**Case No. 904/2104/19 dated 11/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance and the постановления (resolution) of the appellate court on the approval of the liquidator’s report, the liquidation balance sheet, and the liquidation of the legal entity банкрута (bankrupt) in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Dniprovskyi Metallurgical Combine”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that the liquidator took all necessary measures to identify the debtor’s assets and their sale within the liquidation procedure, acted in good faith and in the interests of creditors. The court noted that the liquidator analyzed the financial condition of the банкрута (bankrupt), inventoried the property, took measures to return property held by third parties, and took actions to satisfy the creditors’ claims in accordance with the established priority. Also, the court took into account that the creditors did not provide evidence that would call into question the completeness of the liquidator’s actions or the inconsistency of these actions with the real circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that the liquidator must take reasonable and logical actions, and the criterion for the quality of his work is the actual filling of the liquidation estate, and not the number of requests to various bodies. Considering the absence of property of the банкрута (bankrupt) and the completeness of the liquidator’s actions, the court concluded that the liquidation of PJSC “Dniprovskyi Metallurgical Combine” and the closure of proceedings in the case were lawful.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeals without satisfaction, and the court decisions of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 911/1314/25 dated 12/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Agrosynergy” and guarantors of joint and several debt under a loan agreement in favor of PJSC “Ukrgasbank”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the bank’s statement of claim, considering that the rules of combining claims were violated, since the claims against the foreign guarantor company (“Irlemno LTD”) should be considered under other rules of legal proceedings. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not take into account the presence of property of the foreign company in Ukraine in the form of a share in the authorized capital of LLC “Agrosynergy”, which may be the basis for considering the case by a Ukrainian court in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Private International Law”. Also, the courts did not investigate the issue of whether there was an action or event in Ukraine that was the basis for filing the claim. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the presence of an arbitration clause in the guarantee agreement does not exclude the possibility of considering the dispute by a Ukrainian court, if there are other grounds for jurisdiction provided by law. The court also emphasized the need to notify the defendant-non-resident about the existence of the dispute in order to ensure his right to express objections.
regarding the consideration of the case in Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case to the court of first instance to continue the proceedings, namely to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings in the case.
Case No. 914/2441/15(914/979/17) dated 25/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction on the transfer of the integral property complex to the authorized capital of PJSC “Lviv Coal Company” and the recovery of this property in favor of the state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the orders of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, on the basis of which the property was transferred, were not cancelled, and therefore there are no grounds for recognizing the transaction as invalid. The court also took into account that the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine, as the property management body, was aware of the privatization and did not express any objections, which indicates the owner’s will to transfer the property. In addition, the court noted that the possibility of claiming property depends on the owner’s expression of will regarding the disposal of property, and in this case, such will was expressed. The court also emphasized that since there are no grounds for satisfying the claims, the statute of limitations does not apply. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that there are grounds for changing the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/3911/24 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement and the obligation to return the land plot due to violation of the terms of the agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the previous courts did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not assess whether the violation of the terms of the lease agreement is significant, namely, whether the defendant’s failure to use the land plot led to the plaintiff’s inability to achieve the goals of the concluded agreement, whether the plaintiff suffered losses as a result of the defendant’s violation of the terms of the agreement, whether the amount of such damage is a circumstance that does not allow the plaintiff to receive what he expected when concluding the agreement, and whether there is actually a significant difference between what the plaintiff had the right to expect when concluding the disputed agreement and what he was actually able to receive. The court also noted that the courts did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments that the failure to receive rent is his loss in the sense of a significant violation of the terms of the agreement, and also did not establish the amount of the plaintiff’s losses, which may be expressed in the form of actual damages and (or) lost profits. Since the previous courts did not verify the plaintiff’s arguments in the context of whether the use of the land plot in violation
an agreement, a material breach of its terms within the meaning of the second part of Article 651 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the panel of judges, considering the powers provided for in Article 300 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, cannot independently establish the relevant circumstances.
4. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №27/104b (905/424/23) dated 19/11/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355951](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355951)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings on the recovery of property from the debtor.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the complaint of the insolvency officer against the actions of the state executor. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the court of first instance did not specify any specific violations committed by the state executor, and also did not determine specific actions that need to be taken to eliminate these violations. Also, the court of cassation noted that the insolvency officer in her complaints did not dispute the legality of the termination of enforcement proceedings on the basis of the impossibility of enforcing the court decision without the participation of the debtor. In addition, the court of cassation took into account that the apartment in which the property is located does not belong to the debtor by right of ownership, which refutes the arguments about the need for forced entry into the dwelling.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case №754/874/24 dated 03/12/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132356009](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132356009)
1. The subject of the dispute is the employee’s claim to oblige the employer to dismiss her on the basis of Part 3 of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine due to the employer’s violation of labor laws.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the employee’s claim. The court noted that for dismissal on the basis of Part 3 of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove the fact of violation of labor legislation by the employer at the time of filing the application for dismissal. Violations that have already been eliminated or resolved in court cannot be the basis for such dismissal. In this case, although the employer violated labor laws in the previous dismissal of the employee, these violations were eliminated by reinstating her at work by court decision. The delay in the execution of the court decision on reinstatement is also not a basis for dismissal under Part 3 of Article 38 of the Labor Code, since liability for this is provided for in Article 236 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. Since the violations were eliminated at the time of filing the application for dismissal, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
language in granting the employee’s claim.
**Case No. 910/12657/24 dated 04/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding the abuse of monopoly position by the Municipal Enterprise “Kyivavtoshliakhmist” in the market of services for access to the infrastructure of cable ducts of electronic communication networks.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, agreed with the AMCU’s decision, noting that “Kyivavtoshliakhmist” held a monopoly position in the market, as it had no competitors in providing access to the infrastructure of cable ducts on bridges and overpasses of Kyiv. The court emphasized that the enterprise set the cost of network channel maintenance services at a level exceeding the maximum level established by the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Construction, Transport, and Energy Facilities for the Purpose of Developing Telecommunication Networks.” The court also took into account that “Kyivavtoshliakhmist” concluded contracts for the provision of maintenance services with companies that were registered as electronic communications operators, instead of concluding contracts for access to infrastructure, which allowed for setting inflated prices. The court rejected the enterprise’s arguments about the absence of requests from operators regarding the conclusion of access agreements, emphasizing the enterprise’s obligation to bring the agreements into compliance with the requirements of the law. The court noted that the actions of “Kyivavtoshliakhmist” would be impossible in the presence of competition, as consumers could freely choose another service provider.
3. The court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of “Kyivavtoshliakhmist.”
**Case No. 497/7/2021 dated 05/12/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of 1/2 part of a residential building.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, since the dispute is subject to consideration within the framework of the bankruptcy case of SEC “Kubey” by the commercial court. The court noted that according to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, the commercial court, in whose proceedings the bankruptcy case is pending, resolves all property disputes in which the debtor is a party, including disputes on recognition of ownership. The court also took into account that the proceedings in the bankruptcy case of SEC “Kubey” were opened back in 2017, and the plaintiff filed a claim with the court for recognition of ownership in 2021, that is, after the opening of the bankruptcy case. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the property earlier than the bankruptcy case was initiated, noting that the certificate of ownership of the property share and the acceptance certificate-
the transfer of property is only the basis for оформлення [formalization] of ownership in the manner prescribed by law.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 359/3378/16-ц dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property (land plots and an unfinished construction object) from a bona fide purchaser and the recognition of ownership of this property.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the disputed property was acquired by the plaintiff and his ex-wife in marriage and is their joint jointly owned property, and the alienation of the property took place without the consent of the plaintiff, which was established by a court decision in another case, which has preclusive effect. The court noted that the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser is possible, since the property was disposed of from the plaintiff’s possession not by his will. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit for the division of jointly owned property of the spouses, but the disputed property was not the subject of division, and compensation for it was not paid. The court did not agree with the appellate court that satisfying the claim for the recovery of property would place an excessive burden on the bona fide purchaser, since the latter has the right to compensation for damages from the previous owner. The court emphasized that the return of property to the joint jointly owned property of the spouses is an appropriate protection of the plaintiff’s violated right.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim for the recovery of property.
Case No. 161/5555/24 dated 27/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for treason in the form of defecting to the enemy and providing assistance in subversive activities against Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the person’s guilt in treason was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of witnesses who confirmed the person’s voluntary transfer to the service of the occupation administration, as well as on the protocols of identification of the person in video recordings. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about possible physical or psychological coercion, since no evidence of this was provided, and also indicated that the courts of previous instances properly examined and assessed all the evidence in its entirety. The court also noted that the existing technical errors in court decisions do not affect the legality and validity of the conclusions regarding the person’s guilt.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for treason, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 389/2645/19 dated 25
**Case № 461/479/23 dated 25/11/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355997](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355997)
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the sentence for Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code (intentional grievous bodily harm).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court reasonably imposed a sentence of 5 years of imprisonment, taking into account the severity of the crime, the absence of mitigating circumstances at the time of the crime, and the fact that partial compensation for damages during the appellate review did not indicate sincere repentance. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court adhered to the principles of individualization and fairness of the sentence, and also noted that it does not have the right to investigate new evidence or circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances. The court also took into account that the punishment was imposed at the minimum level provided for by the sanction of the article, and is proportionate to the committed act. The court found no grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code (release from serving a sentence with probation), as it was not proven that the imposed sentence is manifestly unfair.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the judgment of the appellate court.
**Case № 915/693/24 dated 25/11/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355991](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132355991)
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot for forestry purposes, which arose due to the overlapping of this plot on the lands of the state forest fund.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which recognized that the proper way to protect in this case is a claim for recovery of property (vindication action) for the recovery of a part of the land plot belonging to the state, and not the cancellation of the orders of the State Geocadastre, since the latter will not lead to the restoration of the violated rights of the state. The court took into account that the disputed land plot partially overlaps with the lands of the state forest fund, and the complete cancellation of the orders may lead to interference with the rights of the defendants to that part of the plot that is not disputed. The court also noted that the prosecutor did not file a separate claim for the termination of state registration of the right of communal ownership to the disputed land plot. The court of cassation emphasized that the application of a specific method of protection must correspond to the type and content of legal relations, as well as the nature of the violation of rights. Also, the court of cassation took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case № 915/102/24, where in a similar situation it was recognized that the cancellation of the orders of the State Geocadastre is not an effective way to protect the rights of the state to the forest fund land.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office.
**Case № 752/18476/13-ц dated 26/11/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132314900](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132314900)
1. The subject
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the Kyiv City Council regarding the transfer of a land plot into private ownership and the recognition of the right to use a part of this land plot.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which declared invalid the decisions of the Kyiv City Council on the transfer of a land plot into the private ownership of PERSON_2, since at the time of the adoption of these decisions, PERSON_2 was not the owner of the relevant part of the house located on this plot, and, accordingly, did not have the right to its privatization. The court took into account that the plaintiff, PERSON_1, is the heir to a part of the house and has the right to the corresponding part of the land plot necessary for the maintenance of the house. The court also noted that the right of ownership of the land plot passes to the acquirer of real estate simultaneously with the emergence of the right of ownership of the real estate object, which corresponds to the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the property located on it. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that at the time the plaintiff acquired ownership of a part of the house, there was no right of ownership or use of the land plot, since it was established that the land plot was allocated to the plaintiff’s predecessor back in 1956. The court also rejected the arguments about improper notification of the defendants about court hearings, since it was established that their representatives were properly notified.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 911/408/17 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint of Koriakin D.V. against the ruling of the court of first instance on the appointment of a liquidator in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court closed the proceedings, considering that Koriakin D.V. is not a creditor in the bankruptcy case, since he was excluded from the register of creditors, and that the appealed ruling does not violate his rights and interests. The Supreme Court did not agree with this conclusion, pointing out its prematurity, since the appellate court did not clarify the circumstances that are important for determining the status of Koriakin D.V. as a creditor, in particular, did not assess the legality of the liquidator’s actions regarding the exclusion of Koriakin D.V. from the register of creditors, and also did not take into account that the only legal basis for such exclusion is a court ruling on the review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. In addition, the Supreme Court took into account that at the time of the cassation review, the decision of the court of first instance, which the appellate court referred to, was overturned by the appellate instance, which further confirms the prematurity of the conclusions regarding the status of the appellant. Considering the indicated violations of the norms of procedural law, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it is necessary to overturn
appeal court ruling and remitting the case for a new trial.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appeal court ruling and remitted the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
Case No. 910/12661/24 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the bank being liquidated to include the creditor claims of the municipal enterprise in the register of accepted creditor claims.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims of the municipal enterprise “Kyivteploenergo” against “Prominvestbank” regarding the inclusion of creditor claims in the register. The court noted that the bank’s cassation appeal arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases are unfounded, since the previous decisions concerned other issues, in particular the terms of fulfillment of obligations and the order of satisfaction of creditor claims, and not the assessment of the sufficiency of documents to confirm the authority of the signatory of the creditor’s application. The court also emphasized that the courts of previous instances reasonably recognized the application of the municipal enterprise as complying with the requirements of the law, since the representative’s authority was confirmed by the statutory documents and job description. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence, and that the courts of previous instances did not commit violations of substantive and procedural law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 911/341/22 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of “Interagroinvest” LLC against the orders of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to cancel the decisions of the state registrar regarding the registration of the company’s ownership of land plots.
2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, concluded that the courts of previous instances incorrectly determined the proper composition of the parties to the dispute, since the dispute actually arose between “Interagroinvest” LLC and the Stavyshche settlement council regarding the ownership of land plots, and not between the company and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The court noted that the proper defendant in such a case is the person who disputes the right to the property, that is, the Stavyshche settlement council, and not only the Ministry of Justice, with which the plaintiff has no dispute about property rights. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling of September 3, 2025 in case No. 910/2546/22, regarding the need to involve the person on whose complaint the decision on state registration was canceled as a defendant in the case. The court indicated that filing a claim against an improper defendant is an independent ground for dismissing the claim, and since the plaintiff did not exercise the right to involve the Stavyshche settlement council as a co-defendant,
the claims are not subject to satisfaction.
3. The court of cassation instance amended the decisions of previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, but left unchanged the decision to refuse the claim satisfaction.
Case No. 522/6062/19 dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a contract for the donation of a share of an apartment as a sham transaction (sale and purchase) and the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to the plaintiff as a co-owner.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the donation contract was a sham, whether the parties actually intended to conclude a sale and purchase agreement, and whether this contract violates the plaintiff’s preemptive right as a co-owner to purchase a share of the apartment. The court noted that the appellate court prematurely refused to satisfy the claim, considering the request to recognize the donation contract as a sham an ineffective way of protection, without taking into account that the request to transfer the rights and obligations of the buyer is derived from the request to recognize the transaction as a sham. The court also emphasized that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish the real intentions of the parties when concluding the contract and whether the plaintiff’s right was violated.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance for a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 758/15821/24 dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed electric energy, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The appellate court returned the appeal because the lawyer did not provide sufficient documents to confirm his authority to represent the interests of the defendant in the appellate court, considering the contract for the provision of legal aid insufficient confirmation. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocate Practice”, the contract for the provision of legal aid is a document certifying the authority of an advocate. The Court also referred to the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court of January 20, 2025, which states that the absence of an indication of the contract for the provision of legal aid in the Civil Procedure Code does not exclude the right of the advocate to confirm the authority with this contract. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of the invalidity of the certificate of the right to practice law, the court has no reason to doubt the status of the representative.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 134/732/24 dated 12/02/2025
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 for robbery committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt in committing robbery. The court noted that the convicted person’s version of the absence of intent to rob and a mercenary motive was thoroughly analyzed and rejected by the courts of previous instances based on the evidence examined, in particular, the lack of confirmation of a conflict between the convicted person and the victim, the discovery of the stolen property during the search, as well as the nature of the bodily injuries inflicted on the victim. Also, the court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defense attorney regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the search protocol, pointing out that formal deficiencies in its execution do not affect the admissibility of the evidence, since the search was conducted with continuous video recording. The court also noted that there is a resolution on the determination of the group of prosecutors, and the punishment was assigned taking into account the severity of the crime, the circumstances of the case, and the identity of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.
Case No. 335/6563/17 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the ruling of the investigating judge on the closure of criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances, namely: improper notification of the person about the consideration of the complaint by the investigating judge, the absence of consent to notification via SMS, as well as the fact that the applicant had been serving in the military since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, which objectively made it difficult to follow the court process. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have taken into account the special status of military personnel and their involvement in the defense of the state, which could significantly affect the realization of the right to access to justice. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not properly verify the person’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal. The court of cassation drew attention to the fact that there is no evidence of proper notification of the person about the date of the court hearing, and her military service was not taken into account.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 921/240/23 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision on declaring an individual bankrupt and initiating debt repayment proceedings in the insolvency case.
2.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared an individual bankrupt and introduced a debt repayment procedure, as the courts found that the debtor did not act in bad faith, provided complete information about their financial situation, and the debt restructuring plan was not approved due to the lack of a quorum at the creditors’ meeting, which did not depend on the debtor’s actions. The court of cassation emphasized that the insolvency procedure of an individual aims to restore the debtor’s solvency, not just to satisfy the creditors’ claims, and that the courts should actively monitor the process, considering the good faith of the debtor and creditors. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the court’s discretion in deciding on the transition to the debt repayment procedure, especially when an agreed restructuring plan was not submitted, and that the courts should assess the reasons for this, taking into account the actions of both parties. The court noted that the absence of a restructuring plan is not always a basis for closing the proceedings, especially if the debtor acted in good faith and the creditors did not properly exercise their rights.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 140/4196/21 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of decisions of the state registrar and private notary, based on which the plaintiff’s right of ownership to the real estate was registered.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, drew attention to the fact that the dispute arose between LLC “Business-Administration” and PERSON_1 regarding the ownership of office premises, and not between LLC “Business-Administration” and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the determination of defendants is the right of the plaintiff, but the court is obliged to establish the proper defendants, based on the analysis of the disputed legal relations and claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that the proper defendant is the person at whose expense the claims can be satisfied, protecting the violated right or interest of the plaintiff. In this case, the proper defendant is PERSON_1, since it is his right of ownership that is challenged, and not the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, with which the plaintiff has no dispute regarding property rights. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the need to involve the person, at whose complaint the decision on state registration was canceled, as a defendant in the case.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and issued a new decision dismissing the claim.
Case No. 447/1763/20 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely real estate objects that the plaintiff considers to have been disposed of.
and from his possession illegally.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the court of first instance fully and comprehensively established the circumstances of the case, examined and provided a legal assessment of all the evidence collected in the case, the claims and objections of the parties. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that the disputed real estate belonged to the owners of property shares on the right of common partial ownership, who had the right to dispose of it, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence that would indicate a violation of his rights. The court of cassation also took into account that the contractual lease relations between the plaintiff and the owners of property shares were terminated at the time of registration of the right of ownership of the disputed property to the defendant. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court erroneously concluded that the plaintiff’s rights were violated, since the allocation of property from the share fund took place without the plaintiff’s knowledge.
3. The court of cassation decided to overturn the decision of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 911/2250/23 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use and dispose of forest land by canceling decisions on the registration of ownership rights and returning land plots.
2. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim because the prosecutor did not prove the area of overlapping of the disputed land plots with the forest land, and also chose an ineffective method of protection, namely the requirement to cancel the decisions of the state registrar. The court noted that the proper method of protection would be to reclaim the land plots from illegal possession, but the prosecutor did not do so. The court of cassation agreed that the requirement to cancel the decisions of the state registrar is an ineffective method of protection, but indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that reclaiming land plots is not a proper method of protection in this case. The court of cassation noted that the courts should have considered the possibility of reclaiming the land plots, but since the prosecutor did not demand this, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances should have first of all clarified whether the method of protection chosen by the Prosecutor is effective for protecting the plaintiff’s right in the disputed legal relations.
3. The court of cassation changed the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left the decision to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 910/10388/23 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding
rescission of a private notary’s decision regarding the state registration of ownership of a share of a non-residential premises.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of “Podol KM” LLC, recognizing as unlawful and rescinding the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the rescission of the private notary’s decision. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the complaint, on the basis of which the order was issued, did not meet the requirements of the law, as it did not contain the date of compilation, and the persons who signed it were not authorized to act on behalf of the Homeowners Association. The court also noted that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine violated the procedure for considering the complaint, not returning it without consideration after receiving a statement of its withdrawal. At the same time, the court of cassation found erroneous the conclusions of the previous instances that the Homeowners Association is an improper defendant, and the posting of an announcement on the website of the Ministry of Justice is an insufficient method of notifying interested parties, however, this did not affect the final decision in the case.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 910/2217/23 (910/7486/23) dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the preliminary contract for the sale of 1/6 share of the production building, concluded between “Vip Building Trade” LLC and an individual, since the property, which is the subject of the contract, is owned by “VTK Kashtan” LLC.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which recognized the preliminary contract as invalid, based on the fact that “VTK Kashtan” LLC is the legal owner of the integral property complex in respect of which the preliminary contract was concluded. The court took into account that the preliminary contract concerned property that already belonged to another person, namely “VTK Kashtan” LLC, which was established by the courts of previous instances. The Supreme Court emphasized that the owner of the property has the right to apply to the court with a claim to recognize the preliminary contract for the sale of this property as invalid, even if the main contract was not concluded. The court also referred to its previous practice, according to which the protection of the interests of the property owner in respect of which the preliminary contract was concluded is possible by filing a claim to recognize such a contract as invalid. The court noted that the appellate court correctly applied Articles 203 and 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulate the general requirements for the validity of a transaction and the grounds for recognizing it as invalid.
3. The court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 361/5336/23 dated 12/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the rulings of the courts of previous instances regarding
closure of criminal proceedings against a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).
The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the rulings of the courts of previous instances. The Court noted that although the proceedings are subject to closure, it is on grounds other than those applied by the lower courts. The Supreme Court indicated that the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability, provided for in Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, has expired, which is an independent ground for closing criminal proceedings in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Court took into account that the crime imputed to the person is classified as a non-grave crime, and the period defined by law for bringing to justice has expired since the moment of its commission.
The Court ruled to close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the basis of paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, releasing him from criminal liability on the basis of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability.
Case No. 163/546/22 dated 02/12/2025
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 two persons under Part 2 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the guilt of the convicts was proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of a set of evidence, in particular, the testimony of a witness who tried to illegally cross the border, the testimony of DPS employees, and other case materials. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the lack of proof of prior conspiracy, the bias of witnesses, the incompleteness of the testimony of individual witnesses, as well as violations of the right to simultaneous questioning. The court also agreed with the appellate court regarding the possibility of correcting the convicts without serving a real sentence, taking into account the absence of previous convictions and the average risk of committing a repeated crime according to the pre-trial report of the probation authority. The prosecutor’s arguments about the leniency of the punishment and the lack of specificity of the additional punishment were also rejected, since the court considers the imposed punishment to be fair and sufficiently specific.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defenders and the prosecutor, and to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 916/2806/23(916/2527/18) dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the invalidity of void transactions within the bankruptcy case of LLC “Company “HIGHER SCHOOL OF ADVERTISING”, in particular, regarding the debt settlement agreement and the consent to it.
