**Case No. 753/4125/23 dated 11/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the imposition of the sentence and the refusal to grant release from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The court of cassation, granting the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, took into account that PERSON_7 is a first-time offender, has positive references, sincerely repented of the committed act, actively contributed to the disclosure of crimes, has a disease, and is raising a child on his own. The court also took into account that PERSON_7 has been using narcotic drugs for a long time and is undergoing methadone therapy, and committed the crimes for the first time, was not the initiator of criminal activity, as well as his post-criminal behavior. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that it was possible to reform PERSON_7 without actual imprisonment, establishing a probationary period. Also, in view of the provisions of Article 77 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court decided that confiscation of property as an additional punishment cannot be imposed.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and released PERSON_7 from serving the sentence with probation, establishing a probationary period.
**Case No. 295/12521/20 dated 11/13/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the acquittal of PERSON_7 and PERSON_6, accused of extortion and illegal seizure of a vehicle.
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial in the appellate court. In making this decision, the court was guided by Articles 433, 434, 438, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for cassation appeal and the powers of the court of cassation. The judges decided that the appellate court had made errors in the consideration of the case, which led to the unjustified acquittal of the accused. For a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case, a repeated appellate review is necessary, taking into account the prosecutor’s arguments. The court did not specify the specific errors of the appellate court, as only the operative part of the decision was announced.
The court ruled to overturn the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal dated January 10, 2025, and order a new trial in the appellate court.
**Case No. 234/17293/20 dated 11/13/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in the death of the victim).
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, amending the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court took into account the arguments of the cassation appeals, in particular regarding the need to mitigate the punishment and reduce the amount of moral damages.
Having made the decision, the court proceeded from the general principles of fairness, proportionality, and individualization of punishment, and also took into account the property status of the convicted person and the amount of the claimed civil lawsuits. The court also took into account the circumstances of the crime and the consequences it caused. The reduction in the amount of moral damages was justified by the need to maintain a reasonable balance between the interests of the victims and the capabilities of the convicted person.
The court decided to amend the sentence and ruling, mitigating the punishment of PERSON_7 to 4 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years, and also to reduce the amount of moral damages to UAH 500,000.00 to each of the victims.
Case No. 522/3619/18 dated 11/13/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for robbery (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and theft (Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), as well as the appellate court’s ruling, which left the verdict unchanged.
The court of cassation instance, having checked the case materials, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in committing the crimes imputed to her, in particular, took into account the testimony of the victim, the protocol of examination of video recordings from video surveillance cameras, the protocol of presenting a person for identification, expert opinions, as well as other evidence, evaluated in totality. The court noted that the local court adhered to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the convicted person about the non-compliance of the punishment with the severity of the crime and her personality are unfounded, since the court took into account the degree of severity of the crimes, data on the identity of the guilty person, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment. The court also rejected the arguments about the appellate court’s violation of the procedure for considering the case due to the absence of the victims, as they were duly notified of the date, time, and place of the appellate review. The court did not apply the law on decriminalization of theft, as the amount of the stolen property exceeded the established limit for administrative responsibility at the time of the crime.
The court decided to leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person – without satisfaction.
Case No. 369/11120/21 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 a person under Part 1 of Article 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of the established rules for the circulation of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues or precursors).
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as it did not properly check all the arguments set out in the defense counsel’s appeal and did not provide exhaustive answers to them. In particular, the appellate court did not substantiate with what evidence it was confirmed that it was the convicted person who sold the medicinal product “Pentalgin IC” without a prescription. Also, the appellate court did not check the defense counsel’s arguments that “Pentalgin
“IC” cannot be the subject of a criminal offense under Article 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and did not assess the letters of the State Service of Ukraine on Medicines and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine provided by the defense. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of a thorough examination and analysis of the evidence in the case by the appellate court, considering its role as the last instance for verifying the completeness of the trial and the correctness of establishing the factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 343/982/24 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of hereditary property, namely 1/4 share of commercial premises.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, as the plaintiff withdrew the claim in the appellate instance, motivating this by the fact that the defendant filed an application with the notary to recognize the disputed property as jointly owned property of the spouses, which eliminated obstacles to obtaining a certificate of inheritance. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably accepted the withdrawal of the claim, as the application met the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the plaintiff’s representative confirmed awareness of the consequences of such withdrawal. The Supreme Court also indicated that the subsequent discovery of new circumstances, such as the existence of other seizures of property, is not a basis for canceling the ruling on acceptance of the withdrawal of the claim. Regarding the defendant’s request for reimbursement of court costs, the court agreed with the appellate court that since the defendant voluntarily took actions that became the basis for the plaintiff to appeal to the court, there are no grounds for reimbursement of costs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 372/2109/20 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of illegal state registration of land plots and the cancellation of property rights to them, initiated by PJSC “Obukhivske” against the Main Department of the State Geocadastre and other defendants.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance, the order of the Obukhiv District State Administration, on the basis of which the privatization of the disputed land plots was carried out, was valid, and the appellate court mistakenly took into account the circumstances of another case that did not have preclusive effect at the time the case was considered by the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by courts of another jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provision of land plots to members of PJSC “Obukhivske” was lawfully carried out under the project of privatization of land of state and communal agricultural enterprises, institutions and organizations, without developing another type of documentation.
regarding land management. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court had no grounds to refer to circumstances established in another case, since at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance, the decision of the appellate court in that case had not yet been made.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, denying the claim of PrJSC “Obukhivske”.
Case No. 295/12521/20 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal verdict regarding PERSON_7 and PERSON_6, accused of extortion and illegal seizure of a vehicle.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to significant violations of the criminal procedure law, namely: the appellate court did not fully examine the evidence referred to by the prosecutor, did not provide it with proper assessment, did not notify the victim of the time and place of the appellate review, which is an unconditional ground for overturning the decision. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the legal position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search in urgent cases, if permission from the investigating judge was subsequently obtained. The court of cassation emphasized the need to ensure the participation of the victim in the court session and the provision of a correct assessment of the admissibility of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 297/2179/20,303/2179/20 dated 11/13/2025
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 appellate court regarding his conviction for armed robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, combined with violence dangerous to the life and health of the person attacked, for the purpose of seizing property in especially large amounts, as well as for illegal purchase, possession and carrying of firearms and ammunition without the permission provided for by law.
2. The Supreme Court, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, noted that the conclusions of the courts regarding the guilt of PERSON_6 are based on objectively established circumstances, confirmed by evidence examined and verified during the trial, in particular, on the testimony of the victim, witnesses, protocols of the scene inspection, expert opinions, video recordings from surveillance cameras. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances lawfully took into account the testimony of the victim given to another panel of the court, since his interrogation during the new trial was impossible due to being abroad, and the parties to the criminal proceedings were provided with procedural guarantees. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments of the convicted person regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the conclusions of expert examinations conducted by the institutions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, since the expert institutions are independent
and were procedurally independent in their activities, and the very fact that the expert institution belongs to the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs does not indicate the experts’ interest in the case. The court of cassation also found justified the decision of the appellate court to refuse a re-examination of the evidence, since the defense did not prove that the court of first instance examined it incompletely or with violations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal, and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 369/11120/21 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 320 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of the established rules for handling microbiological or other biological agents or toxins).
2. The operative part of the resolution does not state the arguments of the court. Therefore, I cannot provide information about the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 209/2493/22 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of a car from someone else’s illegal possession and the return of unjustly acquired funds.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that PERSON_4 unjustifiably acquired funds in the amount of 15,000 US dollars from PERSON_2, since the car sale agreement, in payment of which the funds were transferred, was never concluded due to circumstances beyond the control of PERSON_2. The court also noted that the receipt for the funds received was the subject of examination in other court cases, and its authenticity is not in doubt. The arguments about the statute of limitations being missed were rejected, as its course was extended for the duration of the quarantine and martial law. The court also rejected the arguments about improper notification of PERSON_4 about the consideration of the case, as he filed a motion to have the case heard in his absence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 202/2883/22 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child and the recovery of alimony.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which determined the child’s place of residence with the mother, based on the best interests of the child. The court took into account that the father was obstructing the child’s communication with the mother, which is confirmed by numerous pieces of evidence. The appellate court also heard the child’s opinion, but noted that she was under the influence of the father. The court emphasized that the equality of parental rights is derived from the rights and interests of the child to harmonious development. The court also took intotaking into account the remoteness of the parents’ places of residence (Dnipro and Poltava) and the general situation in the country, in particular the proximity of Dnipro to the front line. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding discrimination against the father and violation of the norms of procedural law. The court also refused to grant the motion to request an opinion on compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, as court decisions cannot be reviewed by other bodies outside the judiciary.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 263/13128/18 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for crimes related to terrorist activities.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, amending the ruling of the court of appeal, but left the verdict of the court of first instance unchanged. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in assisting a terrorist organization and illegal handling of explosives, as well as committing a terrorist act. The court rejected the defense counsel’s arguments regarding violation of the right to defense, inadmissibility of evidence, and illegality of investigative actions. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to include the term of PERSON_7’s pre-trial detention during the appellate review of the case, in accordance with Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as amended by Law No. 838-VIII, which provides for the inclusion of one day of pre-trial detention as two days of imprisonment. The court took into account that the crimes were committed before June 20, 2017, and the preventive measure in the form of detention continued to be applied after that date.
3. The court decided to amend the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the inclusion of the term of PERSON_7’s pre-trial detention, including the term of his pre-trial detention from November 20, 2023 to April 23, 2024 and from November 13, 2024 to May 27, 2025 inclusive, at the rate of one day for two.
Case No. 361/2840/21 dated 10/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_7 on charges of illegal purchase, storage, transportation for the purpose of sale and sale of a narcotic drug in especially large quantities (Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court, upholding the acquittal, noted that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of PERSON_7’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, the court drew attention to the discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses and the inconsistencies between the person involved in the operational purchase on the video recordings and the person indicated in the case materials as PERSON_8. The court also took into account that the search at the place of residence of PERSON_7 was conducted only a long time after the operational purchase, and no narcotic drugs were found during it. The appellate
The court agreed with the conclusion of the local court that the prosecution had not refuted the defense’s claim that the person in the video recordings of the crime control was not PERSON_8, whose written consent to engage in confidential cooperation is contained in the case file, but a completely different person who had not given such consent to the pre-trial investigation authority. The appellate court found the prosecutor’s appeal arguments to be unfounded, namely, that the person involved in confidential cooperation was assigned the personal data of PERSON_8, which is false, but the information about this was destroyed due to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and therefore the real witness PERSON_8, who could confirm the fact of the sale, was not involved and was not questioned by the court, despite repeated requests from the prosecution to question her, given that the case file does not contain any information that these are changed personal data.
The court ruled to leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 302/1098/24 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for theft committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case and reached a reasonable conclusion about the guilt of PERSON_7 in the secret theft of property. The court noted that the fact of secret theft was established, since PERSON_7, taking advantage of the owner’s absence, took possession of a bag with a phone, did not report the find, and did not take measures to return the property to the owner. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments about the lack of intent to steal, indicating that PERSON_7’s actions indicate an intention to appropriate the property. The court took into account that the property was not finally lost by the owner, and PERSON_7 had the opportunity to establish the owner and return the property. In addition, the court recognized as justified the determination of the mother of the minor who forgot the things as the victim, as this complies with the norms of procedural law.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal, and to leave the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 761/5590/18 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 on the basis of paragraph 10, part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in connection with the expiration of the term of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances that closed the criminal proceedings, given that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the calculation of the terms of the pre-trial investigation and their extension. The court of cassation emphasized that in criminal proceedings, information about which was entered into the ERDR before March 16, 2018, the extension of the terms of the pre-trial investigation falls under the competence
tency of the prosecutor of the respective level. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that in this proceeding, the terms of the pre-trial investigation were extended by the Deputy Prosecutor General, who had the authority to do so. Also, the Supreme Court reminded that paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to criminal proceedings, the information about which was entered into the ERDR after March 16, 2018.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Case No. 757/76591/17-ц dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Kyiv, the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, and the National Police of Ukraine for compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of bodies engaged in operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, and the prosecutor’s office.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, as the appellate court mistakenly believed that the plaintiff had appealed to improper defendants, failing to take into account that in cases of compensation for damage caused by the state, the state is the proper defendant as a participant in civil relations, and the bodies whose actions caused the damage are involved in the case as third parties. The court noted that the appellate court did not review the decision of the court of first instance on the merits and did not motivate the rejection of the arguments of the appeal regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for damage to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the involvement or non-involvement of the prosecutor’s office or another body in such categories of disputes does not affect the correctness of determining the proper defendant in the case, since the defendant is the state. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court, limiting itself to a reference to the filing of a claim against an improper defendant, did not review the decision of the court of first instance on the merits and did not motivate the rejection of the arguments of the appeal regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for damage to the plaintiff.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 234/17293/20 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the measure of punishment and the amount of compensation for moral damage in the criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, took into account that the punishment should be not only a penalty, but also a means of correction and prevention of new crimes, based on the principles of individualization and justice. The court took into account the young age of the convicted person, sincere remorse, the absence of aggravating circumstances, positive characteristics, as well as voluntary partial compensation for damage to the victims. The court also took into account the post-criminal behavior of the convicted person, who did notleft the crime scene and tried to help the victim. Considering all these circumstances in totality, the court concluded that it was necessary to mitigate the main punishment. In addition, the court found the amount of moral damage awarded by the courts of previous instances to be excessive and reduced it, guided by the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and balance.
3. The court partially granted the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense attorney, changed the court decisions regarding PERSON_7, mitigating the punishment to 4 years of imprisonment and reducing the amount of compensation for moral damage to each of the victims to UAH 500,000.
Case No. 753/4125/23 dated 11/13/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of crimes related to narcotic substances and medications.
The court of cassation instance, having satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, changed the appellate court’s verdict, considering certain circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person. The court decided that there are grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for exemption from serving a sentence with probation. This decision was made, presumably, taking into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person, the absence of prior convictions, sincere remorse, or other mitigating circumstances that allowed the court to conclude that the convicted person could be reformed without actual imprisonment. The court also took into account that release on probation would contribute to the resocialization of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. In connection with the change in the verdict, the court ordered the release of the convicted person from custody.
The court decided to change the appellate court’s verdict and release the person from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 263/13128/18 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute was an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the crediting of the term of pre-trial detention towards the term of punishment for the convicted PERSON_7.
The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, changing the appellate court’s ruling. The court took into account the provisions of Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (as amended by the Law of Ukraine No. 838-VIII), which provides for crediting the term of pre-trial detention towards the term of punishment at the rate of one day of pre-trial detention for two days of imprisonment. The court noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account the periods of the person’s detention, which are subject to crediting on preferential terms. Also, the court refused to transfer the criminal proceedings for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, finding no grounds for this. The court specified the specific periods of pre-trial detention that are subject to crediting towards the term of imprisonment at the rate of one day for two.
The court ruled to change the appellate court’s ruling and credit the term of pre-trial detention of PERSON_7 towards the term of imprisonment at the rate of one day for two, in accordance withPart 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
**Case No. 161/11356/20 dated 11/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (misappropriation of another’s property by an official abusing their official position) and a civil claim for damages.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal regarding the refusal of the court of first instance to grant the motion for a handwriting examination, which was to establish whether PERSON_6 actually received the decision on the cancellation of the registration of “Aiver” LLC as a VAT payer, which could have affected the establishment of intent in her actions. Also, the appellate court did not properly assess the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s lack of legal grounds to file a civil claim in the interests of the Lutsk District Council, with which “Aiver” LLC had no contractual relations, did not verify the arguments of the appeal regarding the local court’s exceeding the scope of the charges brought, and regarding the court’s failure to examine the documents of the commercial case. These violations are significant, as they could have prevented the court from rendering a lawful and well-founded decision.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 922/82/20 dated 09/18/2025**
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition of auctions as invalid, the certificate of ownership, the cancellation of decisions, and the recovery of property.
The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed with their conclusions. The courts of previous instances likely thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case, assessed the evidence, and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law. The lack of detailed information about the parties’ arguments and the court’s reasoning in the provided excerpt makes a complete analysis difficult. However, it can be assumed that the courts took into account the legality of the auctions, the lawfulness of acquiring ownership, and the existence of grounds for claiming the property. It is important that several judges expressed dissenting opinions, which may indicate the controversial nature of certain aspects of the case.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals and uphold the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 904/3170/23 dated 11/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of “Assol” LLC against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the execution of a court decision on the release of an illegally occupied land plot by demolishing structures.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which had refused to satisfy the complaint of “Assol” LLC against the actions of the private enforcement officer. The court noted that “Assol” LLC missed the deadline for appealing the decision to open enforcement proceedings, as it applied
filed a complaint with the court after the expiration of the 10-day period from the date of receipt of the ruling, without providing a motion to renew the term. In addition, the court indicated that the actions of the private enforcement officer during the execution of the court order were carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” and the complainant’s arguments regarding the violation of procedural law by the court of first instance were not confirmed. The court also took into account that “ASSOLE” LLC was properly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing, but its representative did not appear and did not file a motion to postpone the consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “ASSOLE” LLC and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 906/161/23 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs, namely, the costs of professional legal assistance, between the parties in a commercial case.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the application of “Avtomahistral” PE for the distribution of court costs, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff provided evidence of incurring expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 30,000.00, namely: an agreement on the provision of legal assistance, an additional agreement, an invoice for payment, an act of provision of legal assistance, and a payment instruction. The court took into account that the plaintiff reported the expected expenses in the response to the cassation appeal, complying with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that providing a response to the cassation appeal is an important service aimed at conveying the position of the party. The court also noted that the defendant did not prove the disproportionality of the costs of legal assistance, and simple disagreement with the amount of expenses is not a basis for refusing their reimbursement. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the fixed amount of the fee and the obligation to detail the description of work only to the extent necessary to determine the amount of expenses.
3. The court decided to grant the application of “Avtomahistral” PE and recover from the Service for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure in the Zhytomyr Region in favor of “Avtomahistral” PE UAH 30,000.00 for legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 205/9270/24 dated 19/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, believing that the appeal was filed after the deadline. The court of cassation emphasized that, in accordance with the fifth part of Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the decision is made in the absence of the parties to the case, the court must indicate the date of the decision and the date of drafting the full court decision in the operative part. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the date of preparation of the full
of the decision (April 04, 2025) in the introductory and operative parts, as well as information on the date of sending the decision to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (April 09, 2025) and the date of providing public access (April 10, 2025), which indicates the unfoundedness of the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the missed deadline. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court mistakenly concluded that the appeal was filed after the deadline for appealing, which led to the refusal to open appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 920/722/25 dated 11/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for apartment building management services.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal, as the defendant (City Center for Physical Health of the Population “Sport for All”) missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. The court noted that sending the court decision to the defendant’s electronic account complies with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and is sufficient for proper notification. Also, the representative of the defendant (lawyer) being on vacation is not a valid reason for renewing the deadline for appealing, as the party must exercise due diligence in complying with deadlines and organizing representation. The court of cassation emphasized that the obligation to prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline lies with the appellant, and in this case, the appellant did not provide convincing evidence of the objective impossibility of timely appealing the decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 580/3637/21 dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of decisions of previous instances regarding granting permission to the tax authority to repay the tax debt of PrJSC “Azot” at the expense of property that is under tax lien.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully establish the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the taxpayer’s arguments regarding the рассрочка (installment plan) of the tax debt and its partial repayment based on a court decision in another case, which could indicate that the controlling authority prematurely applied to the court with a claim for permission to repay the tax debt at the expense of property that is under tax lien. The court also noted that the courts did not examine the data of the integrated taxpayer card, the sequence of repayment of the tax debt, payment orders by which the tax debt was repaid, as well as the presence or absence of court decisions by which the defendant was assigned a certain value.
additional obligations that have entered into legal force and for which the plaintiff was granted an installment plan for the payment of the tax debt. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the possibility of repaying the amount of the tax debt from funds excludes the possibility for the tax authority to take measures to repay the tax debt at the expense of property. The court of cassation referred to a similar legal conclusion set forth in the постановa of the Supreme Court of January 28, 2020, in case No. 520/3516/19.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 904/6730/20 (904/2816/23) dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the decision of a private notary on the state registration of ownership of real estate objects acquired at public auctions in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the Ministry of Justice rightfully canceled the notary’s decision, since a complete package of documents confirming the legality of construction and commissioning of the objects was not provided for the registration of ownership of the disputed objects, and there was no registration of ownership by the previous owner. The court noted that the alienation of property at auction does not exempt from the obligation to comply with the requirements of the law regarding the registration of ownership of a real estate object. The court also emphasized the importance of the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it, which means the need to take into account the rights of the owner of the land plot when resolving issues regarding real estate on it. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments about the violation of the terms of appeal, since no circumstances were established that would indicate that the Council was aware of the appealed decisions of the notary earlier than it was stated. The court also took into account that in another case, the fact of unauthorized construction of the disputed objects was established.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeals of “Agrocenter-Ukraine” LLC and “Tsukorprom” LLC without satisfaction, and the постановa of the appellate court and the decision of the court of first instance – unchanged.
Case No. 372/3100/23 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to признать отдельные пункты предварительных договоров купли-продажи земельных участков удаваемыми.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, focused on the issue of whether simulation is allowed in part of the terms of a transaction in accordance with Article 235 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, that is, whether it is possible to признать a transaction simulated if it conceals not another transaction, but the same one, but on different terms. The court emphasized that at the level of the provisions of Article 235 of the Civil Code, simulation is предусмотрено regarding the type of transaction, but simulation is not allowed in part of the terms of the transaction. The court noted that
The preliminary contract cannot be qualified as a sham in the part of its individual terms, and it was on these grounds that the claim should have been denied. The court also indicated that references to the memorandum and documents regarding cash funds may be considered in another case regarding the recovery of funds. The court also noted that the court of first instance made a mistake by citing mutually exclusive grounds for denying the claim.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left the decision to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 160/17379/21 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of head of the tax service department, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of unpaid wages, severance pay, average earnings for the period of forced absence, and moral damages.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that when reducing a civil service position, the employer is obliged to offer the civil servant all available vacant positions, and not just one, taking into account their qualifications. The court emphasized that the assessment of the qualifications and work performance of employees is not exclusively the discretionary power of the manager, but requires an objective and comprehensive analysis, supported by relevant evidence. Also, the court noted that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the plaintiff’s preferential right to remain in employment was taken into account during the dismissal, in particular, family circumstances and long service. Regarding the claims for recovery of the allowance for the intensity of labor, the court agreed with the previous instances that this is the discretionary power of the manager, but the courts must check whether the conclusions of the subject of power regarding the circumstances in the case are arbitrary and irrational, not supported by evidence, or erroneous regarding the facts. Regarding the expenses related to the plaintiff’s arrival to court, the court indicated that the plaintiff provided all the necessary supporting documents, and they are subject to reimbursement.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in the part of the satisfied claims, and also ordered to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff court costs related to the consideration of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 300/1738/20 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision by which the enterprise’s monetary obligation for value added tax was increased.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering cassation appeals, focused on several key aspects: firstly, whether the appellate court lawfully refused to close the appellate proceedings, considering the tax authority’s arguments regarding the lack of powers
regarding the authority of the attorney who represented the interests of the enterprise that joined the individual’s appeal; secondly, whether the rights of the former director of the enterprise were violated as a result of the tax assessment notice; and thirdly, whether it was lawful at all to consider the application to join the appeal after the appellate proceedings had been closed on the main person’s appeal. The court emphasized that the right to appeal must be exercised properly, and the institution of joining an appeal is auxiliary and cannot exist separately from the main appeal. The court also noted that a person who joins an appeal does not acquire the status of appellant if the proceedings on the main appeal are closed.
4. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of the tax authority and the individual against the appellate court’s ruling, and to grant the cassation appeal of the tax authority against the appellate court’s decision, overturning the appellate court’s decision.
**Case No. 300/1738/20 of 20/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ivano-Frankivsk region regarding the Private Enterprise “ZAHOTPRODUKT.”
2. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, overturning the appellate court’s decision. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments that guided its decision. Therefore, I cannot provide information on why the Supreme Court decided to overturn the appellate court’s decision and grant the tax authority’s cassation appeal. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision, which sets out the court’s reasoning, is necessary.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ivano-Frankivsk region and overturned the decision of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 300/1738/20 of 20/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ivano-Frankivsk region regarding the Private Enterprise “ZAHOTPRODUKT.”
2. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, overturning the appellate court’s decision. In the ruling regarding another cassation appeal, the court did not provide specific arguments, only stating that it was dismissed. Regarding the overturning of the appellate court’s decision, it is likely that the court of cassation found violations of substantive or procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute on the merits. For a more accurate analysis, the full text of the decision is needed to understand which arguments were decisive for the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, overturning the appellate court’s decision, and the cassation appeals of the Main
