt in the bank’s expenditure estimate, which is
is being liquidated.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that the debt arose during the liquidation of PJSC “Delta Bank” and is related to the maintenance and preservation of the bank’s property, as the securities continued to be recorded on the account, and no evidence of their write-off was provided. The court took into account that, according to Part 2 of Article 52 of the Law “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals,” expenses related to the liquidation of the bank, including expenses for the maintenance and preservation of property, are paid out of turn. The court also noted that PJSC “Delta Bank” did not provide evidence of refusal to sign the acts-invoices, which confirms the provision and acceptance of services. It is important that the Supreme Court took into account its previous conclusions in similar cases, which emphasized the need to confirm the fact of transfer of ownership of securities to terminate obligations for their servicing. The court rejected the arguments of PJSC “Delta Bank” regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Part 2 of Article 52 of the Law, indicating insufficient substantiation of this ground for cassation appeal.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “Delta Bank” and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 400/12294/24 dated 30/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a military unit against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recalculation of monetary allowance to a serviceman.
The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings due to the missed deadline for appeal. The court noted that valid reasons for missing the deadline can only be objective, insurmountable circumstances that did not depend on the will of the person. The mere fact of martial law is not an unconditional basis for restoring the deadline, unless it is proven that the military circumstances specifically made timely appeal impossible. Also, the court emphasized that the lack of funds to pay the court fee is not a valid reason for state bodies, as the state must adhere to the principle of good governance. The court of cassation also noted that the military unit did not provide evidence of payment of the court fee when filing the appeal.
The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit.
Case No. 520/677/25 dated 30/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax notices-decisions on the accrual of land tax, motivated by the fact that she, as a single tax payer, is exempt from paying land tax, as she uses the land plot in her business activities.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that for exemption from
payment of land tax by a single tax payer, a necessary condition is the direct use of the land plot in economic activity, and not only the presence of business facilities on it, such as buildings or equipment. The court emphasized that the taxpayer did not provide sufficient evidence that the land plot was used specifically for conducting economic activity in the disputed periods, but only evidence of the use of buildings and equipment located on this plot. The court also noted that the previous court decision regarding other tax periods does not have a prejudicial effect in this case, since it is necessary to prove the use of the land plot in economic activity specifically in the disputed periods. Additionally, the court indicated that the taxpayer did not specify a violation of procedural law norms that would have made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case as the basis for cassation appeal, and therefore the cassation review is limited to checking the correctness of the application of substantive law norms.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 569/12121/20 dated 10/31/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand to eliminate obstacles in exercising the right to use and dispose of property by bringing the construction object into compliance with the requirements of the State Building Codes (ДБН).
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of obstacles in the exercise of their rights, and also did not prove that the defendants use their land plot in such a way that it creates obstacles for the plaintiffs as owners of the adjacent plot. The court took into account the expert’s opinion that the balcony is not a structural part of the wall, and the distance from the boundary to the wall of the house complies with the norms. The court also took into account the court decision of 2006, which recognized the construction of the disputed building as legal and established that it complies with building codes and does not violate the rights of other persons. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not prove that the construction in 2020 led to an increase in the number of floors of the building, which affected compliance with fire safety distances. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not provide convincing evidence of a violation of their rights, and their arguments about possible obstacles in the future are only assumptions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 140/1942/25 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, by which the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region increased the tax liability for income tax and value-added tax of the Municipal Enterprise “Lutskvodokanal” due to detected above-norm water losses.
2. The court, supporting the decisions of previous instances,
, noted that “Lutskvodokanal” is a natural monopolist, and tariffs for water supply are regulated by the state, therefore the enterprise cannot influence the volume of water consumption by the population, especially in the absence of meters. The court also took into account that a significant part of the enterprise’s water supply networks are worn out, which leads to water losses, and these losses cannot be automatically considered a gratuitous transfer of water to consumers. It is important that the controlling authority did not provide evidence of specific cases of gratuitous transfer of water, and also did not take into account cases of unauthorized water intake by consumers. In addition, the court took into account the inspection reports of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission (NEURC), which confirm the objective reasons for exceeding the normative water losses associated with the deterioration of networks. The court also noted that the enterprise is not limited in expenses only by the established norms when determining the object of taxation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 640/18019/20 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices and the obligation to write off tax debt.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the plaintiff’s claims. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the controlling authority violated the terms for determining monetary obligations established by Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine when applying penalties to the taxpayer. Also, the court emphasized that the tax debt for which the statute of limitations has expired is considered hopeless and is subject to write-off by the controlling authority. The court noted that the taxpayer has a substantive legal interest in the correct display of data in the integrated taxpayer card, which was also taken into account when making the decision. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the arguments of the defendant’s cassation appeal were identical to the arguments of the response and the appeal, which had already been the subject of the appellate court’s investigation and were not confirmed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 638/8374/13-ц dated 10/31/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of the state executor regarding the foreclosure on the debtor’s real estate, the ownership of which is not registered in accordance with the procedure established by law, namely on 1/2 part of the apartment, to repay alimony debt.
2. The court granted the submission of the state executor, since the debtor evades the execution of the court decision on the payment of alimony, has a significant debt, does not have sufficient funds and other property to repay the debt, and the state executor has taken all possible measures.
for the execution of the court decision. The court noted that the absence of state registration of ownership of the apartment makes its forced sale impossible. The court also took into account that the debtor did not offer other property for sale in the first place. The debtor’s arguments that children are registered in the apartment are not an obstacle to foreclosure, since the state executor must obtain the consent of the guardianship authority during the execution of court decisions. The court also rejected the arguments that the enforcement proceedings were opened in violation of the rules of jurisdiction, since at the time the state executor applied to the court, the territory where the debtor’s property is located was not included in the list of territories where enforcement measures are prohibited.
3. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 760/16403/22 dated October 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds, 3% per annum, and a penalty under a contract for the manufacture and installation of furniture products, which the plaintiff considers unfulfilled by the defendant.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, citing the fact that the plaintiff did not demand termination of the contract, which is a necessary condition for the return of funds as compensation for damages. The court noted that the demand for the return of funds is not in itself a demand for termination of the contract. In addition, the appellate court found that part of the furniture was delivered to the plaintiff, but she demands the return of the entire amount without taking into account the cost of the delivered goods, without providing evidence of the cost of the work performed. The appellate court indicated that the plaintiff did not prove her claims for the recovery of funds with proper evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that in order to protect the violated right, it is necessary to establish the fact of violation of obligations and the existence of grounds for the return of funds, which was not done in this case, since the contract was not terminated.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 160/33373/24 dated October 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings in a case on the recovery of tax debt from an individual entrepreneur.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, since the individual entrepreneur missed the deadline for appealing, established by the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that a copy of the decision of the court of first instance was delivered to the taxpayer’s electronic account in the “Electronic Court” system in a timely manner, and this is proper confirmation of receipt of the decision. The court indicated that the appellant’s reference
and that ignorance of the court’s decision due to not receiving additional notifications is unfounded, as the taxpayer has a duty to track information in their own electronic cabinet. The court also emphasized that the established procedural deadlines are intended to discipline the participants in the court proceedings and ensure legal certainty in public law relations. The court emphasized that only objective and insurmountable circumstances beyond the control of the person can be considered valid reasons for missing a deadline.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the sole proprietor without satisfaction and to uphold the ruling of the appellate court without changes.
Case No. 380/19085/22 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the employer’s orders related to the reinstatement of the plaintiff at work in execution of a court decision, as well as claims for recovery of average earnings and moral damages.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the part of the claims regarding the appeal of the orders on reinstatement at work, since these claims relate to the execution of a court decision, and control over the execution of a court decision is carried out in another procedure provided for by the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine, and not by filing a new lawsuit. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the return of the appeal, since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of not receiving the ruling on leaving the appeal without motion and did not eliminate the shortcomings of the appeal within the established term. The court noted that the evidence in the case file confirms the proper notification of the plaintiff about the need to pay the court fee.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 380/27500/23 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions and the obligation of the tax authority to enter data on the agreed amount of VAT budget refund into the relevant register.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that LLC “Rechtekhnova” provided sufficient primary documents confirming the reality of business transactions with counterparties, their economic and business purpose, as well as the legality of forming a tax credit. The court noted that the tax authority did not provide convincing arguments and evidence that would refute these facts or indicate the bad faith of the plaintiff. The court also took into account that violations of tax discipline by the plaintiff’s counterparties are not a basis for refusing to form a tax credit if there is no evidence of the taxpayer’s awareness of the illegal activities of the counterparties. The court emphasized that electronic documents containing all the necessary details confirm the transactions, and the absence of a bank seal is not
as a basis for their invalidity. In addition, the court noted that the presence of representatives of the tax authority during the inventory is not mandatory, and the absence of documents on the quality of the goods is not a basis for concluding that the business transactions are unreal.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
Case No. 380/23303/24 dated 30/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances erroneously applied the norms of procedural law, in particular, regarding the calculation of the terms of appeal to the court. The court noted that for the correct resolution of the issue of compliance with the term of appeal to the court, it is necessary to establish whether the plaintiff had reliable information about the amount and nature of the monetary allowance paid to him, namely, whether he was provided with pay slips, certificates of monetary allowance, a monetary certificate, etc. The court also indicated that a distinction should be made between the periods of accrual of monetary allowance before and after July 19, 2022, when the amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine regarding the terms of appeal to the court came into force. The court emphasized that the term of appeal to the court should be calculated from the moment when the plaintiff received documented information about the amounts paid, and not from the date of exclusion from the personnel lists of the military unit. Considering this, the court concluded that the courts of previous instances prematurely returned the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 640/9227/20 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice by which the Company’s monetary obligation for income tax was increased.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the Company rightfully formed expenses for business transactions with counterparties, since the transactions are confirmed by proper primary documents, real changes in the property status occurred, the transactions caused changes in the structure of assets and liabilities and contributed to obtaining income. The court also noted that the controlling body did not provide evidence of the absence of actual performance of business transactions or the plaintiff’s awareness of the illegal actions of the counterparties. The court took into account that the existence of criminal proceedings against counterparties is not in itself a basis for признання визнання transactions as unreal, unless the taxpayer’s awareness of the counterparty’s illegal activity is proven. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
regarding the individual responsibility of the taxpayer and the need for the controlling body to prove the unreasonableness, bad faith, or lack of due diligence of the payer in choosing a counterparty. The Court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, as stated, in particular, in the ruling of December 1, 2015, in case No. 826/15034/17 (No. 21-3788a15), that the status of a fictitious, illegal enterprise is incompatible with legal entrepreneurial activity.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 420/28674/24 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the border detachment regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of compensation to a person for the delay in payment of monetary allowance indexation.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law in determining the deadlines for appealing to the court. The court noted that compensation for the delay in the payment of indexation is a component of wages, and Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine applies to such disputes. The court indicated that the beginning of the term for applying to the court should be associated with the date of actual payment of monetary allowance, and not with the moment of occurrence of legal relations regarding the non-accrual of indexation. The court also emphasized that the appellate court did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the starting date of the term for applying to the court in such disputes. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the actual circumstances of the case and assessing all the arguments of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 280/1304/20 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions by which the Company’s tax liability for income tax and value-added tax was increased.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the Company’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the economic operations with counterparties were unreal. The court took into account the circumstances established in the court verdict in the criminal case, where it was established that an official of the counterparty provided cover for the illegal activities of enterprises, including the Company. The court also took into account the lack of sufficient resources for the counterparties to actually execute the transactions. The court noted that properly executed primary documents are not always an indisputable proof of the reality of economic operations, especially when there are other circumstances that cast doubt on their reliability. The courtand also took into account that the Company did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the conclusions of the tax authority.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal of the Company and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131424197](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131424197)
**Case No. 910/5525/24 dated October 29, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation to write off an apartment building from the balance sheet of a municipal enterprise and transfer the technical documentation for this building to an association of co-owners of an apartment building.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the obligation to transfer technical documentation to the Homeowners Association arises from the moment of its state registration, regardless of the transfer of building management functions. The court noted that the list of technical documentation approved by the order of the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine is valid and applies to buildings built before its entry into force. Also, in the absence of the necessary documentation, the former balance holder is obliged to restore it at his own expense. The court emphasized that it was the management company that had the obligation to have information about the building, and the court’s obligation does not include collecting evidence instead of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131409389](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131409389)
**Case No. 520/4820/21 dated October 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the former judge in favor of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of the debt that arose as a result of the recalculation of the judge’s remuneration and severance pay upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal due to the expiration of the term for applying to the court, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline. In particular, it was not taken into account that the defendant initially voluntarily agreed to deduct part of the debt from the payments due to him, and only later refused to do so, which, according to the plaintiff, is the moment when he learned about the violation of his right. The plaintiff’s appeal to the court of civil jurisdiction within the period established by law and his immediate appeal to the administrative court after the closure of the proceedings in the civil case were also not taken into account. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should comprehensively assess the circumstances of the case and the plaintiff’s behavior to determine the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the постанову [resolution/decree] of the court of appeal and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Revi
**Case No. 344/21472/23 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a decision on an administrative offense in the field of road safety and the refusal to reinstate the term for appealing this decision.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to reinstate the term for appealing the decision on an administrative offense, since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing this term. The courts established that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the decision, as he personally signed it, confirming receipt of a copy and explanation of rights. The plaintiff’s arguments that he learned about the decision only from the materials of the enforcement proceedings were deemed unfounded, as they did not refute the fact of his prior awareness. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s position regarding the signing of the decision was inconsistent and contradictory. In addition, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law by the courts, since the motion to leave the claim without consideration was the result of the court’s assessment of the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the term, and not a separate motion by the defendant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 200/15306/21 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the conclusion of the Eastern Office of the State Audit Service on the results of monitoring the procurement procedure conducted by the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway”.
2. The Supreme Court, in making its decision, was guided by the following arguments: The courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law in the part of examining evidence, in particular, they did not examine the availability and compliance of the bank guarantee, which was a requirement of the tender documentation, and also did not take into account that their decision could affect the rights and obligations of third parties (the winners of the tender), who were not involved in the case. The court of cassation emphasized that special provisions of the legislation clearly define the customer’s obligation to reject a tender offer of a participant that does not meet the requirements defined in the tender documentation. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the state financial control body lawfully determined the method of eliminating violations, namely the termination of contracts, since this is a proportionate measure to restore the rule of law in the use of budget funds. The court also pointed out the need to involve third parties in the case, whose rights and obligations may be violated as a result of the decision in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 520/36748/23**
from 30/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the State Tax Service of Ukraine sent a decision based on the results of the plaintiff’s complaint, to which address the decision was sent (specified in the complaint or the tax address), and when the plaintiff learned or should have learned about the existence of such a decision. The court emphasized that in order to apply the consequences provided for in paragraph 56.9 of Article 56 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to distinguish between the circumstances of the tax authority’s fulfillment of the obligation to send the decision and the circumstances of the taxpayer’s receipt of such decision. The court also indicated that the appellate court, taking into account a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint, did not resolve the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the deadline for appealing to the court and the existence of valid reasons for its renewal. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of all significant arguments of the parties, which indicates a violation of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
from 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of the qualification exam of the candidate for the position of judge of the appellate administrative court and the refusal to admit her to the next stage of the competition.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, arguing that the HQCJU did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the assessment of the plaintiff’s practical task, in particular, there is no detailing of points for each element of the assessment provided for by the Methodological Guidelines, which makes it impossible to verify compliance with the assessment criteria and the validity of the scores. The court emphasized that the development of an assessment methodology is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure a uniform approach to all participants in the competition. The court also noted that the HQCJU did not prove that it acted within the limits of the discretionary powers granted to it, and did not provide evidence to confirm the objectivity and completeness of the verification of the practical task performed by the plaintiff. The court referred to the case law of the ECHR regarding the principle of good governance, which requires government bodies to act transparently and consistently, as well as the need for proper motivation of decisions, which makes it possible to verify the assessment procedure.
3. The court declared illegal and annulled the decision of the HQCJU on approving the results of the plaintiff’s practical task and refusing admission to the next stage of the competition, and also obliged the HQCJU to re-evaluate the performed
