Case No. 615/2295/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for a person convicted of evading mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict of the appellate court, agreeing that release from serving the sentence with probation would be an incorrect application of the law, as it would not contribute to the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes, considering the public danger of the crime committed during martial law and general mobilization. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably considered all the circumstances of the case, including the convicted person’s disregard for the constitutional duty to defend the Homeland, which causes significant public outcry. The court also took into account that references to family circumstances (caring for the mother) do not diminish the public danger of the crime, and the appellate court reasonably imposed a punishment in the form of actual imprisonment, albeit in the minimum amount, believing that correction is possible only in conditions of isolation from society. 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, and meets the requirements of Articles 50, 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.
Case No. 461/4457/23 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the child’s place of residence between parents who are in a state of conflict.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim of the father regarding determining the method of communication with the child and participation in her upbringing. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that some measures to secure the claim had already been taken earlier, and others are disproportionate to the stated requirements and may lead to violation of the rights of the mother and the child. The court of cassation agreed that securing the claim must be justified, proportionate and not violate the rights of other participants in the proceedings. The judges also emphasized that it is impossible to take measures to secure the claim that actually repeat existing ones, or those that require further agreements between the parties for their implementation. The judges emphasized that in cases concerning the interests of children, the best interests of the child must be taken into account, but measures to secure the claim must be necessary and proportionate.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 725/2306/21 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the life annuity agreement concluded between PERSON_2.
and PERSON_3, return of property, and cancellation of encumbrance.
2. The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s decision, noting that the court of first instance fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case and reached a reasonable conclusion that there were no grounds for termination of the life-long maintenance agreement, as the defendant (PERSON_3) properly fulfilled the terms of the agreement, which is confirmed by the evidence provided, in particular, receipts for the purchase of food and medicine, money transfers, as well as witness testimonies. The court emphasized that the circumstances regarding the withdrawal of deposit funds and the conclusion of a garage lease agreement are irrelevant to this case, as they are not covered by the life-long maintenance agreement. The appellate court did not take these circumstances into account and unjustifiably overturned the lawful decision of the court of first instance. It is important that the Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant should have protected himself from further claims of the transferor by keeping appropriate records and, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 12, 81 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, should provide the court with evidence of the absence of the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy the claim for termination of the life-long maintenance agreement.
Case No. 463/2495/17 dated 09/04/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of joint venture agreements as invalid in the part of membership of individuals in the Homeowners Association (HOA) and the establishment of the fact that these individuals are not members of the HOA.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which dismissed the claim without consideration, as the courts incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law. The court noted that leaving a claim without consideration is possible only in the case of repeated non-appearance of the plaintiff specifically at the court hearing, and not at the preparatory hearing. In this case, the plaintiff did not appear at the preparatory hearings, which is not a basis for leaving the claim without consideration. The court also took into account its own previous conclusions regarding the application of similar rules of law.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous courts in the part of leaving the claim of PERSON_1 without consideration and sent the case in this part for further consideration to the court of first instance, and left the court decisions unchanged in the part of leaving the claim of the HOA “Kaiserwald-Lviv” without consideration.
Case No. 752/24526/20 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact that a man and a woman lived as one family without registration of marriage in the period from January 1, 2004, to October 1, 2013.
2. The Supreme Court did not agree with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, considering that establishing the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage is not an effective way to protect the right of ownership, because
not resolve the dispute on property division and will require a repeated appeal to the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that everyone has the right to protect their rights, and the court must consider cases within the stated claims. The Supreme Court noted that in this case there is no dispute about the division of property, and the defendant denies the fact of cohabitation, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim cannot be considered in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the appellate court did not assess all the evidence in the case, in particular, the testimony of witnesses, and did not take into account the contradictions in the defendant’s explanations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim to establish the fact of cohabitation of the parties as one family without registration of marriage and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 598/904/18 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 286 (violation of traffic rules) and Part 1 of Article 119 (manslaughter) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, as the court of appeal did not properly assess the defense’s arguments that PERSON_7 acted in a state of necessary defense, defending herself from an attack by a group of people, and also did not convincingly refute the defense’s version that the actions of the victim and the witness, who were pursuing PERSON_7, indicated a real threat to her life and health. The court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal did not take into account the provisions of Part 2 of Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the right to necessary defense, regardless of the possibility of avoiding the socially dangerous encroachment, and also did not properly assess the testimony of the witness, who claimed that the attackers used firearms. Also, the court of cassation noted that the court of appeal did not properly substantiate the rejection of the testimony of the defense witnesses, referring only to the fact that they are hearsay evidence, which is not enough to reject them. Considering the above, the court of cassation concluded that the court of appeal significantly violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which could lead to the incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 27/55(914/319/24) dated 11/13/2025
The subject of the dispute is a request for the distribution of legal costs for professional legal assistance in a commercial case regarding the termination of the right to use a land plot.
The court granted the request for the distribution of legal costs, guided by the fact that legal costs consist of court fees and expenses related to the consideration of the case, including expenses for professional legal assistance. The court
took into account that the party incurred expenses for legal assistance, these expenses are related to the consideration of the case, and there are no objections from the other party regarding these expenses. In addition, the court took into account the participation of the applicant’s representative in court hearings and the submission of a response to the cassation appeal. The court also referred to Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the issue of the distribution of court costs, in particular, the criteria for the reasonableness and proportionality of such costs.
The court ruled to grant the application and recover from the Zhovkva City Council in favor of the Joint Ukrainian-German Enterprise “Trystalko” UAH 30,000.00 for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 758/4894/21 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the convicted person’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding his conviction for robbery (Part 1 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code) and illegal possession of psychotropic substances (Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, confirming the validity of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in committing robbery, taking into account the consistent testimony of the victim, which is consistent with other evidence, in particular, the identification of the convict and the seizure of part of the stolen funds from him. The court noted that the criminal offense under Article 187 of the Criminal Code has an abridged corpus delicti and is considered completed from the moment of the attack, combined with the use or threat of violence dangerous to life or health, regardless of whether the guilty person seized someone else’s property. Also, the court took into account that the convict initially denied the fact of robbery, and then admitted it, which is confirmed by the video recording of the court session. It is important that the appeal did not challenge the proof of guilt under Article 187 of the Criminal Code, but only the severity of the punishment.
3. The court decided to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person – without satisfaction.
Case No. 527/1615/22 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim, and open theft of property under martial law.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, as the court of appeal did not fully verify the arguments of the defense counsel and the accused in the appeal, in particular, regarding the absence of intent to cause grievous bodily harm that resulted in death, considering that the death occurred from peritonitis several days after the injury, and the accused called an ambulance, which the victim refused. Also, the court of appeal did not properly assess the testimony of the victim and the witness regarding the absence of the fact of theft of property, and also did not
conducted a proper assessment of the evidence in terms of its sufficiency and interrelation. The court of cassation pointed to the necessity of a comprehensive and complete analysis of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings and providing exhaustive answers to the arguments of the appeal complaints. Considering the risk of absconding from the court, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
Case No. 642/7051/23 dated 11/17/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_7 against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his indictment for committing intentional murder under aggravating circumstances.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, rejecting the convict’s cassation appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in committing the crime under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, i.e., intentional murder. The court of cassation, having reviewed the case materials, found no grounds to overturn or modify the appealed court decisions. In its ruling, the Supreme Court was guided by the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the powers of the court of cassation and the procedure for cassation proceedings.
The court ruled: to leave the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, to dismiss the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 643/5610/24 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of releasing a person from criminal liability for hooliganism on the basis of reconciliation with the victim.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which released a person from criminal liability for hooliganism due to reconciliation with the victim, arguing that the direct object of hooliganism is public order, and not only the private interests of the victim. The court noted that release from criminal liability on the basis of reconciliation with the victim is possible only when the criminal offense causes harm specifically to the private interests of an individual, and not to public interests. In this case, the person’s actions were aimed at a gross violation of public order, accompanied by particular audacity, infliction of bodily injuries, and damage to property, which disrupted the normal rhythm of life of other persons in a public place. The court also pointed out that the mandatory element of hooliganism is the motive of clear disrespect for society.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the courts of first and appellateinstance and scheduled a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 953/19187/20 dated 14/10/2025
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 the accusation of PERSON_8 and PERSON_6 of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized actions with information processed in electronic computers, automated systems, computer networks or stored on media of such information, committed by a person who has the right to access it).
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the convicted PERSON_6, found no grounds for granting them. The court of cassation, presumably, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_8 and PERSON_6 in committing the crime incriminated to them. Also, possibly, the court of cassation did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could lead to the cancellation or change of court decisions. In addition, the SC could take into account the proportionality of the imposed punishment to the severity of the crime committed and the identity of the convicts. The final decision of the court is based on the case materials, the evidence examined, and the arguments of the parties.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 638/19366/18 dated 17/11/2025
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 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud committed on a particularly large scale).
Unfortunately, the operative part of the decision does not specify the specific arguments that the Supreme Court was guided by. However, considering that the cassation appeal of the defense counsel was partially granted, and the ruling of the appellate court was overturned with the appointment of a new consideration in the court of appellate instance, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court found certain violations of the norms of procedural or substantive law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case. Possibly, the appellate court did not fully investigate the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, did not properly assess the evidence, or incorrectly applied the norms of the criminal law. For a more accurate analysis, the full text of the resolution is needed, which will state the reasons for the decision.
Court decision: To partially grant the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and to schedule a new consideration in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 642/1296/21 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of the arrest from an apartment that is mortgaged, and the termination of the assignment agreement under the mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation
The court of cassation decided that the request to lift the seizure of property should be denied due to the improper composition of the defendants, as the Pension Fund Office, in whose interests the seizure was imposed, was not involved. Regarding the counterclaim, the court noted that the claim for termination of the assignment agreement under the mortgage agreement is not provided for by Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as a means of protection, therefore, it should be denied due to the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection. The court also indicated that the claim for cancellation of information on mortgage registration is derived from the main claim, so it is also not subject to satisfaction. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protecting their rights is an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decision regarding the denial of the initial claim and canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the counterclaim, denying its satisfaction.
**Case No. 639/465/19 dated November 12, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a share of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession, as the plaintiff believed that the apartment was acquired while living with the defendant as a family without registering a marriage, and therefore is their joint property.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he and the defendant lived as a family at the time of the apartment’s acquisition and that the apartment was acquired with their joint funds, and the previous court decision did not establish the fact of the parties’ cohabitation as a family without registering a marriage. The court also took into account that at the time of the apartment’s acquisition, the defendant was in another registered marriage, which excludes the possibility of simultaneously being in actual marital relations with the plaintiff. In addition, the courts of previous instances had already considered a similar dispute between the same parties and concluded that there were no grounds for recognizing the apartment as joint property. The court of cassation also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the bias of the appellate court judge, as disagreement with procedural decisions or the judge’s previous opinion is not a basis for recusal.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 473/3261/23 dated November 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the cancellation of the convicted person’s release from serving a sentence with probation for unauthorized abandonment of the place of service under martial law.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict, stating that the appellate court did not properly assess the fact that the convicted person had contacted the prosecutor’s office with a report of unauthorized abandonmen
evasion of military service before the entry into force of the law prohibiting parole for such crimes. The court noted that the appellate court did not consider the defense’s arguments about the convict’s attempts to resolve the situation by contacting the prosecutor’s office and did not provide convincing arguments proving the absence of legal consequences of this appeal. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court exceeded the scope of the prosecutor’s arguments in the appeal, justifying the decision by referring to a law that was not mentioned by the prosecutor. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court found that the appellate court’s verdict was unfounded and subject to cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and also ordered the immediate release of the convict from custody.
Case No. 183/3285/22 dated 11/11/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment under Part 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (appropriation, embezzlement of property, or acquisition of it through abuse of office).
The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account all the circumstances relevant to the case, in particular the positive characteristics of the convict, sincere repentance, partial compensation for damages, and participation in hostilities. The court emphasized the presumption of imposing a more lenient punishment unless it is proven that it will be insufficient for the correction of the convict. The court also noted that the appellate court did not provide convincing evidence that would indicate the impossibility of correcting the convict without serving a sentence. The court took into account that the convict had no prior convictions, had a permanent place of residence and work, and was positively characterized. The court indicated that the very fact of a person being put on the wanted list does not indicate their awareness of it.
The court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, changing the appellate court’s verdict and releasing the convict from serving the sentence with probation based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 376/90/21 dated 17/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a land plot.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and sent the case for a new trial, since the court of first instance decided the issue of the rights and interests of LLC “FC “Factor Plus” as a mortgagee, without involving it in the case, which is a violation of procedural rules. The appellate court reasonably took into account that LLC “FC “Factor Plus” was not notified of the case hearing and renewed the term for appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that exclusive jurisdiction in cases concerning real estate is determined by the location of this property, and since the dispute concerns land
that the case should be considered at the location of the land plot. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court but rather amount to disagreement with the court decision and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 348/1503/23 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement between the Nadvirna City Council and an individual, the owner of real estate located on this land plot, as concluded.
2. The court granted the claim because the defendant owns real estate on a communal property plot, and the city council decided to lease this plot to the defendant, making the conclusion of the agreement mandatory. The court took into account that freedom of contract is not absolute and cannot violate the provisions of the law, and also that the defendant actually uses the land plot. The court also noted that the sending of the draft agreement to the defendant was duly confirmed, and the terms of the agreement corresponded to the decision of the city council and the standard lease agreement. Additionally, the court referred to the principle of the unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the real estate located on it. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that he does not use the entire area of the plot, as they were not properly confirmed.
3. The court recognized the land lease agreement between the Nadvirna City Council and PERSON_1 as concluded from October 3, 2019, on the terms proposed by the city council.
Case No. 344/10486/22 dated 11/12/2025
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 PERSON_9, PERSON_10, and PERSON_11 under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law, which consisted of a formal review of the appeals of the defense, failure to properly assess the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence (in particular, testimony obtained under pressure, polygraph data, hearsay testimony), the absence of justification for disregarding the evidence of the defense, as well as the absence of clear motivation regarding the proof of the guilt of the convicted persons beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the arguments of the appeals, the investigation of the necessary evidence, the analysis and evaluation of it in its entirety, as well as taking into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of evidence. Also, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not specify which actions of the convicted persons constitute the objective side of treason in the form of assisting a foreign state in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, imposing a preventive measure of detention on the convicts.
**Case №397/1335/24 dated 11/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the court’s jurisdiction regarding claims for invalidation of the decisions of the founder of the farm enterprise, invalidation of new versions of the charter, invalidation of the contract of purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital, and recognition of the right to property rights of a member of the farm enterprise in the order of inheritance.
2. The Supreme Court, in overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the dispute between the parties is corporate, as it concerns the creation, activity, management, and termination of the farm enterprise. The Supreme Court emphasized that the filing of a claim by an individual who is not a business entity does not change the legal nature of the dispute and is not a basis for considering it in the order of civil proceedings. The court also took into account that the claims for invalidation of the founder’s decisions and other documents had already been the subject of consideration by the commercial court, which indicates the existence of a decision that has entered into legal force on the same grounds and between the same parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the correct determination of jurisdiction depends on establishing the existence of a dispute in corporate relations, and in this case, such a dispute exists.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings in the case regarding the claims of a corporate nature.
**Case №922/771/25 dated 11/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of a citizen of Kazakhstan against “Scientific and Production Enterprise “Intechnoprom” LLC regarding the determination of the composition of the company’s participants and the size of their shares, as she believes that she was illegally included in the composition of the participants based on forged documents.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the claim for determining the composition of the LLC participants and the size of their shares is a proper method of protection in this case, as it is aimed at restoring the previous state. The court noted that the proper defendants in such a case are not only the company itself but also persons whose rights and obligations may be changed as a result of the court’s decision, in particular, the former participant of the company whose share was allegedly illegally alienated. Since the plaintiff did not involve the former participant of the company as a defendant, but only as a third party, the appellate court reasonably refused to satisfy the claim, as the claim was not filed against all proper defendants. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law related to the refusal to call a witness, as there was no submission
but no proper statement of the witness.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 754/7038/23 dated 14/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a court decision refusing to satisfy a claim for the protection of consumer rights in connection with the restructuring of a foreign currency loan.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably established the absence of grounds for satisfying the claims of PERSON_2, since JSC “OTP Bank” lawfully carried out the debt restructuring in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending,” and the restructuring agreement complies with the requirements of the law. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the assessment of evidence and re-evaluation of the circumstances of the case, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. Also, the court rejected the reference to the failure to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 201/6750/16, since the legal relations in that case are not similar to those considered in this case. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances gave due assessment to all the arguments and reasoning of the applicant, and the review of the case should not substitute an appeal.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 754/5573/23 dated 14/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the exclusion of information about the father from the birth record of the child.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since a genetic examination with a probability of 99.99% confirmed the biological paternity of the plaintiff in relation to the child, and the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence that would refute this conclusion. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about possible substitution of blood samples, since no proper evidence was provided to confirm these circumstances. The court noted that the absence of a blood sample collection protocol in the materials of the examination is not a violation, since this is not provided for by regulatory acts, and information about the blood collection is contained in the expert’s conclusion itself. In addition, the court indicated that the plaintiff was duly notified of the court hearings. The court of cassation emphasized that the conclusion of the genetic examination is an important evidence in paternity cases, and the courts of previous instances reasonably took it into account.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 15/81 (910/14942/24) dated 13/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff, the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, with its legal successor, the State Property Fund of Ukraine, in the case on…
recognition of public auction results and purchase and sale agreement as invalid and return of property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to replace the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine with the State Property Fund of Ukraine as a legal successor in the case, since the State Enterprise “VO “Kyiv Radio Plant,” regarding the property of which the dispute arose, was transferred from the sphere of management of the Ministry of Economy to the sphere of management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine based on the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court noted that procedural succession involves the transfer of procedural rights and obligations of a party in the case to another person due to the departure of the person in the disputed substantive legal relationship, and for its occurrence, it is necessary to establish the fact of the transfer of the predecessor’s substantive rights to the person. The court also indicated that the provisions of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not prohibit the replacement of the plaintiff by their legal successor, even if the transfer of the plaintiff’s (predecessor’s) substantive rights to the legal successor occurred before such plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court. The arguments of the appellant that at the time of filing the lawsuit, the Ministry of Economy no longer had the authority are not an obstacle to procedural succession.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Vardings” LLC without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/10370/24 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal inaction of the state of Ukraine in connection with the excessively long consideration of the bankruptcy case and the recovery of damages.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that the amount claimed for recovery is not property damage subject to compensation on the basis of Articles 1173, 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the issue of compensation for moral and material damage to the plaintiff for the violation by the State of Ukraine of paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention, on the plaintiff’s complaint about the excessive length of consideration by the courts of various instances of the bankruptcy case, was resolved by the European Court in the decision of May 18, 2017, in the execution of which the plaintiff was paid funds as compensation for moral and material damage. The court of cassation noted that the courts must independently analyze legal relations and assess the relevance and necessity of applying such legal conclusions in each specific case. Also, the cassation court emphasized that the current Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine provides for the replacement of the defendant with the proper one or the involvement of another co-defendant by the court exclusively at the request of the plaintiff. The court of cassation also noted that it cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. В
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
[**Case №908/1344/23(905/797/22) of 11/13/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131852757)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the suretyship agreement concluded between “ZE TEKHNOLODZHI” LLC and “ABRIS DNIPRO” LLC, for the obligations of “VESTA KAR BATERI” LLC.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the suretyship agreement is not fictitious, since the intention of the parties not to create legal consequences was not proven, and there is also no evidence of deception regarding the circumstances of the transaction. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove that all participants in the transaction did not intend to create legal consequences at the time of its commission, and the plaintiff’s arguments are reduced to the economic disadvantage of the agreement, which is not a basis for recognizing it as fictitious. Also, the court rejected the arguments regarding the violation of the director’s powers when concluding the contract, since this issue had already been considered in another case. The court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of the first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “ZE TEKHNOLODZHI” LLC and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
[**Case №461/2470/21 of 11/13/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131853059)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine ( предложение, обещание или предоставление неправомерной выгоды за влияние на принятие решения лицом, уполномоченным на выполнение функций государства – Proposal, promise or granting of unlawful benefit for influence on decision-making by a person authorized to perform state functions).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the previous courts, which found proven the fact of offering and granting undue advantage for influencing an official to assist in the conditional early release of the convicted person. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances properly investigated and evaluated the evidence, in particular, the testimony of witnesses, protocols of covert investigative (search) actions (CISA), and established their consistency. The SC noted that the appellate court checked the defense’s arguments about the provocation of the crime and the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the CISA protocols, and reasonably rejected them, pointing to the absence of violations of human rights and freedoms during the investigative actions. The court also took into account the legal position stated in the resolution of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of March 29, 2021, regarding the subject of the crime under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which can be any person capable of influencing the authorized person. The SC emphasized that the courts reasonably disregarded the testimony of the convicted person, in whose interests the influence was exerted, since he is an interested party.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the ruling of the appellateof Appeal without amendments, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
Case No. 646/1924/23 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages caused, as he claims, by the illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office.
2. The court of cassation instance, partially satisfying the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damages to the plaintiff in connection with his illegal prosecution, which was established by an acquittal verdict of the court. The court emphasized that the amount of compensation for moral damage should be not less than one minimum wage for each month of detention under investigation or trial, based on the amount of the minimum wage in effect at the time the case was considered by the court of first instance. At the same time, the court of cassation instance pointed out the error of the courts of previous instances regarding the indication in the operative part of the decision of a specific body from which funds should be recovered, since the defendant in such cases is the state, and the funds are subject to recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the operative part of the decision should not contain information about the subject of its execution, numbers and types of accounts from which funds will be debited without dispute.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, amending the operative part of the decision of the court of first instance, indicating the recovery of funds from the State Budget of Ukraine, and leaving the court decisions unchanged in other parts.
Case No. 373/945/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the inaction of the private enforcement officer regarding the failure to remove the arrest from his salary account and against the decision to arrest this account.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the court of appeal violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, allowed mutually exclusive conclusions in the reasoning and operative parts of the ruling on the refusal to satisfy the application for recovery of expenses for legal aid. The court of appeal, on the one hand, noted the need to substantiate valid reasons for not submitting evidence before the end of the court debates, which implies leaving the application without consideration, and on the other hand, refused to satisfy the application on the merits. The court of cassation instance also drew attention to the fact that the court of appeal did not take into account the date of drawing up the act of acceptance and transfer of services provided and did not properly apply the provisions of part eight of Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in conjunction with part one of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as explained by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme
