Case No. 565/2770/24 dated October 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in the case of признання незаконними наказів про звільнення з роботи [recognition of illegal orders of dismissal from work].
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, namely: it took a formal approach to considering the plaintiff’s motion for exemption from payment of court fees, did not take into account the evidence provided regarding the plaintiff’s имущественный стан [property status], and did not properly assess the arguments that the amount of court fees exceeds 5% of her annual income; did not resolve on the merits the motion for deferral or рассрочка [installment payment] of court fees; reached a premature conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s abuse of procedural rights, without providing proper justification. The court of cassation recalled that the right to appellate review is not absolute, but the restrictions must be proportional and not complicate access to justice. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring a fair balance between the functioning of the judicial system and the protection of the applicant’s interests. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have assessed the plaintiff’s имущественный стан [property status] based on the evidence submitted, and the grounds for rejecting the motion for exemption from payment of court fees should be reasoned.
3. The Supreme Court quashed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings.
Case No. 463/7626/23 dated October 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the признання фактів мобінгу (цькування) [recognition of facts of mobbing (bullying)] of the head of the legal department of the village council by the chairman of the same council, the elimination of these facts, and the recovery of moral damages.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since the plaintiff, being the head of the legal department of the village council, is an посадова особа місцевого самоврядування [official of local self-government], and therefore is in публічній службі [public service]. The dispute arose in connection with the plaintiff’s проходженням публічної служби [passage of public service], which, according to the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine (CACPU), is subject to consideration in the procedure of administrative proceedings, and not civil proceedings. The courts of previous instances did not take into account that the plaintiff was appointed to the position by competition and was присвоювались ранги посадової особи місцевого самоврядування [assigned ranks of an official of local self-government]. The Supreme Court referred to its own previous decisions, which state that disputes related to проходженням публічної служби [passage of public service] should be considered by administrative courts, even if the claim for the recovery of wages is заявлена окремо від вимоги про поновлення на публічній службі [declared separately from the claim for reinstatement in public service].
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff
have the right to appeal to the administrative court.
**Case No. 380/6018/21 dated 30/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in the enforcement proceedings in the case of the suspension of the operation of buildings and structures due to violations of fire safety requirements.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the application for replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings, since Novis Trade LLC is not the legal successor of West Oil Trading LLC in the disputed legal relations. The court noted that legal succession in enforcement proceedings provides for the transfer of rights and obligations from one party to another, which did not occur in this case, since West Oil Trading LLC did not cease its activities, and Novis Trade LLC was not a party to the case in which the decision to suspend the operation of the facilities was made. The court also emphasized that the transfer of ownership or lease is not a basis for automatically imposing the obligation to enforce a court decision on the new owner or lessee if they were not a party to the original dispute. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding singular succession, stating that the existence of lease agreements does not create an automatic transfer of obligations under the court decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 480/6054/24 dated 30/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of a military unit to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff, taking into account the monthly additional monetary reward when determining the amount of monetary allowance for February 2018.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the monetary allowance of servicemen includes the official salary, the salary for military rank, monthly and one-time additional types of monetary allowance. The court emphasized that the monthly additional monetary reward, which the plaintiff received systematically, is not a one-time payment, and therefore must be taken into account when calculating indexation. The court also referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 522/2738/17, according to which only one-time payments are not included in the monetary allowance of servicemen, and monthly payments must be taken into account. Given that a court decision on the payment of indexation had already been made in favor of the plaintiff, the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which correctly applied the norms of substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
**Case No. 826/18348/17 dated 30/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of the tax authority regarding the cancellation of the VAT payer registration as illegal and the obligation to restore such registration.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim and found the actions of the tax authority to be illegal. The court indicated that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence that the plaintiff’s company was fictitious or conducted illegal activities. The court also emphasized that the cancellation of VAT payer registration is an extreme measure that should be applied only in cases of gross violations of tax legislation, which was not proven in this case. The court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the cancellation of VAT payer registration must be justified and proportionate to the committed violations. The court noted that the tax authority did not provide evidence that the plaintiff’s actions led to significant losses for the state budget or violated the rights of other taxpayers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
442″>**Case No. 120/13258/23 dated October 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to oblige the settlement council and the communal institution to bring the anti-radiation shelter to a proper condition.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the prosecutor did not have legal grounds to appeal to the court with such a claim in the interests of the state. The court noted that the interests of the state must be protected primarily by the relevant subjects of power, and the prosecutor plays a subsidiary role when these subjects do not exercise protection or do it improperly. In this case, the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU) has the authority to control the maintenance of protective structures, although it can only appeal to the court with demands for the application of response measures, and not with claims of a mandatory nature. The court emphasized that the absence of the SESU’s right to appeal to the court with a specific type of claim does not mean the absence of a body authorized to perform the relevant functions in the disputed legal relations. Since the prosecutor appealed to the court without proper grounds, his claim is subject to being dismissed without consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim without consideration.
**Case No. 520/16204/24 dated October 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by PJSC “Kharkiv CHPP-5” against tax notices-decisions issued by the Northern Interregional Department of the State Tax Service for working with large taxpayers regarding the understatement of excise tax, income tax and VAT, as well as regarding penalties for failure to submit excise tax declarations.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the use of electricity produced by PJSC “Kharkiv CHPP-5” for its own needs is not its sale or transfer within the same enterprise, and therefore is not an object of excise taxation. The court also emphasized that the absence of mandatory elements of excise tax, such as the object and base of taxation, exempts the plaintiff from the obligation to submit excise tax declarations. In addition, the court supported the conclusions of previous instances regarding the legality of the formation of a tax credit and expenses on the basis of primary documents signed by the director of PE “Facade-Service”, even if the latter was in military service, since the tax authority did not provide evidence of the impossibility of him fulfilling his duties or PJSC “Kharkiv CHPP-5” being aware of the inaccuracy of these documents. The court took into account that the person who compiled and signed them, and not the добросовісний платник податків [good faith taxpayer], is responsible for the inaccuracy of the data in the primary documents.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Northern Interregional Department
the Large Taxpayers Service of the State Tax Service without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 583/1935/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the recognition of the invalidity of the lease agreement for this plot.
2. The court granted the claim, as the plaintiffs are the heirs of the land plot, and the defendant acquired ownership of it illegally, since the certificate of inheritance, on the basis of which the sale of the plot was carried out, was declared invalid; in addition, the court noted that the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser is an appropriate way to protect the right of the legal owner, especially when the property left the owner’s possession against their will; the court also took into account that the defendant is not deprived of the right to compensation for damages from the dishonest seller; the land plot lease agreement was also declared invalid, as it was concluded on the basis of illegal acquisition of ownership of the land; the court also noted that the chosen method of protection is effective for restoring the plaintiffs’ rights to use and dispose of their property.
3. The court decided to recover the land plot from the defendant’s possession, declare the lease agreement invalid, and order the return of the plot to the plaintiffs.
Case No. 127/36447/23 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence with the testator at the time of the opening of the inheritance and the recognition of ownership in the order of inheritance by will.
2. The court granted the claim, as the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove her permanent residence with her father at the time of his death, including certificates from the neighborhood committee, witness testimonies, decisions of the medical advisory commission, and a certificate from the Department of Social Protection of the Population, which confirm that she cared for her father due to his illness. The court noted that the absence of registration of the plaintiff’s place of residence at the testator’s place of residence is not unconditional proof of the absence of cohabitation if other evidence confirms this fact. The court also took into account that the plaintiff has the right to inherit under the will, with the exception of the mandatory share of the mother, who is a disabled widow. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts did not take into account information about the plaintiff’s other address of residence in previous court cases, since the fact of residence at the time of the opening of the inheritance is important.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 676/2724/23 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of a land plot.
and cancellation of the state registration of the lease of this plot, since the plaintiff claimed that she had not concluded a lease agreement and an additional agreement to it.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff had been receiving rent for the land for a long time, which indicates the actual recognition of the lease relations. The court took into account the principle of good faith, noting that the behavior of the plaintiff, who initially accepted the rent and then denied the lease agreement, is unfair. The court also referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, if the contract was performed by both parties, it is considered concluded and may be disputed. The court noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in this evaluation. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not make claims for the termination of legal relations, which confirms her agreement with the existing lease relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 1423/18836/2012 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state executor regarding the execution of a court decision on the recovery of debt from a credit union.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the creditor’s complaint against the inaction of the state executor, since the state executor took measures provided by law to establish the location of the debtor and his property, sent requests to various bodies to identify the property and funds of the debtor, and also issued resolutions on the seizure of funds in the debtor’s accounts. The court noted that the lack of information about specific enforcement actions in the automated system of enforcement proceedings does not indicate the executor’s inaction, since the enforcement proceedings were combined into consolidated enforcement proceedings, within which the actions were carried out. The court also took into account that the creditor was not deprived of the right to familiarize himself with the consolidated enforcement proceedings. The court emphasized that the state executor carried out measures of compulsory execution of the decision in the manner and in the order established by the enforcement document and the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 521/13284/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the petition of LLC “Trust Capital” for permission to enforce on the territory of Ukraine the decision of the Vilnius District Court to recover jointly and severally from LLC “Pi
«Pivdenbud Invest» LLC and an individual regarding debt in foreign currency.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the motion of «Trust Capital» LLC, based on the following: there is a valid international treaty between Ukraine and Lithuania on legal assistance, which provides for mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions; «Trust Capital» LLC took all possible actions to enforce the decision of the Lithuanian court in Ukraine, starting with an appeal to the court within the three-year period from the date the decision came into force; previous refusals to satisfy the motions were related to formal deficiencies in the documents, and not to the absence of the right to collect the debt; the courts took into account the constitutional principle of the binding nature of court decisions and the need to ensure the real protection of the creditor’s rights; the renewal of the missed deadline was justified, as the missed deadline was due to objective reasons, in particular, the duration of judicial procedures and the need to correct formal deficiencies in the documents. The court also noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of «Pivdenbud Invest» LLC and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 552/2285/22 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on the state registration of ownership of a residential building for a financial company that acquired the right to claim under a loan agreement and a mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court, in satisfying the claims, did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the existence in the mortgage agreement of a mortgage clause that allows foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage in an extrajudicial procedure, and also did not examine the evidence regarding the value of the subject of the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. In addition, the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances regarding proper notification of the mortgagor about the violation of the secured obligation. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court should have comprehensively examined all the arguments of the parties, assessed the evidence in their entirety and interrelation, and also provided proper reasons for accepting or rejecting these arguments. Since the appellate court did not do this, it violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 761/14373/23 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
tion.
2. The court granted the claim for recovery of the apartment, as the plaintiff acquired ownership of the apartment based on the agreement on participation in the construction financing fund and fully fulfilled her obligations, and the defendant purchased the apartment from a person who did not have the right to alienate it. The court noted that the sale of residential premises in the residential complex could be carried out exclusively through the construction financing fund. KP “Zhytomyrbudzamovnyk”, and later LLC “Pid-klyuch” did not acquire property rights to the specified apartment, and therefore did not have the right to alienate these property rights in favor of CJSC “Imineros Statyba”. The court also took into account that the disputed apartment was withdrawn from the plaintiff’s possession not by her will. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the rejection of motions for the recovery of evidence and the involvement of a third party do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances.
3. The court decided to recover the apartment from LLC “Perlyna Nyvok” in favor of PERSON_1.
Case No. 140/6679/22 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of a tax invoice in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, supported the position of the court of first instance, emphasizing that the receipt for suspension of registration of a tax invoice must clearly state the criteria for the riskiness of the transaction and a list of documents required to confirm the information specified in the tax invoice. The absence of a clear list of documents in the receipt restricts the taxpayer’s right to provide comprehensive information and creates conditions for abuse by the controlling authority. The court also noted that the controlling authority did not provide evidence of the insufficiency of the documents submitted by the plaintiff or doubts about their authenticity. A general reference to a violation without specification is unacceptable. The court emphasized that the decision of the controlling authority to suspend the registration of a tax invoice must be substantiated and motivated, with a clear indication of the grounds for its adoption.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which признано визнано unlawful the decision of the tax authority to refuse registration of a tax invoice.
Case No. 380/19995/24 dated 30/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state executor and the inaction of the department of compulsory execution of decisions.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appeal. The court noted that the parties to the case must comply with the procedural deadlines established by law and take all possiblefor the timely fulfillment of procedural obligations. The court also emphasized that valid reasons for missing a deadline can only be circumstances that objectively made it impossible or difficult to perform procedural actions within the prescribed period. The court indicated that the improper organization of the process of appealing a court decision by responsible persons and failure to comply with the requirements of the procedural law are not objective circumstances that could lead to the review of a final court decision after the expiration of the deadline for its appeal. The court also noted that the lack of budgetary funding to pay court fees is not a valid reason for reinstating the missed deadline for appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
**Case №759/6948/21 dated 29/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the nullity of a mortgage agreement concluded between an individual and a bank, which was subsequently declared insolvent, and the recovery of property from the possession of third parties who acquired it after foreclosure of the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, proceeded from the fact that the mortgage agreement concluded between an individual and a bank was void under the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals,” as it secured not a credit operation but a deposit, giving preference to one depositor over others; the property rights to the disputed real estate were lawfully acquired by the plaintiff, which gives him the right to protect the violated right; the defendants abused their rights, trying to avoid the return of property received under a void transaction; the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession is an effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights; the foreclosure of the mortgage object after the introduction of temporary administration in the bank is illegal. At the same time, the court noted that the appellate court mistakenly did not apply the consequences of the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the plaintiff applied to the court outside the three-year period from the moment when the execution of the void transaction began.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part of satisfying the claim and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
**Case №160/9241/24 dated 30/10/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the annulment of a private notary’s access to the State Register of Real Property Rights.
The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the Ministry of Justice violated the procedure for conducting an desk audit, since the notice of the audit did notspecifically indicated grounds for its conduct and information about the detected violations, which deprived the notary of the opportunity to provide reasonable explanations. The court emphasized that the reasoning of the decision involves a proper assessment of facts and evidence, considering all arguments of the parties and application of relevant legislation. Also, the court pointed out that a violation of the inspection procedure is an independent ground for annulment of the decision made based on its results. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the court’s assessment of the grounds for the inspection and the presence or absence of violations by the registrar is premature.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 560/1565/25 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the resolution of the state executive service regarding the imposition of a fine on the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi Oblast.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, since the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi Oblast missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance. The court noted that the complainant’s reference to martial law and heavy workload are not valid reasons for renewing the term, as no specific evidence was provided as to how these circumstances prevented the timely filing of the appeal. The court emphasized that organizational difficulties in the work of a subject of power cannot serve as valid reasons for missing a procedural deadline. The court also pointed out that Article 287 of the CAS of Ukraine is a special norm that defines the peculiarities of proceedings in cases regarding decisions of the state executive service, but it does not limit the powers of the appellate court regarding the renewal of the deadline for appeal in the presence of valid reasons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 753/13872/19 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the apartment purchase and sale agreement, cancellation of records of registration of property rights, cancellation of decisions on state registration of rights and their encumbrances, and recovery of property from another’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for recovery of the apartment from another’s illegal possession, as they established that the foreclosure on the apartment, which was the subject of the mortgage, took place in violation of the Law of Ukraine “On the moratorium on the recovery of property of citizens of Ukraine provided as collateral for loans in foreign
in currency”, since the loan was a consumer loan and the apartment was used as the borrower’s permanent place of residence. The court noted that the moratorium does not allow for the forced recovery of property without the owner’s consent, and therefore, the state registrar had no grounds to register the ownership in the name of the financial company. The court also indicated that reclaiming the property from the final acquirer does not violate the fair balance of interests, as the owner has the right to the return of property that left his possession against his will, and the acquirer can demand compensation for damages from the previous owner. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances properly assessed the evidence confirming that the disputed apartment met the criteria defined by the Moratorium Law, and that the plaintiff had no other housing.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 537/1468/25 dated 29/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a court order dismissing a motion for provisional measures, filed before the submission of a statement of claim to invalidate a gift agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the applicant abused procedural rights, as he repeatedly applied to the court with similar motions for provisional measures, intending to challenge the gift agreement, while the grounds for provisional measures were identical, and the only difference was a reduction in the number of real estate objects for which the imposition of an arrest was requested. The court noted that abuse of procedural rights is unacceptable, and the actions of participants in the court proceedings must be in good faith. The court also took into account that the issue of imposing an arrest on part of the property, regarding which the applicant requested provisional measures, had already been considered by the court in another case, and the motion was denied. The court of cassation emphasized that the list of actions that may be recognized as abuse of procedural rights is not exhaustive, and the resolution of this issue is at the discretion of the court considering the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the order of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 761/40713/17 dated 31/10/2025**
**Case No. 640/14469/22 dated 31/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine to impose a fine on the Joint-Stock Commercial Ban
to Concord.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances because they did not involve all key shareholders of the bank as third parties in the case, thereby violating their rights to a fair trial. The court of first instance did not consider the application of one of the shareholders to enter the case with independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute. In addition, the courts did not examine the evidence and did not assess the arguments of the parties to the case regarding a possible conflict of interest between the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals and the National Bank of Ukraine, as well as regarding the abuse of procedural rights by the Fund’s representative. These violations of the norms of procedural law made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case that are relevant for its correct resolution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 686/10758/23 dated 29/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal to send the case materials on the appeal of PERSON_5 against the ruling of the investigating judge from one court of appeal to another.
The Supreme Court granted the submission of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal, guided by Articles 34 and 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the issue of sending criminal proceedings from one court to another. The court took into account the need to ensure an objective and impartial consideration of the case. The decision to transfer the case to the Ternopil Court of Appeal was made in order to avoid possible conflicts of interest or circumstances that could call into question the impartiality of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal. The court also noted that the full text of the ruling will be announced later, and the ruling itself enters into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement and is not subject to appeal.
The court ruled to grant the submission of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal and send the case materials to the Ternopil Court of Appeal.
Case No. 686/8501/21 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a patrol police inspector, accused of abuse of power with the use of violence and special means against a minor driver.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusions of the previous instances that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the elements of a crime under Art. 365 part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of the police officer. The courts found that the police officer acted within the scope of his authority, using physical force and special means in proportion to the aggressive behavior and physical resistance of the victim, who refused to present documents and threatened
