Case No. 487/5705/16-ц dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the decision of the state executor regarding the return of property to the “Parma” garage cooperative.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of PERSON_1, since the debtor did not prove the violation of his rights by the actions of the state executor during the execution of the court decision on the recovery of property. The courts found that the main arguments of PERSON_1 boil down to denying the possibility of executing the court decision due to the alleged absence of property from him, which contradicts the circumstances established by the court decision that has entered into legal force. The judges emphasized that the debtor is trying to review the circumstances established by the court decision by appealing the actions of the executor. It was also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal had already been the subject of investigation in the courts of previous instances, and they were given appropriate legal assessment based on the requirements of the law. The court also noted that the debtor did not provide sufficient evidence of violation of his rights by the actions of the state executor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 758/10718/23 dated 11/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the father’s claim to deprive the mother of parental rights regarding their joint child.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendant evaded fulfilling her parental duties, and deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in exceptional cases. The court also noted that the conclusion of the guardianship authority is not objective, since it is based only on the words of the child’s father and does not contain information that would characterize the mother as a person who does not perform her parental duties. In addition, the court took into account that the renunciation of parental rights contradicts the interests of the child and the moral principles of society, therefore it cannot be the basis for satisfying the claim, even if the defendant admitted the claim. The court emphasized that for the deprivation of parental rights, the presence of guilt in the actions of the parents and the impossibility of changing their behavior for the better is necessary. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 462/4598/18 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the termination of the enforcement proceeding
regarding proceedings due to incomplete execution of a court decision on the recovery of compensation for late payment of additional payment to average earnings.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which found that the court decision on the recovery from the enterprise in favor of an individual of compensation for late payment of additional payment to average earnings was not fully executed, since the claimant was transferred an amount less than that specified in the writ of execution. The court noted that the transfer of an amount less than that specified in the enforcement document is not considered proper execution of the court decision. The court also indicated that the enterprise did not exercise the right to appeal the court decision in the part concerning the absence of an indication of the deduction of mandatory payments and fees from the amount of recovery, and also did not apply for clarification of the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized 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.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 757/39784/23-ц dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of registration actions regarding the apartment, the ownership of which was acquired by the plaintiff, but the previous owner considers the alienation illegal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, based on the fact that in this case, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine is not the proper defendant, since the dispute concerns property rights to immovable property, and therefore, substantive law claims must be brought against the person who directly disputes the plaintiff’s ownership, namely, the previous owner. The court noted that granting a claim against an improper defendant is a violation of substantive and procedural law, as it decides on the rights and obligations of a person who was not involved in the case. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff incorrectly determined the subject composition of the participants in the case, namely, did not involve the proper co-defendant. The court of cassation referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, in disputes regarding property rights, the proper defendant is the person who directly disputes these rights, and not the state authority that made the decision based on the complaint of one of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the claims.
Case No. 726/1540/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a certificate of family composition, the recognition of
illegality of the privatization authority’s order on the transfer of the apartment into private ownership and invalidation of the certificate of ownership of the dwelling, as the rights of a minor child registered in the apartment were not taken into account during privatization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal, which established that at the time of privatization of the apartment, a minor child was registered in it, who could not fully exercise their housing rights due to age; privatization took place in violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of the State Housing Fund” and the relevant Regulation, as the child’s right to participate in privatization was not taken into account; the defendant’s provision of an unreliable certificate of family composition is a dishonest behavior that led to the violation of the child’s rights; the fact that the child does not live in the disputed apartment is not an unconditional basis for depriving them of the right to use it, as the child cannot independently choose a place of residence until reaching a certain age; deprivation of parental rights does not deprive the child of the right to use the living space. The court also noted that the loss of housing is an extreme form of interference with the right to housing, and in all actions regarding children, primary attention is paid to ensuring the best interests of the child.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal, confirming the decision to recognize the privatization order as illegal and the certificate of ownership as invalid.
Case №185/7129/23 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as invalid, cancellation of its state registration, and recovery of rent arrears.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decision of the court of appeal, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the existence of grounds for recognizing the additional agreement to the land lease agreement as invalid, since the parties agreed on all its essential terms, and the defendant fulfills the terms of this agreement, in particular, regarding the rent. The court noted that property relations arising from the land lease agreement are civil law relations and are based on the principles of equality, free will, and property independence of the parties. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of violation of her rights, and her claims regarding the invalidity of the agreement are related only to the tenant’s unwillingness to increase the rent, which is not a sufficient basis for recognizing the agreement as invalid. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the missed deadline for appeal, as the deadline began to be counted from the da
that upheld the ruling on leaving the application for review of the default judgment without satisfaction. In addition, the court found the arguments for recusal of the judge to be unfounded, as disagreement with procedural decisions is not grounds for recusal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
**Case No. 2-5228/11 dated 11/04/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131537341](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131537341)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a will and gift agreement as invalid, as well as the recognition of ownership rights.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, as the plaintiff, having initiated the court proceedings, was aware of its consideration but missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court’s ruling on leaving the claim without consideration. The court took into account that the plaintiff personally filed motions to postpone the hearing of the case and also appealed another ruling in the appellate procedure, knowing about the existence of the appealed ruling. The court noted that the plaintiff cannot be considered a person not notified of the case hearing, as she initiated the proceedings. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, according to which a person who initiated the consideration of the case cannot invoke non-notification of the case hearing to renew the term for appeal if she knew about the proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of legal certainty and respect for the principle of res judicata, according to which the final decision of the court cannot be questioned.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 149/1221/23 dated 11/04/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131537343](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131537343)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement concluded between the landowner and a new lessee as invalid, while the previous lease agreement with another lessee was still in effect.
2. The appellate court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that at the time of concluding the new lease agreement, the previous agreement was considered renewed for one year by virtue of law due to martial law, and therefore the new agreement violated the rights of the previous lessee. The court noted that concluding a land lease agreement during the term of another lease agreement for the same object may prevent the primary lessee from exercising his right to use the relevant land plot. Also, the court took into account that the previous lessee registered his lease right in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court rejected the defendant’s reference to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 610/1030/18, as the circumstances of the case differ.
namely, by the fact that in this case, the lease right was registered in the register. The court also noted that the lengthy consideration of the case by the court of first instance cannot be a basis for refusing to protect the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 723/2520/22 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body and the invalidation of the certificate of ownership of real estate issued to the state.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not pay attention to the fact that the owner of the disputed real estate is the state represented by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which was not involved in the case as a party, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court noted that the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine, involved as a defendant, is not the owner of the property and cannot represent the interests of the state in full. In addition, the courts did not properly check the issue regarding the statute of limitations, since the state’s ownership right was registered almost 20 years before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. The court emphasized the obligation of owners to be interested in their property and to appeal violations of rights in a timely manner. As a result, the courts did not establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case and did not apply the appropriate norms of substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 916/3162/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accrual of rent under a state property lease agreement extended at an auction during martial law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the tenant’s claim, obliging the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine to accrue rent taking into account the benefit provided for by CMU Resolution No. 634, namely in the amount of 50% of the amount established by the agreement for the period of martial law and three months after its completion. The court noted that since the lease agreement was valid until 24.02.2022 and was extended by concluding an additional agreement after the auction, and not a new agreement was concluded, the provisions of Resolution No. 634 on preferential rent apply. The court also took into account that the leased object was not returned to the lessor and was not repeatedly transferred to the lessee. The arguments of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine that the benefit applies only until the signing of the additional agreement were rejected. The court emphasized that the accruDetermining the rental payment in the amounts specified by Resolution No. 634 constitutes state regulation of the rental payment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine without satisfaction, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 909/1255/24 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Ivano-Frankivsk Housing and Maintenance Unit (district) in favor of LLC “GC “Naftogaz Trading” of debt under a natural gas supply agreement, in particular, a penalty for late payment.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the partial satisfaction of the claim, in particular, regarding the reduction of the penalty amount, based on the following: firstly, courts have the right to reduce the amount of penalty if it is excessively high compared to the creditor’s losses, considering the financial condition of the parties and other circumstances of significant importance; secondly, the defendant is a state organization that provides military units with communal services, and partial payment of the debt has already been made; thirdly, the plaintiff did not prove the deterioration of its financial condition as a result of the defendant’s actions; fourthly, reducing the penalty by 50% ensures a balance of interests of the parties, since the plaintiff has been awarded the recovery of 3% per annum and inflationary losses in full; fifthly, there are no universal criteria for reducing the penalty, and the court decides this issue at its own discretion, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part refusing to satisfy the claim regarding the recovery of a penalty in the amount of UAH 214,273.34.
Case No. 760/31723/21 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the satisfaction of a complaint against the actions of a private notary regarding the state registration of ownership of a non-residential premises.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine violated the procedure for considering the complaint of the Condominium Association, namely: did not ensure proper notification of interested parties, in particular the plaintiff, about the time and place of consideration of the complaint, which deprived him of the opportunity to provide explanations; did not pay attention to the absence of the date of the complaint and documents confirming the authority of the persons who signed it; ignored the request to leave the complaint without consideration. The court noted that proper notification of all persons concerned by the complaint is important to ensure the objectivity and validity of the decision. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that placing information on the website is proper notifica
regarding notification, as it does not meet the requirements of the law, which provides for additional methods of notification. The court also emphasized that the subject of the investigation is the legality of the order of the Ministry of Justice, and not the decisions of a private notary.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 757/25371/19-ц dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff in the case of eviction and removal from the registration record.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, since the defendant was not properly notified of the date, time and place of the court hearing in the appellate instance, which deprived her of the opportunity to exercise her procedural rights and participate in the consideration of the case. The court of appellate instance, considering the case in the absence of the defendant, did not ensure her right to a fair trial and access to justice, which is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the requirements of Articles 128, 130 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation instance noted that proper notification of the parties to the case about court hearings is a necessary condition for ensuring their procedural rights and the possibility of representing their interests in court. Since the appellate court committed a violation of the norms of procedural law, which led to the consideration of the case in the absence of the properly notified defendant, this is a basis for overturning the decision of the appellate court and sending the case for a new consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 4/5007/33-Б/11 (906/1518/20) dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the bankrupt’s property from the possession of “Zhytom” LLC, which acquired it as a result of a chain of resales after the auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property was declared invalid.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for the recovery of property, based on the fact that the property left the possession of the bankrupt against its will, since the auction, on the basis of which the alienation took place, was declared invalid. The court took into account that the interference with the property right of “Zhytom” LLC is proportional, since it is aimed at replenishing the liquidation estate of the bankrupt in order to satisfy the claims of creditors. Also, the court noted that “Zhytom” LLC is not deprived of the opportunity to protect its property interests by applying with claims to the previous owners of the property. The court
also took into account that the circumstances established in the case do not indicate that the recovery of property would lead to an excessive individual burden for Zhytom LLC, considering the possibility of compensation for the value of the property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that Zhytom LLC is a bona fide acquirer, since the courts of previous instances established that the auction was conducted with violations, which indicates the illegality of the disposal of property from the possession of the bankrupt.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of Zhytom LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/2930/23 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for electricity transmission services provided by PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” (plaintiff) to JSC “DTEK Donetsk Grids” (defendant) based on the contract.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that JSC “DTEK Donetsk Grids” did not prove the absence of debt for the provided electricity transmission services, as well as the legality of attributing the volumes of electricity consumed by the “Water of Donbas Company” Municipal Enterprise to the losses of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”. The court took into account that the defendant did not appeal the acceptance-transfer acts of services within the period established by the contract, and also did not take measures to stop violations related to the incorrect attribution of volumes to the “default” market participant, which was the “Water of Donbas Company” Municipal Enterprise. The court also took into account the resolution of the NEURC, which established violations on the part of JSC “DTEK Donetsk Grids” regarding the formation and transmission of commercial metering data. In addition, the court noted that the defendant did not prove the incorrect application by the courts of previous instances of paragraph 6.2.8 of the Retail Electricity Market Rules, paragraph 3 of part 1 of Procedure No. 1209, and order No. 148.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “DTEK Donetsk Grids”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 160/31001/24 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notice-decision, by which PJSC “Inhulets Iron Ore Enrichment Works” was denied budget VAT refund in the amount of UAH 124,476,220.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the tax notice-decision as illegal. The court noted that in order to deny budget VAT refund on the basis of paragraph 200.4-1 of article 200 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, sanctions must be applied directly to the taxpayer, its founders/participants, or ultimate beneficial
