Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 16/11/2025

Case No. 441/1528/23 dated November 06, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of appeal regarding the measure of punishment imposed on PERSON_7 for violation of traffic safety rules while intoxicated, which resulted in moderate bodily harm to the victim.

2. The Court of Appeal justified its decision to increase the punishment by the fact that the court of first instance did not properly take into account the severity of the crime, in particular the intoxicated state of the accused at the time of the accident and the infliction of numerous bodily injuries on the victim. The court of appeal also expressed doubts about the sincerity of PERSON_7’s repentance, given his behavior after the accident, in particular the lack of visits to the hospital to the victim and repeated failures to appear in court. The court of appeal noted that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the severity of the crime, and therefore the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the imposition of a sentence below the minimum limit is unfounded. The court of cassation instance agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that a positive characterization of a person is not a sufficient basis for mitigating the punishment, especially in view of the public danger of the convict’s actions.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 461/6352/23 dated November 05, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the notary’s writ of execution as not subject to execution.

2. The court of cassation instance established that the court of appeal correctly concluded that the writ of execution was issued to repay a debt that is not indisputable, since the amount of debt specified in the writ of execution did not correspond to the amount specified in the bank’s demand for early repayment of the loan. In addition, the court of appeal established that the plaintiff made a number of payments on the loan, which were not taken into account when issuing the writ of execution. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that after December 01, 2008, the bank lost the right to accrue interest, penalties and other payments under the agreement, since the accrual of interest for the use of credit funds, penaltiesbut the term of the loan agreement is not specified. However, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not resolve the issue of the statute of limitations, which was declared by JSC “Universal Bank,” and did not investigate when exactly the plaintiff became aware of the violation of their rights.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.

**Case No. 569/18554/17 dated 10/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, namely, a decision to refuse the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of land plots.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, because the plaintiff chose an improper way to protect their rights in the original lawsuit, demanding the cancellation of the state registration instead of claiming the property from someone else’s illegal possession. The courts noted that invalidating the assignment agreement of the claim under the mortgage agreement is not a significant circumstance that affects the court’s decision, since the original decision established the impropriety of the chosen method of protection. The Supreme Court emphasized that the review of a case based on newly discovered circumstances does not provide for a re-evaluation of all the arguments of the parties, but aims to take into account the circumstances that were not known to the court at the time of the decision. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the circumstances cited by the applicant are not newly discovered in the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and cannot be the basis for overturning the court decision.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.

**Case No. 159/1942/22 dated 22/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her four minor children.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, because the appellate court did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, did not properly assess the evidence, did not take into account the opinion of the children, did not consider the defendant’s petition to interview the children and interrogate a witness, and also did not take into account the conflictual relations between the plaintiff (the children’s grandmother) and the defendant (the children’s mother). The court of cassation noted that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in exceptional cases, when the behavior of parents poses a real threat to the child, and the appellate court did not establish the existence of such circumstances in this case. The court of cassation also pointed out the importance of taking into account the opinion of children in such cases, especially when they have reached the age when they can consciously express it. The court of cassation emphasized that the inactivity of parents, related to o
Objective circumstances cannot be a sufficient ground for deprivation of their parental rights.

3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 214/1607/19 dated 29/10/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements.

2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, as it agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of debt obligations between the parties based on loan agreements and receipts signed by the defendant, as well as regarding the lack of evidence of circumstances of concluding the agreements under duress. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the written form of the loan agreement is evidence not only of the conclusion of the agreement, but also of the fact of the transfer of the amount of money. At the same time, the cassation court did not agree with the appellate court regarding the recovery of interest for the use of other people’s funds after the expiration of the loan term, since after the expiration of this term, the lender’s right to accrue interest ceases, and also overturned the decision in the part of the distribution of court costs, making a new distribution in proportion to the satisfied claims.

3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of recovering interest for the use of other people’s funds and resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs, and in the other part left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.

Case No. 361/5179/22 dated 11/11/2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the notary’s execution inscription as not subject to execution.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations for appealing the execution inscription, the application of which was declared by the defendant; the courts found that the plaintiff knew or should have known about the existence of the execution inscription since 2016, since he was sent copies of resolutions on the opening of enforcement proceedings and seizure of property; the plaintiff’s reference to the fact that he learned about the violation of his right only in 2021 was not confirmed; the courts also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence provided by the defendant, since they assessed them in conjunction with other evidence and came to the conclusion about their reliability, relevance and admissibility; the courts 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 court of cassation instance does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence.

3. The court of cassation instance left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.

Case No. 911/591/25 dated 11/11/2025

The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 46,680,616.74.

The court of cassation instance left the decision unchanged.
of the previous instances, without satisfying the cassation appeal of LLC “Rick-9”. The decision does not provide specific arguments that the court of cassation instance was guided by, only stating that it was guided by the articles of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate cassation proceedings. The absence of detailed argumentation in the introductory and operative parts complicates the understanding of the court’s motives. A full analysis requires familiarization with the full text of the court decision, which should outline the grounds for the court’s position.

The court ruled: to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Rick-9” unsatisfied, and to leave the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.

Case No. 743/213/24 dated 11/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings materials from one court of appeal to another.

In this case, the Chernihiv Court of Appeal applied to the Supreme Court with a submission to transfer criminal proceedings, which were received by them with an appeal by the prosecutor, to another court of appeal. The Supreme Court, considering this submission, was guided by Articles 34 and 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the issue of referring proceedings from one court to another. The court took into account the circumstances that formed the basis for such a submission, and concluded that it was necessary to grant it. At the same time, the full text of the ruling will be announced later, and only the operative part has been announced so far.

The court ruled to grant the submission of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal and to refer the materials of the proceedings to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration on the merits.

Case No. 320/39472/24 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions on reducing the amount of budget refund of VAT and refusing to receive the amount of budget refund to the taxpayer’s account.

2. The court, satisfying the taxpayer’s claims, proceeded from the fact that the enterprise rightfully formed a tax credit for VAT in connection with the import of goods into the customs territory of Ukraine, since the fact of customs clearance is confirmed by properly executed cargo customs declarations (CCD), which contain all the necessary details. The court took into account that the import of goods was carried out by commission agents in accordance with the concluded commission agreements, and the enterprise provided a full set of primary documents confirming the reality of economic operations and the payment of customs duties, in particular, commission agreements, appendices to them, invoices, international consignment notes (CMR), cargo customs declarations, acceptance certificates. The court also noted that the controlling body did not provide evidence to refute these documents, and there is no information about the inconsistency of the CCD execution.
lack of legislative references in the inspection act.

3. The court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of the Subsidiary Enterprise “Super-Frank”.

Case No. 465/1841/15-к dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for abuse of official authority, which led to grave consequences, as well as the resolution of civil claims for compensation of material and moral damages.

2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, confirming the validity of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the guilt of the person in committing a crime under Part 3 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the lawfulness of imposing civil liability on the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Lviv region for the actions of its employee. The court noted that the courts of first and appellate instances properly examined and assessed the evidence, established a causal link between the actions of the convicted person and the consequences, and reasonably satisfied the civil claims of the victims, taking into account the depth of their emotional suffering and the irreparability of the loss. At the same time, the Supreme Court amended the court decisions in terms of excluding the punishment in the form of a fine, since at the time of the crime and the verdict, the sanction of the article did not provide for such a type of punishment, which improves the position of the convicted person. The court emphasized that the appellate review was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law, and the ruling of the appellate court meets the established requirements.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals but amended the court decisions, excluding the punishment in the form of a fine.

Case No. 470/477/23 dated 11/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm).

2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, since the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, gave them a correct legal assessment, and came to a reasonable conclusion about the proof of the person’s guilt in committing the crime. The court of cassation instance did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. The Supreme Court noted that the arguments of the defender’s cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of certain evidence are unfounded, since the courts of previous instances properly assessed these arguments and reasonably rejected them. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the appellate court rightfully refused to re-examine the evidence, since the defense did not substantiate the need for such an examination.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.

**Case No. 552/2224/20 dated 11/12/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (rape).

The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, referring to Articles 433, 434, 436, 438, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the specific arguments that the court relied on when making the decision are not provided in the operative part, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. The court only stated that it was guided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulate the procedure of cassation proceedings and the powers of the court of cassation instance. The absence of detailed argumentation in the operative part makes it impossible to provide a more detailed analysis of the reasons for the decision.

The court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s ruling, and order a new trial in the court of appeal.

**Case No. 607/17534/23 dated 11/12/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).

The Supreme Court partially granted the convict’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. By making such a decision, the Supreme Court apparently established certain violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. In particular, these may include violations of the right to defense, incomplete investigation of evidence, inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, or incorrect application of the norms of substantive law. Also, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which give grounds to believe that the accused may hide from the investigation and the court, obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case, or commit another criminal offense.

The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.

**Case No. 505/2299/22 dated 11/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for illegal acquisition, storage of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale, and sale of narcotic drugs.

2. The court of cassation upheld the judgok without changes, as it concluded that the convicted person’s guilt in the sale of narcotic drugs was fully proven by the testimony of the undercover agent, the results of covert investigative actions, in particular audio and video surveillance and an undercover purchase, as well as the expert’s report, which revealed a special chemical substance on the hands of the convicted person and on the banknotes. The court noted that the local court took into account the severity of the crimes committed, data on the identity of the convicted person, mitigating circumstances, and imposed a punishment that corresponds to the severity of the crimes and will help prevent new crimes. The court also rejected the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the severity of the punishment, indicating that the convicted person may initiate the issue of changing the conditions of serving the sentence due to health conditions, but this is not a basis for mitigating the punishment. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to examine evidence and establish circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.

Case No. 911/557/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of land lease agreements concluded between the Yahotyn City Council and an individual (PERSON_1), and the return of these plots, since the prosecutor’s office believes that the transfer of land took place in violation of the requirements of land legislation.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the one-time right of a citizen to receive a land plot for farming without land auctions. The court indicated that PERSON_1 had already used his right to receive land for the creation of a farm, and the repeated receipt of land without auctions was aimed at expanding an existing farm, and not at creating a new one. Also, the courts did not investigate the issue of the beginning of the statute of limitations and did not establish the actual user of the disputed land plots. The court emphasized that after the registration of the farm, it, as a legal entity, becomes the lessee of the land, and not the citizen to whom it was granted, therefore the request for the return of the land must be submitted to the farm.

3. The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 183/3285/22 dated 11/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal of December 16, 2024 regarding PERSON_5.

The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, changing the verdict of the court of appeal. The court decided to apply Art.
Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was applied and PERSON_5 was released from serving the sentence of imprisonment, having assigned him a probationary period of 3 years. Also, the convicted person was assigned duties stipulated by Article 76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely: to periodically appear for registration at the authorized body on probation issues and to notify this body of a change of residence, work or study. The court took into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person, which allowed the application of the provisions on release from serving the sentence with probation. In addition, the court ordered the release of PERSON_5 from custody. The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.

The court decided to amend the judgment of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, releasing PERSON_5 from serving the sentence with probation and releasing him from custody.

Case No. 393/273/24 dated 05/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the settlement council to cancel the previous decision regarding the renewal of the land lease agreement and the recognition of the additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded.

The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal, which established that the settlement council had no legal grounds to cancel its previous decision on the renewal of the land lease agreement, as this violates the rights of the plaintiff. The court noted that local self-government bodies cannot cancel their previous decisions if they have already created legal relations related to the realization of subjective rights and interests, and the subjects of these legal relations object to their change or termination. In addition, the court of appeal established that the draft decision on the cancellation of the previous decision did not pass proper approval in the specialized committee, which is a violation of the procedure. Also, the court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal to recognize the additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded, as the defendant did not fulfill its previous decision on the renewal of the agreement. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect application of the norms of substantive law and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, and also recognized the recovery of legal aid costs as justified, as the defendant did not prove their disproportionality.

The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.

Case No. 362/5116/21 dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Vasylkiv City Council and the state registrar regarding the transfer of land ownership to PERSON_2, as the plaintiff believes that this plot overlaps his plot, which was granted to him earlier.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that the land plot owned by PERSON_2 is the same one that the plaintiff claims, because the plot of PERSON_2 is formed as an object of civil rights with a cadastral
with a cadastral number and defined boundaries, while the plaintiff’s plot is not actually defined and does not have a cadastral number. The court noted that the plaintiff did not apply to the city council to complete the privatization procedure of his plot after the approval of the new general plan of the city, and the defendant completed this procedure legally. The court also took into account that the adjacent landowners of the plots, according to the documents, are different, which indicates that these are different plots. The court indicated that the plaintiff’s arguments about the bad faith of the defendants were not confirmed, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence of obstacles in completing the privatization of his plot. The court also rejected the arguments about the necessity of appointing a land expertise, as the plaintiff did not file a corresponding motion.

3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.

Case No. 646/1852/25 dated 11/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the court’s ruling on the refusal to open proceedings on the claim of the debtor in the enforcement proceedings to recognize the illegal inaction of the private executor and to remove the arrest from funds.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the debtor in the enforcement proceedings cannot file a claim to remove the arrest from property in the order of claim proceedings, since the law provides for a different procedure for judicial protection – appealing against the actions or inaction of the state or private executor in the order of judicial control over the execution of court decisions, in accordance with Section VII of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the claim to remove the arrest from property is derived from the claim to recognize the illegal inaction of the private executor, therefore it should be considered within the procedure of appealing against the actions of the executor. The court also indicated that there are no claims against JSC “Sense Bank”, which refutes the arguments of the cassation appeal about the existence of a joint obligation of the private executor and this bank to remove the arrest from the applicant’s bank accounts opened in JSC CB “Privat Bank” and JSC “State Savings Bank of Ukraine”. The court of cassation emphasized that the protection of rights that the party to the enforcement proceedings considers to be violated should take place in a manner determined by law, namely through judicial control over the execution of court decisions.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal.

Case No. 306/2487/22 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of 1/2 part of the property (land plots and residential buildings), acquired, as the plaintiff claimed, with his funds, but registered in the name of the defendant.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm the fact that he transferred funds to
to the defendant specifically for the acquisition of the disputed property, and also did not dispute the legitimacy of the defendant’s conclusion of donation agreements, purchase and sale of this property, and certificates of inheritance, on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove that he had previously acquired ownership of the disputed property on legal grounds, which is a necessary condition for satisfying a claim for recognition of ownership under Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of procedural law related to the consideration of the case in the absence of the plaintiff’s representative, since the non-appearance was due to participation in another court hearing, which is not a valid reason. The court of cassation emphasized that reviewing evidence and establishing the circumstances of the case is not within its powers.

3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.

Case №320/15415/23 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Limited Liability Company “Company “Agroform” against tax assessment notices of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv Region.

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Company, overturning the decision of the appellate court and remanding the case for a new trial regarding three tax assessment notices, as the appellate court did not take into account that the clarification of the statement of claim did not change the subject of the dispute and was filed within the term. The court emphasized that technical errors should not deprive the taxpayer of the right to judicial protection. Regarding one tax assessment notice, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the Company did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the appeal deadline and dismissed the statement of claim in this part. Also, the Supreme Court found the decision of the appellate court to correct the error to be incorrect, as it effectively changed the content of the court decision.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial regarding three tax assessment notices, and dismissed the statement of claim regarding one tax assessment notice.

Case №490/75/22 dated 11/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal regarding the referral of the materials of the appeal of PERSON_5 to another court of appeal.

The Supreme Court, granting the submission of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal, was guided by the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, and the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” The court took into account that the consideration of the case in the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal may raise reasonable doubts about its objectivity and impartiality. This is due to the need to ensure compliance with the principles ofequality of all participants in the judicial process before the law and the court, as well as to avoid any doubts about the fairness of the decision. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to send the materials of the appeal to the Odesa Court of Appeal to ensure an objective and impartial consideration of the case.

The court ruled to grant the motion of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal and to send the materials of the appeal of PERSON_5 to the Odesa Court of Appeal.

Case No. 295/18926/24 dated 10/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale).

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that there are grounds for releasing a person from criminal liability on the basis of Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the person voluntarily applied to a medical institution for treatment of drug addiction. Also, the court took into account the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulate the issue of closing criminal proceedings in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to take into account all the circumstances of the case and information about the person when deciding on the possibility of release from criminal liability. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate all the circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the issue of the possibility of applying the provisions of Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court ruled: to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the defender, to overturn the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances, to release the person from criminal liability on the basis of Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and to close the criminal proceedings.

Case No. 642/2129/19 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for theft, with the argument that the value of the stolen property does not correspond to the amount from which criminal liability arises.

The court of cassation instance upheld the verdict, referring to the fact that when determining the minimum value of the stolen property, from which criminal liability arises, the amount of the tax-free minimum income of citizens, established at the time of the offense, should be taken into account, and not at the time of entry into force of the law that changed these provisions. The court also noted that the issue of compensation for moral damage caused to the convict as a result of being held in custody on charges for which he was acquitted may be resolved in civil proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized ththat the value of the stolen property exceeded the minimum amount established at the time of the crime for criminal liability. The court also noted that compensation for moral damages should be resolved in civil proceedings.

The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.

Case No. 939/1329/22 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of March 11, 2025, regarding PERSON_8, accused of attempted murder and illegal handling of weapons.

The Supreme Court rendered a decision based on the statement of prosecutor PERSON_5 on the withdrawal of the filed cassation appeal. The court took into account the provisions of the criminal procedure code, which allow the prosecutor to withdraw the appeal. The prosecutor’s withdrawal of the cassation appeal is his right, and the court has no grounds to refuse its acceptance if it is filed in accordance with the procedure established by law. Taking into account the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to close the cassation proceedings. The court emphasized that the ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement, is final, and is not subject to appeal.

The court accepted the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the cassation appeal and closed the cassation proceedings.

Case No. 447/2455/20 dated 11/06/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft and illegal cultivation of narcotic plants.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, dismissing the defense counsel’s cassation appeal. The court likely agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the lower courts and found no grounds to overturn or modify their decisions. The operative part does not provide specific arguments that guided the court, but it can be assumed that the cassation court did not find significant violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of substantive law that could lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. It is also possible that the court took into account the severity of the crimes committed and the reasonableness of the imposed punishment.

The court ruled: to leave the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 335/4734/18 dated 11/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 121, Part 2 of Article 289, Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.