Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 27/11/2025

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances to close the criminal proceedings, as the prosecution did not provide adequate evidence of timely notification to the suspect and his defender about the completion of the pre-trial investigation, as provided for in Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the copies of the investigator’s report, the outgoing correspondence registration log, and the “Daimex” company’s invoice provided by the prosecutor are not proper evidence of notification of the completion of the investigation. Also, the court took into account that the “Daimex” company is not a postal operator registered in accordance with the law. The court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the fact of notification of the defense about the completion of the pre-trial investigation must be properly confirmed, which was not done in this case. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court rightfully recognized the re-examination of the motion to close the proceedings as lawful, since the previous court decision on this issue is not final.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 127/3713/17 dated 11/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of embezzlement of property in large amounts, committed through abuse of office.

2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, granting the defender’s cassation appeal. The reasons for this decision are not stated in the operative part, but it can be assumed that significant violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of substantive law were found, which affected the legality and validity of the verdict. The court could have taken into account the defender’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the court’s findings with the actual circumstances of the case, violation of the right to defense, or other procedural violations that could have led to the wrongful conviction of the person. Also, the court released the convicted person from custody.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 336/4830/22 dated 11/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the convicted person’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling in the criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale).

The court does not provide any arguments, because
The ruling contains only the operative part. The judges noted that drafting the full text of the ruling requires significant time, so they limited themselves to announcing only the operative part. In fact, the panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court decided that the case requires consideration by the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court. The reasons for this decision are not specified in the operative part.

The court ruled to transfer the proceedings on the convict’s cassation appeal for consideration by the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court.

Case No. 560/14319/24 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case regarding the accrual of a monthly supplement to the pension.

2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, namely paragraph 5 of part two of Article 236 of the CAS of Ukraine, since the suspension of proceedings is possible only in the case of review of the case in cassation procedure by the chamber, joint chamber or Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, and case No. 400/6254/24 was considered by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in appellate procedure. The court of cassation instance noted that the list of grounds for suspension of proceedings is exhaustive and not subject to broad interpretation. At the same time, the cassation court took into account that the appellate court had already resumed proceedings in the case and rendered a decision on the merits, therefore there are no grounds for sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to partially satisfy the cassation appeal and to cancel the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings.

Case No. 718/2895/24 dated 19/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the provided text, since only the operative part of the ruling is provided. It can be assumed that the court of cassation instance found certain violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, or disagreed with the assessment of evidence provided by the appellate court. A complete text of the ruling, which would outline the reasons for the decision, is necessary for a more accurate analysis.

The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 227/505/24 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of living as one family
without registration of marriage and division of property acquired during this time.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which agreed with the court of first instance regarding the establishment of the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased lived as one family, since the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence, such as cohabitation, running a joint household, having a common budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses. The appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, satisfied the claim for division of property, recognizing the car as jointly owned property, since the defendants did not rebut the presumption of commonality of property acquired during cohabitation, and did not prove that the car was purchased exclusively with the personal funds of the deceased. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the fact of cohabitation cannot be confirmed only by the testimony of witnesses, since the decision was based on a set of evidence, including written evidence. Arguments regarding the failure to involve the relevant guardianship authority were also rejected, as this issue did not affect the merits of the dispute.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decision of the court of first instance in the unappealed part and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.

Case No. 911/2666/15 dated November 20, 2025

1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party (plaintiff) in the case of declaring a contract invalid and applying the consequences of invalidity of a transaction in connection with legal succession.

2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which granted the application for replacement of the plaintiff, on the grounds that the appellate court did not take into account previous court decisions in cases No. 810/1643/17 and No. 910/11071/23, which had already established the circumstances regarding the proper creditor under the loan agreement, which is the subject of the dispute in this case, and therefore violated the principle of legal certainty (res judicata). The court of cassation noted that in previous cases, the courts had already decided the issue of the transfer of creditor’s rights under the loan agreement to another person and the termination of obligations under this agreement in another part, and these decisions are binding on all parties and must be taken into account when considering other disputes between the same parties. The court also pointed out that PJSC “Zlatobank” did not appeal the court decisions in proceeding No. 810/1643/17 regarding the replacement by a legal successor, and therefore the subsequent sale of such a claim is contrary to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and is evidence of contradictory behavior.

3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and refused to grant the application for replacement of a party (plaintiff) in the case due to legal succession.

Case No. 917/692/24 dated November 19, 2025

1. Subject of thethe subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Poltavagaz” in favor of LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of debt for supplied natural gas, penalties, three percent per annum and inflation losses.

2. The court dismissed the claim because LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” had no legal grounds for supplying natural gas to PJSC “Poltavagaz” as a “supplier of last resort,” since at the time of gas supply there were restrictions on the term of gas supply by the “supplier of last resort” (60 days per year), which had already been exhausted, and there was also overdue debt of PJSC “Poltavagaz” to LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine.” The court also found that a natural gas sale and purchase agreement No. 101 was concluded between the parties, and although PJSC “Poltavagaz” did not provide a bank guarantee as stipulated by the terms of the agreement, LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” still supplied gas, and PJSC “Poltavagaz” paid for it. The court noted that both parties violated the terms of the Regulation on the Imposition of Special Obligations (PSO), but this does not negate the fact of the conclusion and execution of agreement No. 101. The court also took into account that when concluding agreement No. 101, PJSC “Poltavagaz” had legitimate expectations of receiving gas at a fixed price established by the Regulation on the Imposition of Special Obligations (PSO).

3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine,” and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 926/1448-b/24 (926/2710/24) dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the assignment of claim agreement concluded between the bankrupt (LLC “Remari”) and the defendant (LLC “Kapablanka”).

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that the agreement was concluded during the period of seizure of the debtor’s property in enforcement proceedings, which indicates bad faith on the part of the debtor and abuse of rights in order to avoid fulfilling obligations to creditors. The court noted that the assignment of the claim occurred without the debtor receiving adequate compensation, as settlements were made by offsetting counter homogeneous claims, which did not improve the debtor’s solvency. The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to the initiating creditor, which became the basis for opening bankruptcy proceedings. The court emphasized that both a paid and a gratuitous agreement can be fraudulent, and in this case, the debtor’s actions were aimed at avoiding satisfying the creditors’ claims, which is unacceptable. The court also noted that in a claim proceeding for resolving disputes on the invalidity of a transaction on the grounds of its fraudulent nature, the application of various legislative grounds regarding the signs of fraudulent nature of the disputed transaction is allowed regardless.
depending on the specialization of the grounds.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

**Case No. 676/3819/22 dated 11/18/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the release of a person from serving a sentence with probation for a crime under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm).

2. The court of cassation instance upheld the appellate court’s ruling, agreeing with the possibility of releasing the person from serving the sentence with probation, as the appellate court took into account mitigating circumstances, positive characteristics of the accused, his volunteer activities, official employment, partial compensation for damages, admission of guilt and sincere repentance. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court duly considered all the circumstances of the case in their entirety, which indicate the possibility of correction of the convicted person without actual imprisonment. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the opinion of the victim is not decisive in sentencing, as the court exercises its discretionary powers in accordance with the rule of law.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative.

**Case No. 459/1616/24 dated 11/20/2025**

The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription for military service during mobilization, for a special period).

The reasoning of the court is not provided in this operative part of the ruling.

Court decision: the defender’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court were upheld.

**Case No. 757/18643/25-к dated 11/20/2025**

The subject of the dispute is the accused’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within different appellate jurisdictions.

The reasoning of the court is not provided in the operative part of the ruling. From the text, it can only be understood that the accused requested to transfer the consideration of his case to another court, which is under the jurisdiction of another appellate court. The court probably considered the arguments of the accused, but did not find sufficient grounds to grant the motion, since the operative part does not contain any justification for the decision. The full text of the ruling, which will state the court’s reasoning, will be announced later.

The court ruled to dismiss the accused’s motion to change jurisdiction.

**Case No. 947/2309/21 dated 11/19/2025**
**Case No. 161/13637/21 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for attempted murder committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy for mercenary motives.

2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment and ruling, as it found that the courts of previous instances had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence provided by the parties, and reached a reasonable conclusion regarding the person’s guilt in committing the crime. The court noted that the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies, failure to take into account the convicted person’s state of health, and the unfoundedness of the decision to partially satisfy the victim’s civil claim are groundless, since the courts of previous instances properly assessed them and reasonably rejected them. The court also emphasized that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided exhaustive answers to them, and therefore its ruling is legal, justified and motivated. In addition, the court of cassation noted that it does not have the right to establish and recognize as proven circumstances that were not established in the appealed court decision, or to decide on the reliability of any particular piece of evidence.

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

**Case No. 754/4243/23 dated 11/20/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).

Unfortunately, the provided operative part of the resolution does not contain the arguments that the court of cassation used when making the decision. The text only shows that the defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged. To provide a more detailed answer, the full text of the court decision is required.

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

**Case No. 711/2733/23 dated 11/20/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues) and Part 1 of Article 321 (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, distribution of poisonous or potent substances) of the Criminal Code
of Ukraine.
2. The arguments of the court are not provided in the operative part of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.

Case №644/2465/23 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (collaborative activity).

2. The arguments of the court are not provided in the operative part of the decision. It is clear from the text of the resolution only that the cassation court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, leaving them unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – unsatisfied. The full text of the resolution, where the motives of the court must be stated, will be announced later.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 5 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.

Case №913/266/20 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of Enertek LLC against Ukrainian Innovation Company PJSC within the framework of the bankruptcy case of the latter.

2. The cassation court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since they, rejecting the creditor’s claims, did not properly assess the submitted evidence, in particular, bank statements that could confirm the movement of funds under bank deposit agreements. The previous instances did not take into account the principle of adversarial proceedings, limiting themselves only to stating the absence of a proper calculation of the amounts claimed for recovery, instead of giving the debtor the opportunity to refute the evidence and calculations submitted by the creditor. Also, the courts did not investigate the issue of the validity of the agreements on the basis of which the claims were filed, and did not take into account that the obligation to prove the circumstances that may be the basis for reducing the amount claimed for recovery rests with the debtor. The cassation court emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence available in the case in their entirety, as well as the absence of powers of the cassation court to establish the circumstances of the case and assess the evidence.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case №367/2027/16-ц dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the defendants from a residential building owned by the plaintiff, and obliging them to move to an apartment.

2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) established
found a violation by Ukraine of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention in the case of “Biliavska v. Ukraine”. The courts of previous instances did not take into account the vulnerability of the applicant (an elderly woman) who was trying to regain access to her home, and applied only the norms of the Housing Code of Ukraine (HC of Ukraine), without providing proper justification for the precedence of these norms over the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CC of Ukraine). The courts did not assess the evidence provided by the plaintiff, in particular, appeals to law enforcement agencies and conclusions of local police inspectors. **** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that the HC of Ukraine does not reflect all the realities of today, and the CC of Ukraine is a codified act of legislation that was adopted later in time, therefore, the temporal conflict is resolved in favor of the norms of the CC of Ukraine.

3. The Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 466/4585/23 dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the life annuity agreement and the return of property to the ownership of the transferor due to improper performance of duties by the acquirer.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for termination of the life annuity agreement, since the defendant did not provide evidence of proper performance of his duties under the agreement. At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly satisfied the claims for the return of the apartment to the plaintiff, since the legal consequence of the termination of the agreement is the return of ownership, which does not require an additional court decision. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts exceeded the scope of the claims by satisfying the claims for recognition of ownership and cancellation of state registration, which were not filed by the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized the principle of dispositivity of civil proceedings, which obliges the court to resolve only those issues that the parties ask for.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the return of the apartment to the plaintiff, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership and the recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership of the apartment, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.

Case No. 761/3693/23 dated 11/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_7 against the verdict of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated March 31, 2025, by which he was convicted under Part 2, 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants).

The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person, since
The court did not establish any significant violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of the law on criminal liability that could be the basis for annulment or modification of the appealed court decision. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt in committing the crimes he was charged with, taking into account the evidence and circumstances of the case. Also, the Supreme Court took into account the position of the prosecution and defense, examined the case materials, and found no grounds for granting the cassation appeal. The court proceeded from the fact that the appellate court fully verified the arguments of the convict’s appeal and provided an exhaustive response to them.

The court decided: The verdict of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of March 31, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convict PERSON_7 shall be dismissed.

Case No. 159/4986/24 dated 11/19/2025
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 under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed in large amounts or by an organized group).

Due to the fact that only the operative part of the resolution is provided in the text, it is impossible to provide an exhaustive list of arguments that the court of cassation was guided by. However, it can be assumed that the court, leaving the decisions of previous instances unchanged, agreed with their conclusions regarding the proof of the convict’s guilt, the correctness of the qualification of her actions, and the justification of the imposed punishment. Also, the court could have rejected the cassation appeals of the defender and the convict due to the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the annulment or modification of court decisions. The court of cassation verified the legality and validity of court decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances within the limits of cassation appeals.

The court ruled: the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the person shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeals shall be dismissed.

Case No. 750/9824/21 dated 11/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of the director of a medical and preventive institution, who was accused of official negligence, which consisted of concluding an additional agreement to increase the price of gasoline, which, according to the prosecution, caused losses.

The court, upholding the acquittal, proceeded from the fact that the prosecution did not prove the existence of a crime under Part 1 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the director’s actions. The court noted that the director acted within the scope of his powers, defined by the contract, the charter of the institution, and the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement.” The court also took into account that the price increase was justified by fluctuations
price fluctuations in the market, confirmed by certificates from SE “Derzhzovnishinform,” and did not lead to an increase in the total amount of the contract. In addition, the court took into account the auditor’s report, which confirmed the compliance of the additional agreements with the requirements of the law, as well as the absence of losses for the state, since gasoline prices were lower than market prices. The court also noted that the prosecution did not prove that termination of the contract would have been more beneficial for the state.

Court decision: To leave the ruling of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal of March 25, 2025, regarding PERSON_6 unchanged, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 766/5020/23 dated November 19, 2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason).

This operative part of the judgment does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed and the appellate court’s verdict remained unchanged. The absence of a reasoning part makes it impossible to analyze the considerations that guided the court of cassation instance in making the decision. To understand the court’s position, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the judgment, which will state all the arguments and justifications.

The court decided to leave the verdict of the Kherson Court of Appeal unchanged, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 577/327/22 dated November 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment and the civil claim for compensation for moral damage in a case of violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim.