**Case No. 369/16696/20 dated 10/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 for the return of funds, which, according to the plaintiff, were transferred to the defendant based on a void transaction (oral agency agreement) for the organization of a business and the purchase of an apartment.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the previous instances because they did not take into account that the case has a foreign element, namely: the plaintiff is a citizen of Great Britain, the funds were transferred from an account in Great Britain, and the purpose of the payment was indicated as “GIFT” in English. The courts did not ascertain whether there was an agreement between the parties regarding the choice of law to be applied (Ukrainian or British), and prematurely applied Ukrainian law. The court emphasized that the legal qualification of the circumstances of the case, provided by the plaintiff, is not decisive, and the court independently determines the rules of law to be applied. Also, since the appellate ruling was overturned, the additional ruling on the recovery of legal aid costs also becomes invalid.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 759/14735/23 dated 10/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of a penalty (late payment interest) for late payment of alimony for the maintenance of a child.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, noted that the alimony payer’s liability for delay in their payment in the form of a penalty (late payment interest) arises only if there is fault on the part of this person, and it is the alimony payer who has the obligation to prove the absence of their fault in the non-payment of alimony. The court emphasized that in the event that the plaintiff filed a claim for the recovery of penalties for several months, the amount of penalties for these months should not exceed the total amount of debt on which it is accrued. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not ascertain the circumstances related to the correctness of the plaintiff’s calculation of the penalty and did not take measures to request the necessary information from the state executor, in particular, regarding the debt as of June 01, 2022. Also, the Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that the debtor’s partial payment of alimony does not allow the court to independently determine the amount of the penalty. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court correctly motivated the need to renew the term for appellate appeal.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims for the recovery of a penalty (late payment interest) in the amount of UAH 100,164.70 and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the renewal of the term for appellate appeal and the opening of appellate proceedings.
left the ruling unchanged.
**Case No. 275/54/24 dated 10/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful of the decision of the local self-government body to terminate the land lease agreement and the renewal of this agreement.
2. The court of cassation noted that to protect the lessee’s preferential right to renew the land lease agreement, the proper method of protection is a claim for recognition of an additional agreement as concluded, with the mandatory presentation of the text of this agreement in the statement of claim. The court emphasized that the demands to cancel the decision of the local self-government body and to recognize the agreement as renewed are not effective methods of protection, since they do not ensure the conclusion of an additional agreement, as required by law. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which emphasizes the need for full judicial protection, which corresponds to the principle of procedural economy. The court indicated that the demand for recognition of an additional agreement as concluded is a proper method of protection, since it ensures the real renewal of lease relations. The court noted that the choice of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but upheld the decision to dismiss the claim.
**Case No. 532/2682/19 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of a separate ruling of the appellate court regarding a judge who allegedly untimely provided materials for appellate review.
2. The appellate court issued a separate ruling because, in their opinion, the judge of the first instance unjustifiably failed to provide materials in a timely manner for the consideration of the appeal, which led to a violation of deadlines. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that the request for materials was not signed by an authorized person, and the judge of the first instance rightfully drew attention to this. In addition, the appellate court did not substantiate how the actions of the judge of the first instance violate the rights of the parties to the proceedings. The Supreme Court also established that the judge of the first instance timely submitted the materials to the court registry, but they were sent to the appellate court with a delay due to the fault of the court staff, for which the responsible person was brought to disciplinary responsibility. Considering this, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no apparent violations on the part of the judge that would justify the issuance of a separate ruling.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the separate ruling of the appellate court regarding the judge of the first instance.
**Case No. 515/319/24 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the sentence
regarding the conviction of a person for robbery committed under martial law and rape upheld by the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person guilty of committing the incriminated crimes, relying on the testimony of the victim, the conclusions of expert examinations (traceological, medical, and molecular genetic), which confirm her presence at the crime scene and the presence of bodily injuries. The Court noted that the victim’s testimony is consistent and detailed, there are no grounds for her defamation, and the conclusions of the expert examinations, although not directly indicating rape, confirm the fact that the accused was at the crime scene and the presence of his genetic material under the victim’s fingernails. The Supreme Court emphasized that actions related to oral penetration also qualify as rape under current legislation. The Court also emphasized that the imposed punishment is fair, proportionate to the severity of the crimes, and corresponds to the personality of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for robbery and rape, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 161/5388/23 dated 10/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 5 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (collaborative activity).
The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as the courts of previous instances, according to the Supreme Court, reasonably established the convicted person’s voluntary participation in the organization and holding of an illegal referendum in the temporarily occupied territory, relying on the testimony of a witness, protocols of inspections, and information from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The Supreme Court noted that the defense’s arguments about the lack of voluntariness of the convicted person’s actions due to the consideration of the case in absentia are unfounded, since the courts properly investigated and evaluated the evidence in its entirety. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments about the excessive severity of the imposed punishment, indicating that it corresponds to the severity of the crime and the personality of the convicted person, considering the absence of mitigating circumstances. The appellate court, according to the Supreme Court, provided exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the appeal, and no significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the cancellation of court decisions were detected.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 753/4198/23 dated 10/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_7 on charges of attempted theft under martial law.
2. The Court of Cassation
instance established that the appellate court, when closing the appellate proceedings, did not verify the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal regarding the legality and validity of the acquittal verdict, did not provide them with proper assessment, and did not take into account the provisions of Chapter 36-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the consideration of criminal proceedings regarding an act, the criminal illegality of which was established by a law that has lost its force. The court noted that the appellate court should have considered the prosecutor’s appeal on the merits, provided reasoned answers to its arguments, and made one of the decisions provided for in Article 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account the provisions of Articles 284, 417 and 479-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the cassation court, the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a legal and justified court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case №487/4650/21 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the plaintiff’s copyright in photographs created between 2008 and 2017.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim for protection of copyright in photographs, since the plaintiff did not prove sole authorship of the disputed photographs, and the available evidence indicates that these photographs were created in co-authorship with the defendant or other persons. The court noted that the plaintiff did not claim recognition of her copyrights as a co-author, and copyright law does not provide for the recognition of authorship for all works “in bulk”, but requires proof of authorship for each photographic work separately. The court also took into account that the electronic copies of the photographs provided by the plaintiff for copyright registration contain information about co-authorship with the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances it relies on, and that proof cannot be based on assumptions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case №308/17585/23 dated 22/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the petition of a Slovak resident company for recognition and permission for the compulsory execution in Ukraine of a decision of the Slovak court regarding the recovery of debt from a citizen of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to grant the petition, arguing that the citizen of Ukraine was not properly notified of the hearing of the case in a foreign court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account that the citizen of Ukraine did not exercise the right to file objections.
failure to file objections against the motion for enforcement of the foreign court decision within the established period, although he was duly informed of such right. The Supreme Court noted that the procedural law provides a person who did not participate in the court proceedings due to improper notification with the opportunity to appeal to the court with objections to the motion for enforcement of the decision. Since the citizen of Ukraine did not exercise this right, the court of first instance lawfully granted the motion for enforcement of the foreign court decision.
The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance granting the motion.
Case No. 447/117/24 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damages caused to a person by illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for compensation for moral damages, because the plaintiff in other criminal proceedings, which were combined with the one in which he was acquitted, voluntarily gave knowingly false testimony (self-incrimination) to the investigator about the circumstances of the crime, which contributed to his illegal prosecution. The court took into account that the self-incrimination was voluntary and recorded in the case file, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence that it was the result of violence or threats. The court also noted that compensation for damages is possible only in case of full rehabilitation, and in this case, the plaintiff committed actions that hindered the establishment of the truth. The court of cassation emphasized that these conclusions are consistent with the previous practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming the refusal to compensate for moral damages.
Case No. 484/5574/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of an accident at work that occurred to an employee of “AS-AGRO” LLC while performing his labor duties.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim, establishing the fact of an accident at work, based on the fact that the death of the employee while performing labor duties was confirmed by the case materials, and the defendant did not conduct an investigation into this case. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, agreed with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for establishing the fact of an accident, since the employer did not comply with the requirements of the law.
regarding the investigation of the accident. At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the issue of whether this accident is related to production should be decided not by the court, but by a special commission for the investigation of accidents. The court is not authorized to establish or consider proven the fact of the connection or non-connection of the accident with production.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “AS-AGRO” LLC, changing the decisions of the previous instances, excluding from them the conclusions regarding the connection of the accident with production, but upheld the decision on establishing the fact of the accident at work.
Case No. 756/2712/19 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on PERSON_10 for violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, emphasizing that the appellate court reasonably overturned the first instance court’s decision to release PERSON_10 from serving the sentence with probation, as such a decision was not properly motivated. The appellate court took into account the severity of the crime, the consequences in the form of a person’s death, as well as the fact that PERSON_10 had long denied her guilt, and partial compensation for damages is not an unconditional basis for release from punishment. The court of cassation also rejected the convict’s arguments about the victim’s violation of traffic rules, the incompleteness of the trial, and the need for additional examinations, noting that the appellate court properly assessed all the circumstances of the case and the evidence, and the court of cassation has no grounds to interfere in the assessment of evidence provided by the previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that the imposed punishment is fair, necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_10, and to leave the verdict of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of June 04, 2025 unchanged.
Case No. 638/13414/18 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of unauthorized construction and the obligation to demolish illegally constructed floors, carried out by “Mangust LTD” Firm LLC, as this construction, according to the plaintiff, violates his rights as the owner of the apartment and co-owner of the adjacent territory.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case and did not take into account the important arguments of the plaintiff. In particular, the courts did not pay attention to the fact that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the common property of the apartment building, including the adjacentterritory, and that any changes on this territory require the consent of all co-owners. In addition, the courts did not take into account the plaintiff’s arguments regarding violations of building codes and regulations, in particular, regarding the distance between buildings and insolation. The court also pointed out the error of the courts’ conclusion that the plaintiff did not pay the cost of the expert examination, as there is a receipt for payment in the case file. The court emphasized that the courts did not investigate all the grounds for the claim, namely, violations of sanitary and fire safety regulations, as well as the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Cultural Heritage.”
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 199/7142/24 dated 10/22/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the Dnipro branch of LLC “Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine.”
The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of proceedings, proceeded from the fact that, according to the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a branch of a legal entity is not a legal entity and cannot be a party in civil proceedings. The court of first instance correctly closed the proceedings, as the plaintiff filed a claim against an improper defendant who does not have civil procedural capacity. The appellate court, overturning this decision, did not take into account that a claim against a branch of a legal entity is not subject to consideration in court at all. The court of cassation instance also referred to the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, which states that branches and representative offices that are not legal entities are not endowed with civil procedural capacity and cannot act as a party in civil proceedings.
The court of cassation instance decided to grant the cassation appeal and overturn the decision of the appellate court, upholding the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of proceedings in the case.
Case No. 759/18899/23 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the clarification of the court decision.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, as the appeal was filed within the time limit established by law. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to procedural law, an appeal against a court ruling is filed within fifteen days from the date of its announcement or drafting of the full text. In this case, the appeal was filed on time, and therefore, the appellate court had no grounds to refuse to open proceedings. The court of cassation instance also noted that the appellate
court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, which led to a violation of the applicant’s right to appellate review of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 757/18070/16-ц dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage and recognition of ownership of property acquired during such cohabitation.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, came to the following conclusions: the requirement to establish the fact of cohabitation is not a proper way to protect the right in the case of property claims, since this fact is only the basis for resolving the dispute about property; the fact of cohabitation of the plaintiff and the testator as one family without registration of marriage is proven by proper evidence; property acquired by the plaintiff and the testator during the period of cohabitation as one family without registration of marriage is their joint common property, unless otherwise established by a written agreement between them; the parents and son of the testator did not rebut the presumption of community property acquired by the plaintiff and the testator during the period of cohabitation; in the case of a claim for recognition of ownership of a share of joint common property, the court recognizes the right to 1/2 share in the right of common shared ownership of the relevant property.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of establishing the fact of cohabitation, refusing to satisfy this claim, and changed the decision in the part of recognizing the ownership of the property, recognizing the plaintiff’s right to a 1/2 share in the right of common shared ownership of the disputed property.
Case No. 757/29843/19-к dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s right to file an appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to clarify the previous ruling.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the prosecutor’s appeal, motivating this by the fact that the complaint was filed by an improper person. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecutor, defined in the group of prosecutors in a specific criminal proceeding, has the right to file an appeal, regardless of his participation in court sessions at previous stages. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that a group of prosecutors acts as a single subject of prosecution, and all prosecutors in the group have equal rights and obligations. Since the prosecutor who filed the appeal was a member of the group of prosecutors in this criminal proceeding, the appellate
the court unjustifiably refused to accept his complaint. This decision of the appellate court is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-reasoned court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the prosecutor’s appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 515/319/24 dated 10/30/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 186 (robbery committed on a large scale) and Part 1 of Article 152 (rape) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
This operative part of the judgment does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged. A full text of the court decision is required to provide a detailed answer.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed the cassation appeal of lawyer PERSON_6.
Case No. 944/6614/21 dated 11/03/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_7 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 305 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (smuggling of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors).
Due to the fact that the drafting of the full text of the ruling requires considerable time, the panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, guided by Articles 376 and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, decided to limit itself to drafting and announcing only the operative part of the court decision. The court took into account the provisions of Articles 369, 376, 434-1, 434-2, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Considering the need to ensure the uniformity of case law and the completeness of the case consideration, the court decided to refer the criminal proceedings to the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court. This decision is due to the importance of the case and the need for its consideration by a wider panel of judges to ensure the objectivity and validity of the court decision.
The Supreme Court decided to refer the criminal proceedings based on the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_7 to the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.
Case No. 903/1313/23 dated 11/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a motion for the distribution of court costs, namely, the recovery from the defendant of the costs of paying the court fee for filing a cassation appeal and the return of the excessively paid amount of the court fee.
2. The Supreme Court granted the motion.
citing the application for the distribution of court costs, was guided by the following arguments:
* According to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, court costs consist of court fees and expenses related to the consideration of the case, and are subject to distribution between the parties depending on the outcome of the case.
* In the event of the cancellation of the decision of the court of appeal and the upholding of the decision of the court of first instance, the court of cassation must distribute the court costs incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation.
* The filing of a cassation appeal is subject to a court fee of 200% of the rate payable upon filing the statement of claim.
* In this case, the prosecutor paid the court fee for filing the cassation appeal, and since the cassation appeal was satisfied, the costs incurred are subject to recovery from the defendant.
* The court also found that the prosecutor had overpaid the court fee, and this amount is subject to return from the State Budget of Ukraine.
3. The court decided to grant the application for the distribution of court costs, to recover from the defendant in favor of the prosecutor’s office the costs of paying the court fee for filing the cassation appeal, and to return to the prosecutor’s office the amount of the overpaid court fee from the State Budget of Ukraine.
Case No. 911/1718/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery by the prosecutor in the interests of the state from AvtoSpetsProm LLC of penalties and fines for improper performance of the terms of the contract for the purchase of ambulances, concluded with SE “Medical Procurement of Ukraine”.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, noting that according to the terms of the contract, the penalty for violation of the delivery time of the goods is paid to the account of the customer (SE “Medical Procurement of Ukraine”), and not to the State Budget, and Article 29 of the Budget Code of Ukraine does not regulate contractual relations regarding the payment of penalties. The court emphasized that the parties to the contract are free to determine its terms, and the origin of budget funds, at the expense of which the purchase was paid for, is not a basis for changing the contractual terms. The court also pointed out that the prosecutor did not prove that the disputed contract is a tripartite contract or contains obligations to transfer the penalty to third parties who are not parties to the contract. The court closed the cassation proceedings in the part concerning the reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the legal relations in the cases referred to by the prosecutor are not similar. The court granted the motion of AvtoSpetsProm LLC to recover from the prosecutor’s office the costs of professional legal assistance, since the prosecutor did not provide reasonable objections regarding their disproportionateness.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/11640/24 dated
**Case No. 910/1572/23 dated 10/31/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “Chkalov Agrofirm” LLC for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the distribution of legal professional assistance costs incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, guided by the fact that the costs of professional legal assistance are subject to distribution between the parties, but their amount must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the importance of the case for the party. The court took into account that the plaintiff’s lawyer provided services for the preparation and submission of a response to the cassation appeal, but refused to reimburse the costs for other services that were inextricably linked to the preparation of the response or were not supported by evidence. The court also took into account the defendant’s objections regarding the disproportionality of the claimed costs, took into account that the case is not complex and does not require significant analysis of legal acts. The court noted that the fixed form of the fee does not exclude the obligation to prove the proportionality of costs.
3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 4,000 from the “Guaranteed Buyer” SE in favor of “Chkalov Agrofirm” LLC for professional legal assistance costs, refusing to satisfy the rest of the claims.
**Case No. 619/3071/23 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of fraud (Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the decision of the appellate court regarding the imposed sentence. The court took into account the person’s previous convictions for similar crimes (fraud) and, applying the rules for combining sentences for multiple crimes, increased the term of imprisonment. The main argument of the court was to ensure that the punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime committed and the identity of the guilty person, as well as the need to take into account previous verdicts to achieve the purpose of the punishment, in particular, the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. The court partially combined the sentences imposed by this verdict and previous verdicts to determine the final sentence. In the rest, the verdict of the appellate court remained unchanged.
3. The Supreme Court changed the verdict of the appellate court, increasing the term of imprisonment for the convicted person to 3 years by partially combining sentences for a set of criminal offenses.
**Case No. 344/10988/24 dated 10/28/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of confiscating the “Volkswagen Amarok” car to the state revenue in criminal proceedings closed due to the failure to establish the identity of the person who committed the criminal offense, and the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that in
Pursuant to Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code, physical evidence includes material objects that were instruments of a criminal offense or contain other information that may be used as evidence. According to paragraph 5 of Part 9 of Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, property that was the subject of a criminal offense is confiscated, except in cases where it is returned to the rightful owner. In this case, during the pre-trial investigation, it was established that the vehicle’s chassis identification number was altered, and PERSON_7 did not provide evidence of the legality of acquiring the right to the vehicle. The court emphasized that a vehicle with an altered identification number is the subject of a criminal offense, the operation of which is prohibited, and the legal owner has not been established. The appellate court also supported this position, noting that PERSON_7 did not provide documents proving the legality of his acquisition of ownership of the vehicle.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decisions of the first instance and appellate courts, confirming the legality of the confiscation of the vehicle into state revenue.
Case No. 922/5404/23 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation of “Kharkivoblenergo” to recalculate the cost of services provided to the Main Department of the National Police in the Kharkiv Region.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting the position of the National Police. The courts of previous instances granted the claims of the National Police, obliging “Kharkivoblenergo” to recalculate the cost of services provided. “Kharkivoblenergo” appealed these decisions, insisting on the correctness of the charges. However, the Supreme Court found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal of “Kharkivoblenergo,” confirming the legality and validity of the decisions of the first instance and appellate courts. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the need to recalculate the cost of services provided to the National Police. In the cassation appeal, “Kharkivoblenergo” failed to provide convincing arguments that would refute the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the previous courts.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kharkivoblenergo” and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 905/1008/22 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court approving the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance sheet in the bankruptcy case of PrJSC “Corum Ukraine,” the liquidation of the legal entity, and the closure of the proceedings in the case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, as the liquidator performed all the necessary actions provided for by law.
under the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine, to identify the debtor’s assets, form the liquidation estate, and satisfy the creditors’ claims, although the assets proved insufficient to fully repay the debts. The court took into account that the liquidator took measures to search for property, conducted an inventory, organized auctions for the sale of assets, and also took measures to identify accounts receivable. Also, the court noted that the creditors did not object to the liquidator’s report and did not initiate the issue of subsidiary liability of the debtor’s officials. The court emphasized that creditors should actively protect their interests in the bankruptcy case, and not rely solely on the actions of the liquidator. The court also noted that the revaluation of evidence is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the постанову of the appellate court.
Case No. 521/27547/23 dated November 3, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is determining the procedure for the father’s participation in the upbringing of children after the divorce from their mother.
The court, taking into account the interests of the children, their age, the health condition of the younger son, who is insulin-dependent, as well as the opinion of the older daughter, who did not express a desire to communicate with her father, determined the schedule of meetings between the father and children, subject to their consent. The court also took into account the conclusion of the guardianship authority, which recommended taking into account the health of the children and ensuring their spiritual, physical and moral development during meetings with their father. The court rejected the father’s demands for a broader meeting schedule, including overnight stays, considering that this does not meet the interests of the children, especially given the health condition of the son. The court of appeal agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, emphasizing that it meets the best interests of the children.
The court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 165/1148/21 dated October 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted person and his defender against the ruling of the appellate court in the criminal proceedings on charges of fraud and incitement to attempted bribery.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments. The full text of the постанову will be announced later, so it is currently impossible to provide a detailed analysis of the motives that guided the Supreme Court in making the decision. After reviewing the full text of the постанову, I will be able to provide a more detailed analysis.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
**Case No. 398/4573/24 dated 29/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the application by the court of first instance to the convicted PERSON_7 of release from serving a sentence with probation based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which the prosecutor disagreed with, filing a cassation appeal.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusion of the court of first instance on the possibility of releasing PERSON_7 from serving a sentence with probation. The court took into account the severity of the crime, the circumstances of the case, the behavior of the victim, the attitude of the accused to the committed act, information about the accused (positive references, participation in the ATO, absence of convictions and registration with a psychiatrist and narcologist), as well as partial compensation for the damage caused. The court also took into account that the prosecutor in the indictment recognized PERSON_7’s sincere remorse as a mitigating circumstance. The court of cassation instance noted that at the moment the convicted person is undergoing military service and continues to compensate the victim for the damage, and there is no evidence of violation of discipline or assigned duties.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the decision of the appellate court, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 904/537/24 dated 30/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the limited liability company “DTEK Vysokovoltni Merezhi” in favor of the private joint-stock company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” of debt for electricity transmission services, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as the courts did not take into account the conclusions set out in the постанові [resolution/ruling] of the Supreme Court of 21.01.2025 in case No. 905/1743/23, which concerns similar legal relations between the same parties, where it was established that technological costs of electricity for its transmission for the plaintiff by transit overhead power lines (LEP)-110kV of the defendant should be calculated from the fee charged by the plaintiff for electricity transmission services. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not clarify the circumstances regarding the use of the defendant’s networks by the plaintiff during electricity transmission and did not investigate the issue of including in the acts the volumes of electricity consumed by KP “Company “Voda Donbasu”, which is important for the correct resolution of the dispute. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that the mere acceptance by the defendant of the acts of acceptance and transfer of services and the acts of adjustment is not an indisputable basis for the payment of the amounts specified therein in the presence of a dispute regarding the fact of provision/volume of services.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and referred the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
