Case No. 296/5175/23 dated November 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the suspension of the enforcement of the decision of the court of first instance regarding foreclosure on the mortgage, since the dispute arose not from a consumer loan, but from a loan agreement between individuals, which is not subject to the restrictions of martial law established in the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage.” The court also agreed with the refusal to open appellate proceedings on the defendant’s complaint, as he was aware of the case’s hearing but did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court also supported the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint of the defendant’s wife, as the court’s decision did not affect her rights, since the apartment was the personal property of the husband, received under a gift agreement, and therefore her consent to the mortgage was not required. The court of cassation emphasized the inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights and the need for their conscientious use.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 725/2119/23 dated November 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of appeal, reversing the decision of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that LLC “FC “Invent” rightfully foreclosed on the subject of the mortgage in an extrajudicial procedure, since the mortgage agreement contained a corresponding reservation, and the plaintiff was duly notified of the need to eliminate the violation of the obligation, although he did not receive the demand due to his own negligence or evasion. The court noted that LLC “FC “Invent” took all measures to properly notify the debtor of the debt, conducted an assessment of the mortgaged property, which was valid at the time of the transfer of ownership, and the property valuation report was provided to the registrar. The court of appeal indicated that PERSON_2 is a bona fide purchaser of the disputed apartment, which excludes the possibility of its recovery on the basis of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the mortgagee complied with the procedure for proper sending of the demand to eliminate the violation, and the return of correspondence with notes on the expiration of the storage period and refusal indicates the plaintiff’s evasion from receiving it.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 607/3998/22 dated November 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is…
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the privatization of the apartment as invalid, the cancellation of the certificate of ownership and the corresponding order of the privatization authority, since the plaintiff believes that her right to privatization was violated.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations established by law, and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline; the court noted that the plaintiff, being registered in the disputed apartment, had the opportunity to find out that the apartment was privatized only in the name of the father, and to apply to the court in a timely manner; the court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of objective obstacles to applying to the court for a long time after the privatization of the apartment; the court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the expiration of the statute of limitations is an independent basis for refusing the claim, if the other party in the case has declared it.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 947/20930/22 dated November 25, 2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of the apartment as jointly owned property, and recognition of ownership of 1/2 share of the apartment.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased lived as one family without registration of marriage, which was established by the decision of the court of first instance, which was not appealed by the defendant in appeal in this part. According to Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine, property acquired by a woman and a man who live as one family without registration of marriage is their joint common property. The defendant did not refute the presumption of common ownership of the disputed apartment, and therefore it is subject to division between the plaintiff and the heir of the deceased. The court also noted that the requirement to establish the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage is not a proper way to protect violated rights, but an effective way to protect is precisely the resolution of the requirement for the division of jointly owned property. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions of the court of appeal, noting that they comply with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 569/12980/19 dated November 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal inaction of the Rivne Regional Department of the State Specialized Financial Institution “State Fund for Support of Youth Housing Construction” regarding the failure to reimburse part of the interest on the loan agreement.
2. The cassation instance court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1. The appellate court reasonably proceeded from the fact that the Fund had no obligation to partially compensate interest on the second tranche of the loan, since this tranche was provided for refinancing previous debt. The obligations under the first tranche of the loan were terminated due to their proper performance. It is important that the agreement on partial compensation of the interest rate on the second tranche between the Fund and the plaintiff was not concluded, and the agreement of December 07, 2005 does not contain such provisions. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the appellate court properly examined the evidence in the case and reached a reasonable conclusion.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decision of the Rivne Court of Appeal of May 16, 2024 – without changes.
**Case No. 369/11128/22 dated November 19, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of land plots from someone else’s illegal possession in favor of the state, since the prosecutor’s office believed that these plots were illegally allocated to private ownership at the expense of state-owned land, on which real estate objects belonging to the state are located.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the prosecutor did not prove that the disputed land plots at the time of their transfer to citizens belonged to the lands that were used for the needs of the central executive authority, and also did not provide sufficient evidence of the location of state-owned real estate objects on these plots. The court also took into account that the defendants are bona fide purchasers who acquired land plots on the basis of official information from the State Land Cadastre and the State Register of Real Property Rights, and the recovery of plots would violate the fair balance between the interests of the state and the property rights of the owners. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the protection of property rights, emphasizing the inadmissibility of disproportionate interference with the property rights of bona fide purchasers. The court noted that placing responsibility on bona fide purchasers for violations committed by other persons is unacceptable and places an excessive burden on them.
3. The court refused to satisfy the claim for the recovery of land plots from someone else’s illegal possession.
**Case No. 758/17584/21 dated November 19, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of property rights to an unfinished construction object, namely an apartment, to which the plaintiff believes he has the right as a shareholder.
2.
The appellate instance overturned the decision of the court of first instance and granted the claim, based on the fact that the agreement on equity participation in construction contains a clause on the full payment of funds by the equity holder, which is confirmed by LLC “BIK “Interbudinvest”, and LLC “IBF “AVM” did not deny the fact that the plaintiff is an equity holder. In addition, the agreement does not provide for the possibility of unilateral termination, and the construction is not completed. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, noting that LLC “IBF “AVM” is the proper defendant in the case, since it is the developer of the object. Although the court of appeal did not resolve the issue of applying the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court eliminated this shortcoming, noting that the application for the application of the statute of limitations did not contain justifications. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the absence of electronic signatures of all judges on the electronic copy of the decision is not a basis for cancellation if the paper version is signed by all judges.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court without changes.
Case No. 367/12802/24 dated 11/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of gift agreements for land plots, concluded between the defendant’s father and the defendant, as invalid, at the time of conclusion of which the defendant was a minor.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim by imposing an arrest on the disputed land plots, since there is a risk of their alienation by the defendant, which may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision if the claim is satisfied. The court took into account that the defendant acquired the disputed property at a minor age, as well as the fact that the defendant’s father, who gifted the land, is considered missing under special circumstances. The court noted that the imposition of an arrest is a proportionate measure to secure the claim, since it does not restrict the right to own and use the property, but only makes its alienation impossible. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that securing a claim in the form of an arrest of property is possible only in cases with property claims, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court of cassation emphasized that informing the participants in the case about the consideration of the application for securing the claim is a right, not an obligation of the court, and that the consideration of the application without notifying the defendant is not a violation of his procedural rights.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court β without changes.
Case No. 553/3007/23 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of unauthorizedly constructed real estate.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since it deprives
Ivach carried out an unauthorized construction on a land plot that was not allocated to him for this purpose, and did not provide evidence that the owner of the plot, the Poltava City Council, does not object to the recognition of his ownership of the unauthorized construction. The court noted that the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction in the absence of legal grounds violates the established procedure for acquiring ownership of property. The court also took into account that the area of the land plot actually used significantly exceeds the area allocated to the plaintiff by the previous decision. The court indicated that the plaintiff did not prove compliance with all necessary construction norms and rules during construction, and also did not provide evidence that the construction does not violate the rights of other persons. The court emphasized that according to the Civil Code of Ukraine, a person who has carried out an unauthorized construction does not acquire ownership of it, and only under certain conditions can the court recognize ownership of such property.
2. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts β unchanged.
**Case No. 638/3403/21 dated 11/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of the state registrar regarding the registration of ownership of an apartment by LLC “Analyst Finance” as illegal, the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the mortgage agreement contained a clause on satisfying the requirements of the mortgagee by foreclosing on the mortgage property in an out-of-court procedure, and the bank provided the state registrar with all the necessary documents for registering ownership of the apartment. The court noted that the mortgagee sent the plaintiff requests to eliminate the debt twice, which were returned with a note about the expiration of the storage period. The court also took into account that the child’s rights were not violated, because at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage agreement, the plaintiff did not have children, and the registration of the child in the apartment was carried out without the consent of the mortgagee. The court also referred to the case law of the Supreme Court, which confirms the legality of such actions. It is important that the Supreme Court emphasized that the provision of two postal items with a request to eliminate violations with a frequency of at least one month is a proper fulfillment of the requirements of the law and a sufficient basis for the state registrar to carry out the relevant registration actions.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts β unchanged.
**Case No. 455/1092/21 dated 11/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for causing grievous bodily harm.
of injuries and minor bodily injuries, as well as partial satisfaction of the victim’s civil claim for compensation of moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, as the court of first instance reasonably refused to close the criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code due to reconciliation with the victim, since the crime was committed within the family and constitutes domestic violence, which excludes the possibility of closing the proceedings on this basis. The court also noted that the punishment under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code was imposed taking into account the public danger of the crime, data on the identity of the convicted person, and the absence of mitigating circumstances, and therefore is not manifestly unfair. In addition, the court of first instance reasonably partially satisfied the civil claim, taking into account the physical and mental suffering of the victim. The appellate court thoroughly examined the arguments of the appeal and provided reasoned responses to them.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of the person and the partial satisfaction of the civil claim.
Case No. 484/5247/21 dated November 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for obstructing the execution of a court decision on ensuring the father’s communication with the children.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusions of the local court regarding the person’s guilt in obstructing the execution of a court decision, at the same time resorted to an analysis of the objective aspect of the crime in the form of non-execution of a court decision, which are different forms of the crime provided for in Part 1 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the objective aspect of this crime has two different forms: non-execution of a court decision and obstruction of its execution. The court pointed out the need to clearly establish in which specific form (action or inaction) the convicted person’s act was expressed, as this is crucial for establishing the presence or absence of the elements of a crime. The court noted that the appellate court did not conduct a detailed analysis of the convicted person’s actions to clearly establish whether her actions were aimed at obstructing the execution of the court decision, or whether they consisted of passively failing to execute this decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance to remedy the identified violations.
Case No. 910/15609/24 dated November 25, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a purchase agreement and a counterclaim for the interpretation of the terms of an additional agreement to this agreement.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since it isconcerned minor disputes that are not subject to cassation appeal. Regarding other grounds for cassation appeal provided for in paragraphs 3, 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court dismissed the cassation appeal. The court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the reasoned conclusions of the courts of previous instances.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Euromedtekhnika”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 619/3549/17 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeal of the defense counsel. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the court of cassation relied on when making the decision from the provided operative part of the ruling. Usually, the court of cassation verifies the legality and validity of court decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances from the point of view of compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law, the correctness of the application of the law, the assessment of evidence and the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case. It can be assumed that the court of cassation did not find significant violations that could lead to the cancellation or modification of the appealed judgment. A complete text of the ruling is required for a more detailed analysis.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Poltava Court of Appeal, dismissing the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 607/4119/23 dated 20/11/2025
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 a person convicted under Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).
No arguments are given in the court decision.
The decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel was dismissed.
Case No. 761/18810/22 dated 26/11/2025
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 a person accused of attempted fraud committed on a large scale.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, dismissing the cassation appeal of the defense counsel. The court likely agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of pThe court of cassation upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instances and found no grounds to overturn or amend their decisions. It is possible that the cassation appeal did not contain convincing arguments regarding the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, or there were no significant violations that could affect the legality and validity of the court decisions. Also, the court could have taken into account the severity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, and the identity of the accused when making the decision. The absence of the full text of the ruling does not allow for a more detailed analysis of the motives for the decision of the Supreme Court.
The court ruled: to leave the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7 unchanged, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/4338/24 dated 11/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court.
When considering the application for the allocation of legal costs, the court was guided by the fact that, according to procedural law, the issue of legal costs must be resolved by the court that rendered the decision on the merits of the dispute. The court noted that the costs of legal assistance are subject to allocation between the parties, but the criterion of the reality of attorney’s fees and the reasonableness of their amount, based on the specific circumstances of the case and the financial situation of the parties, must be taken into account. The court also took into account that the obligations between the attorney and the client are not binding on the court when deciding on the allocation of legal costs. The court took into account the subject matter and grounds of the claim, the nature of the disputed legal relationship, the amount of evidence, and established case law, and concluded that the claimed amount of legal assistance costs does not meet the criteria of reasonableness and necessity. Taking into account all the circumstances, the court decided to reduce the amount of legal assistance costs to be reimbursed to the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant.
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff UAH 10,000 in legal assistance costs in the Supreme Court.
Case No. 646/8431/23 dated 11/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to close the criminal proceedings under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code (theft committed in large amounts or under martial law) against PERSON_7 for individual episodes, due to the loss of validity of the law that established the criminal illegality of the act.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, because the appellate court, when closing the proceedings for episodes of theft involving intrusion into a dwelling or other possession, did not consider the possible reclassification of the accused’s actions to Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code (violation of inviolability of dwelling), which is o
criminal offense. The cassation court indicated that the appellate court should have assessed the presence or absence of grounds for applying Article 162 of the Criminal Code, since intrusion into a dwelling is in itself a criminally punishable act, regardless of the qualification of the actions as theft. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account the prosecutor’s position regarding the need to reclassify the defendant’s actions and did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting this position, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The cassation court emphasized the need for an objective and impartial review of the judgments of the court of first instance by the appellate court, with compliance with all requirements of current legislation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the closure of criminal proceedings for certain episodes and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 910/1828/25 dated 11/25/2025
1. “Gismap” LLC challenged in court the order of the Northern Interregional Territorial Department of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, seeking to have it declared invalid.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in part, citing paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which indicates the absence of grounds for cassation appeal in this part. Regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court found no grounds for granting the cassation appeal of “Gismap” LLC, which may indicate that the previous court decisions were well-founded and lawful. The cassation court, having reviewed the case materials and the arguments of the cassation appeal, did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the cancellation of the appealed court decisions. The absence of the plaintiff’s representative at the hearing did not affect the consideration of the case, as the defendant was present and had the opportunity to express their position. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, considering them lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ (ruling/resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, confirming the legality of the appealed order of the Antimonopoly Committee.
Case No. 607/4119/23 dated 11/20/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict and ruling regarding the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, convicted of encroaching on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which led to serious consequences.
The court based its decision on the fact that the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, by voting for the recognition of the independence of the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” and the ratification of treaties with them, committed intentional actions aimed at changing the borders of the territory of Ukraine.
acting as a representative of the authorities in a prior conspiracy with other persons. The court noted that the deputy, holding a high position, should have been aware of the illegality of his actions and their consequences for the sovereignty of Ukraine, as well as violations of international treaties. The court also indicated that the right to defense of the accused was ensured within the framework of a special judicial proceeding, and the defense’s arguments about the absence of prior conspiracy and the expression of a political position were refuted. The court emphasized that the defense did not provide specific evidence of violations during the collection of evidence, and the appellate court provided exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the appeal.
The court upheld the verdict and ruling, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 750/3606/14 dated November 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of an acquittal of a person accused of receiving unlawful benefits by an official holding a responsible position (Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, as the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the courts of previous instances thoroughly investigated all the circumstances of the case, ensuring the parties equal opportunities to exercise their rights. The court noted that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal and reasonably dismissed them, pointing to the absence of convincing evidence that would refute the position of the accused. Also, the court of cassation took into account that the case had already been reviewed repeatedly, and there were no grounds for worsening the position of the accused in the new review, since the previous cassation appeal concerned only mitigation of punishment. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to examine evidence and establish circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 185/5987/18 dated November 19, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the acquittal of a person accused of committing robbery (Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the court’s arguments from the provided text, as it is only the operative part of the ruling. It does not contain a justification for the decision, but only an indication that the appellate ruling was upheld, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed. The full text of the ruling, which should contain the court’s reasoning, will be announced later. Without analyzing the full text of the decision, it is impossible to understand why the court of cassation
appellate instance agreed with the acquittal.
The court decided to leave the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal of April 30, 2025, regarding PERSON_8 unchanged, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 127/3713/17 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court, by which PERSON_7 was convicted of crimes related to appropriation and embezzlement of property through abuse of office.
2. The court of cassation overturned the verdict of the appellate court due to significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely: the appellate court did not specify which conclusions of the court of first instance it disagreed with and what specific violations the local court committed; did not assess the evidence in terms of its relevance and admissibility; did not verify the powers of the investigator and prosecutor at the time of entering information about the criminal offense into the ERDR; exceeded the scope of the indictment; did not clarify the consent of the accused to close the criminal proceedings for a separate episode; did not indicate in the operative part of the verdict the decision to acquit for another episode. The court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court formally listed the evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, without specifying the circumstances that have evidentiary value in the criminal proceedings, that is, did not disclose their content. The court of cassation also drew attention to the fact that part of the indictment was unspecific.
3. The verdict of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal was overturned, a new hearing was ordered in the court of appeal, and PERSON_7 was released from custody.
Case No. 490/3925/19 dated 25/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, cancellation of state registration, recognition of the apartment sale and purchase agreement as invalid, and recovery of real estate.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim. The appellate court reasonably noted that the plaintiff was not a participant in the electronic auction and did not prove how the recognition of the auction as invalid would restore her rights as a former owner. In addition, the court took into account that the recognition of the sale and purchase agreement between the bank and the buyer as invalid would not restore the plaintiff’s rights to the apartment. The court also rejected the arguments about the violation of the rights of a minor child, since the obligation to provide housing rests with the parents, and the previous court decision obliged to restore the child’s registration in the disputed apartment. The court of cassation also emphasized that the bad faith of the acquirer of the apartment was not established, and the revaluation of evidence is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decision was upheld.
Case No. 910/4088/22 dated 11/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the decision of a private notary on the registration of ownership of non-residential premises by the plaintiff.
2. The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, proceeded from the fact that the disputed legal relations concern the protection of ownership of real estate, and therefore, the proper defendant in the case is the person who initiated the cancellation of the record of ownership in the State Register of Real Property Rights, namely PrJSC “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1”, and not the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, since it is with “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1” that the plaintiff has a dispute over a real right. The court noted that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to involve PrJSC “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1” as a co-defendant, and the claim was made only against the Ministry of Justice, with which there is no dispute over real rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that filing a claim against an improper defendant is an independent basis for dismissing the claim if there are no grounds for replacing the improper defendant with a proper one. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/2546/22 regarding the determination of the proper defendant in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Creative Workshop “Prestige” and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 920/1550/24 dated 11/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the absence of the right of permanent use of the land plot by the Agricultural Limited Liability Company “Khliborob”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the claim of the Lebedyn City Council. The appellate court established that ALC “Khliborob” is not the legal successor of the Collective Agricultural Enterprise “Agrokhim”, since the composition of the members of the CAE and the founders of the ALC differs significantly, and no evidence was provided to substantiate this discrepancy. In addition, there is no evidence of the transfer of property from the CAE “Agrokhim” to the newly created ALC “Khliborob”, which is a necessary condition for legal succession. The court also noted that assigning the identification code of the CAE “Agrokhim” to the ALC “Khliborob” is not a sufficient basis for recognizing legal succession. The cassation court emphasized that for proper confirmation of the circumstances of legal succession of a legal entity, not only such features as registration of a legal entity with an indication of its status as the legal successor of collective agricultural enterprises should be taken into account.
of the agricultural enterprise, the relevant provisions of the charter, preservation of the identical code of the Unified State Register of Enterprises, Organizations and Public Associations, or the existence of a transfer act (balance sheet), but also substantive circumstances confirming the membership of former members of the collective agricultural enterprise.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Agricultural Limited Liability Company “Khliborob”, and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
**Case No. 921/489/24 dated 11/20/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of EUR 131,445 of unjust enrichment.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, because the appellate court, according to the court of cassation, exceeded its powers by independently requesting evidence that was not submitted to the court of first instance, and did not ensure a full and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case based on the evidence already available in the case file. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court should have verified the arguments of the parties in full and established the circumstances that confirm or refute the existence of contractual legal relations between the parties, and, accordingly, the presence or absence of legal grounds for the return of funds on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not clarify whether the documents provided by the bank at the request of the court were available in the case file, and whether they are identical to those provided by the parties.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 922/1327/25 dated 11/25/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, leaving the cassation appeal of LLC “Novi Teplotekhnolohiyi” unsatisfied. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the provided text, as the reasoning part of the decision is missing. Typically, the court of cassation verifies the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of previous instances, based on the arguments of the cassation appeal. Accordingly, the decision could be based on the absence of violations of antimonopoly legislation, proof of violation, correctness of the application of sanctions, or other procedural aspects. A complete text of the court decision is required for a more accurate analysis.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Novi Teplotekhnolohiyi” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 932/11160/23 dated 24/11/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely 56/100 shares of a residential building.
2. The court dismissed the claim because it found that the previous owner of the property, PERSON_4, was a bona fide acquirer, which was established in another court case that became legally binding. The court took into account that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar claim against PERSON_4, and her good faith was established in that case. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff in the previous case admitted the claim for the division of property, which indicates his will regarding the alienation of the property. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot revise court decisions that have already become legally binding and re-evaluate circumstances that have already been given a legal assessment. The court also referred to the principle of legal certainty, which provides for compliance with the principle of res judicata, that is, the finality of a court decision.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 127/1845/24 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 and Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, with a request for the application of Articles 69 and 79 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account a number of important circumstances that are important for sentencing. In particular, the courts did not take into account the young age of the convicted person, the absence of previous convictions, positive characteristics, sincere remorse, and active assistance in solving the crime. In addition, the courts did not take into account that at the time of consideration of the case in the court of appeal, the convicted person was pregnant and had a young child, and at the time of the cassation consideration, she gave birth to another child. The court emphasized the importance of taking into account information about the identity of the convicted person, her socio-psychological characteristics, and post-criminal behavior. Taking these circumstances into account in their entirety, the Supreme Court concluded that there were grounds for applying Articles 69 and 79 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, changed the court decisions, applied the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to the convicted person, imposing a punishment below the lowest limit, and on the basis of Article 79 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, released her from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 910/18639/23 dated 25/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the obligation of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading” to recalculate the volume of natural gas consumed in favor of the Housing and Operational Department of the city of Kherson.
