**Case No. 332/5199/21 dated 07/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the cancellation of the order on suspension from work and recovery of average earnings for the period of suspension due to the lack of COVID-19 vaccination.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of the plaintiff’s suspension, since the plaintiff’s work did not involve direct contact with a large number of people, and the defendant did not prove the necessity of such suspension for the protection of public health. The court noted that the suspension of an employee from work without taking into account the specifics of his/her job duties and the potential threat to others is a disproportionate measure. Also, the court of cassation pointed out that the requirement for mandatory vaccination should be assessed taking into account the specific circumstances, including the number of social contacts of the employee in the workplace, the possibility of organizing remote work and other factors that affect the risk of infection. Regarding the costs of professional legal assistance, the court of cassation reduced their amount, since the courts of previous instances did not take into account the partial satisfaction of the claims when distributing these costs. Regarding the additional ruling of the appellate court, the court of cassation overturned it, since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of sending a copy of the application for an additional decision to the defendant, which deprived the latter of the opportunity to exercise his procedural rights.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the court decisions regarding the distribution of court costs for legal assistance, and overturned the additional ruling of the appellate court, leaving the application for an additional decision without consideration.
**Case No. 727/7980/13-ц dated 12/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings, namely the replacement of the claimant in the case of debt collection under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed with a significant delay. The court noted that the debtors knew about the existence of a court decision on the recovery of debt from them, therefore they had to be interested in the further proceedings in the case and take measures to find out about the existence of enforcement proceedings. The court also took into account that court correspondence was sent to the debtors at their registered address, and they did not provide evidence of the impossibility to find out about the appealed ruling for a long period. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the deadline for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance was missed without valid reasons, and the circumstances that would confirm the impossibility of filing an appeal for almost four years,
applicants have not proven.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 759/9462/22 dated 11/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the gift agreement of 1/3 of the apartment as invalid and the imposition of an arrest on this property as security for the claim.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erroneously refused to open appellate proceedings, as the defendant was not properly notified of the case hearing in the court of first instance and of the ruling on securing the claim, which violates her right to appeal and a fair trial. The court of first instance sent copies of the rulings to an address that was not the defendant’s registered place of residence, and the appellate court’s reference to the fact that the mark on the postal notification indicating the absence of the person at the address constitutes proper notification is erroneous, since the correspondence was not sent to the proper address. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account the circumstances referred to by the defendant regarding the impossibility of receiving mail due to the missile attacks on Kyiv and evacuation from the city. Considering that the defendant learned about the ruling on securing the claim only after receiving a copy of it in the “Electronic Court” system, the time limit for appealing should be calculated from this date.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings and sent the case to the court of appeal for further consideration.
**Case No. 2-612/2006 dated 12/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of the Sviatoshynskyi Department of the State Executive Service regarding the transfer of funds to the claimant PERSON_2 and the refusal to return the mistakenly paid funds.
2. The cassation court found that the courts of previous instances reasonably concluded that the applicant missed the deadline for appealing the actions of the state executor, as the applicant was aware of the transfer of funds, and he himself initiated their payment. The court also took into account that the applicant did not file a motion to restore the missed deadline. However, the courts of previous instances erroneously refused to satisfy the complaint, instead of dismissing it, as provided for by procedural law in the event of missing the deadline for appealing and the absence of a motion to restore it. The cassation court emphasized that consideration of a complaint with a missed deadline without good reason violates the rights of other parties to the dispute and the general principles of legal proceedings. The cassation court refers to the established case law of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish the fact of filing a complaint within the period prescribed by law or the existence of a motion to restore the term.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the complaint of PERSON_
1 left without consideration.
**Case No. 520/619/23 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the customs authority’s decision on the accrual of customs payments during the customs clearance of a car imported during the period of benefits established for the duration of martial law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that for the application of the benefits provided by Law No. 2142-IX, it is necessary to submit a customs declaration of the “DE” type (additional declaration) by July 1, 2022, and not a preliminary customs declaration “EE”. The court noted that the import of goods into the customs territory of Ukraine as an operation with which the legislator associates exemption from customs payments is not limited only to the physical crossing of the border, but includes the fulfillment of necessary customs formalities, in particular, the submission of a relevant customs declaration. Since the additional declaration was submitted after July 1, 2022, that is, after the cancellation of benefits, the court recognized the accrual of customs payments on general grounds as lawful. Also, the court took into account that in the additional declaration, the declarant did not indicate the application of a customs benefit or any preference. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about objective obstacles to customs clearance before July 1, 2022, and his volunteer activities, since the car was imported as an individual, and not as a representative of a charitable foundation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 620/8889/24 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions on the refusal to refund VAT from the budget and the overstatement of the negative value that is credited to the tax credit.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the enterprise artificially formed a tax credit on VAT through transactions for the purchase and storage of agricultural products, without having a business purpose, since the products were sold at a price lower than the purchase price, or returned to the supplier. The court emphasized that to confirm the right to a tax credit, the reality of the business transaction and its confirmation by proper primary documents are necessary, and the economic effect should be aimed at obtaining profit or preserving assets. The court also took into account that the director of the enterprise signed contracts on behalf of both parties, which raises doubts about the reality of the transactions. The court noted that the taxpayer must prove the reality of business transactions if the tax authority provides evidence indicating the inaccuracy of the information in the primary documents.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 826/9751/14 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to review the decision to ban the Communist Party of Ukraine and transfer its property to state ownership based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the circumstances referred to by the applicant are not newly discovered within the meaning of the CAS of Ukraine, since they arose after the decision in the case of banning the CPU. The court emphasized that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances aims to take into account significant circumstances that existed at the time of the case’s consideration but were unknown to the court and the parties to the proceedings. In this case, the cancellation of a court decision in another case regarding a donation agreement of property belonging to the CPU is not a newly discovered circumstance, as it does not directly affect the decision to ban the party and transfer its property to the state. The court also noted that it cannot go beyond the requirements that were the subject of consideration when making the decision being reviewed and consider other claims or grounds for the lawsuit. In addition, the court emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the finality of court decisions.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
**Case No. 580/4269/24 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax assessment notices issued by the controlling authority based on the results of an actual audit.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the individual entrepreneur’s cassation appeal, emphasized that during an actual audit of a gas station, the controlling authority is obliged to carry out an actual measurement of fuel residues in the tanks and record in the audit report information about the methods, means, and equipment used for this purpose, as required by the Instruction on the Procedure for Receiving, Transporting, Storing, Dispensing, and Accounting for Oil and Petroleum Products at Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the only way to check for the presence of unaccounted petroleum products is to compare the accounting data of the gas station and the RRO with the actual measurements of fuel residues. The absence of information on measurement methods in the audit report makes the audit results unreliable. The court also rejected the argument of the appellate court that the signing of the audit report by an official of the individual entrepreneur without comments means agreement with the conclusions of the controlling authority, since the individual entrepreneur appealed the tax assessment notice in court. The court also indicated that the basis for the adoption of the tax assessment notice is a different composition of the violation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the individual entrepreneur.
**Case No. 620/8889/24 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is
regarding the determination of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be reimbursed to the Subsidiary Company “BETA-SERVICE” at the expense of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Chernihiv Region in connection with the partial satisfaction of the claim to cancel the tax assessment notice.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which reduced the amount of reimbursement for legal assistance expenses, considering the criteria of reality and reasonableness of such expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided by the attorney, the claim amount, and the significance of the case for the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that the amount of expenses for legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent by the attorney, the scope of services provided, and the claim amount. The court noted that the party claiming reimbursement of expenses must prove their validity and actual amount, and the other party may file objections regarding their disproportionateness. The Supreme Court also took into account the previous legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria of reality and reasonableness of attorney’s fees, as well as the need to assess the validity and appropriateness of such expenses in each specific case. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the appellate court’s incorrect application of substantive and procedural law, as the plaintiff did not provide substantiated arguments that refuted the court’s conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, which had amended the decision of the court of first instance regarding the amount of reimbursement for legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 440/580/22 dated December 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a tax assessment notice, which increased the amount of the monetary obligation for value-added tax for LLC “BC “KVP”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, motivating this by the fact that LLC “BC “KVP” was lawfully charged VAT liabilities, since goods/services, non-current assets, acquired with VAT, were used in transactions exempt from taxation in accordance with Article 197 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, namely in the gratuitous transfer of a kindergarten to municipal ownership. The court noted that the transfer of the kindergarten took place on the basis of a decision of the local self-government body, which confirms the gratuitous nature of the transfer. The court also took into account that the disputed case does not fall under the exceptions provided for in subparagraph 197.1.28 of paragraph 197.1 of Article 197 and paragraph 197.11 of Article 197 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of previous instances and did not find violations of substantive or procedural law that could affect the correctness of the courts’ conclusions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “BC “KVP” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 990/521/25 of December 8, 2025
Subject of the dispute – contesting the actions of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the refusal to consider a judge’s complaint against a ruling on the closure of disciplinary proceedings.
The court noted that, according to current legislation, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice” and the HCJ Regulations, the ruling on the closure of disciplinary proceedings is not a decision in a disciplinary case, and the grounds for its adoption are similar to the grounds for refusing to open a disciplinary case. Since the procedure for appealing a ruling on the closure of disciplinary proceedings is not directly regulated, but considering its nature, appealing such a ruling by filing a complaint with the HCJ is not provided for. The court emphasized that it is considering the legality of the HCJ’s actions in providing an answer regarding the impossibility of appealing the ruling on the closure of disciplinary proceedings, and not the ruling on the closure of disciplinary proceedings itself. Considering that the HCJ lawfully clarified to the plaintiff the absence of the possibility of appeal, the court concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
The court refused to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 340/1651/25 of December 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax assessment notice regarding the accrual of penalties for violation of the terms of settlements for import operations of goods.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings in the case, since there is already a court decision that has entered into legal force in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject, and on the same grounds; the court noted that the grounds for the claim in this case are identical to the grounds in the previous case, despite the fact that the plaintiff refers to other circumstances, since the subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax assessment notice, which has already been assessed by the court; the court emphasized that a change in the justification of the claims does not change their legal nature, subject, and grounds as a whole, and the plaintiff is actually asking the court to re-examine an issue that has already been resolved; the court also referred to the principle of “res judicata”, according to which an identical claim cannot be re-filed if the case has already been decided by the court; the court indicated that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of procedural law, taking into account the existence of a valid court decision in a similar case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 337/5178/25 of December 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_5 from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain any
of the court’s arguments. The court only stated that the full text of the ruling would be drawn up later, referring to the fact that drawing up the full text of the ruling requires significant time, and guided by Part 2 of Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, unfortunately, it is impossible to analyze the court’s arguments that it used when making the decision.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the submission of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal to send the criminal proceedings from one court to another.
Case No. 317/3271/19 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of contracts of sale of a garden house and a land plot, concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, on the grounds of being misled about essential circumstances, namely regarding the material of the walls of the house and its suitability for habitation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the defendant intentionally misled the plaintiff regarding essential circumstances, namely regarding the material of the walls of the house (railroad ties instead of bricks) and its suitability for habitation, which is confirmed by expert opinions on exceeding the permissible concentrations of harmful substances. The court noted that deception can be expressed both in active actions (providing false information) and in passive ones (silence about circumstances that are essential). The court emphasized that in order to recognize a transaction as invalid on the grounds of deception, it is necessary to prove not only the fact of deception, but also the presence of intent in the actions of the defendant and the materiality of the circumstances regarding which the person was misled. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since the circumstances of each case are unique and require an individual assessment of the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, renewing the execution of the decision of the court of first instance in the part of recovery of funds.
Case No. 904/4870/24 dated 09/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,449,492.23.
The Supreme Court, leaving unchanged the decision of the court of appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance. The court of cassation, having examined the case materials, did not establish violations of the norms of procedural or substantive law that could be the basis for canceling the appealed court decisions. In particular, the court of appeal fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, correctly applied the norms of substantive law governing the disputed legal relations, and came to a reasonable conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the claims. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal and do not contain references to new circumstances that were not the subject of the investigation of the court of appeal.
of instances. The court of cassation acts within the powers defined by the procedural law and does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Logistiklakiflow” and to leave the постанову (ruling) of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case №990/186/24 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) and the obligation to perform certain actions.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the appeal of the HQCJU, overturned the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation, and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1. The court likely proceeded on the basis that the HQCJU acted within its powers and in the manner prescribed by law, and that the previous decision of the court of first instance was erroneous. The court may have taken into account the arguments of the HQCJU’s appeal regarding the legality and validity of its decision, as well as the inconsistency of the plaintiff’s arguments with the requirements of the law. The court may have taken into account the case files confirming the lawfulness of the HQCJU’s actions.
3. The court granted the appeal of the HQCJU, overturned the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation, and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1.
Case №918/430/23 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of an electronic auction and a contract of sale of property that, according to the prosecutor’s office, was illegally privatized without preserving the profile of activity as an object of socio-cultural purpose.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the property of the Strashiv Tuberculosis Hospital, reorganized by joining another medical institution, remained an object of socio-cultural purpose at the time of privatization, namely a medical institution. The court took into account that the main activity of both enterprises was the activity of hospital facilities. It was also established that the reorganization of the hospital was carried out to improve medical care, and not to change the intended purpose of the property. The court emphasized that the information in the State Register of Real Property Rights on the registration of property as separate objects was entered only after the conclusion of the disputed contract. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the prosecutor did not miss the statute of limitations, as the violation of the interests of the state became known only after receiving a response from the Rivne Regional Council. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the need for a license at the time of the auction to recognize the object as a healthcare facility.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the постанову (ruling) of the appellate court, granting the claim to invalidate the auction and the contract of sale, ordering the return of the property.
Case No. 990/369/25 dated 12/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) on the judge’s failure to confirm the ability to administer justice according to the criterion of social competence.
The court granted the claim, recognizing the HQCJU’s decision as unlawful and obliging the commission to restore the plaintiff’s participation in the competition for the position of judge of the appellate administrative court. In substantiating the decision, the court likely took into account the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unfoundedness of the HQCJU’s conclusions regarding her social competence. Possibly, the court found that the assessment of social competence was carried out superficially, in violation of the procedure, or without taking into account important circumstances. Also, the court could have concluded that the HQCJU did not provide adequate justification for its conclusions, or that these conclusions do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. It is important that the court obliged the HQCJU to re-examine the issue of the plaintiff’s qualification assessment, which indicates the need for a more thorough and objective approach to assessing her professional qualities.
The court granted the claim, recognized the decision of the HQCJU as unlawful, and obliged to restore the plaintiff’s participation in the competition.
Case No. 910/3027/24 (910/10496/24) dated 12/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Subsidiary Company “Metelyk” to recognize the absence of the right of claim of LLC “FC “Investohills Vesta” under loan agreements, which, according to the plaintiff, were fully repaid back in 2015.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim of SC “Metelyk,” motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect its right, since at the time of applying to the court there was already a decision of the arbitration court on the recovery of debt from SC “Metelyk” in favor of LLC “FC “Investohills Vesta,” which was confirmed by rulings of the appellate and cassation commercial
arbitration courts. The court noted that the task of the court is to resolve the dispute in the most efficient way to avoid repeated appeals to the court. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the method of protection must be effective and correspond to the nature of the violation, and the claim for recognition of the absence of the right of claim is preventive and cannot be satisfied if there is already a court decision on debt collection. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to prejudicial circumstances established in another case, as the decision in that case was overturned. The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments actually amount to an attempt to review the decision of the arbitration court, which is inadmissible.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the lower courts, dismissing the cassation appeal of SE “Metelyk”.
Case No. 640/33910/21 of 10/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine regarding changes in the coefficients of tariffs for the transportation of goods by rail.
2. The court of cassation supported the position of the previous courts that the disputed order is a regulatory act that must comply with the principles of state regulatory policy, but overturned the decision in the part recognizing the order as invalid, since at the time of consideration of the case in the court of cassation, the order had already expired. The court noted that the Ministry of Infrastructure did not prove the expediency and adequacy of the adoption of the order, since the necessity of repeated changes in tariffs after their previous increase was not substantiated, and a proper analysis of the impact of the regulatory act on the market was not carried out. The court also pointed to the lack of a reasoned calculation of the investment component of the tariff and a violation of the principle of balance of interests of business entities. The court emphasized that non-compliance with the procedure for adopting a regulatory act established by the Law of Ukraine “On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Sphere of Economic Activity” is the basis for recognizing such an act as illegal.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part recognizing the order as invalid, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions, confirming the illegality of the order due to violations of the regulatory policy procedure.
Case No. 990/98/25 of 10/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to dismiss a judge on the basis of the lustration provisions of the Constitution and the refusal to consider the application for resignation.
The court justified its decision by the fact that the dismissal of a judge on the basis of subparagraph 4 of paragraph 16-1 of section XV “Transitional Provisions” of the Constitution of Ukraine is illegal, since this rule applies only to persons who held certain positions in the period from February 25, 2010 to February 22, 2014 and were with
were dismissed from these positions. Since the judge was not dismissed from his position during this period, the lustration norms cannot be applied to him. In addition, the court noted that the High Council of Justice is obliged to consider the judge’s resignation application, as this is his right guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the application of lustration measures.
The court granted the claim, признал протиправними та скасував рішення ВРП, а також зобов’язав ВРП розглянути заяву судді про відставку.
Case No. 903/244/25 dated December 9, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the termination of a lease agreement between an individual entrepreneur and a limited liability company.
In its decision, the Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments that it relied on when overturning the decisions of the lower courts. However, considering the operative part, it can be assumed that the courts of first and appellate instances committed certain procedural violations or incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law when considering the case of termination of the lease agreement. Perhaps the courts did not fully clarify the circumstances relevant to the case, or did not properly assess the evidence submitted by the parties. It is also possible that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of legislation governing the termination of lease agreements. In this regard, the Supreme Court decided that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to eliminate the identified shortcomings.
The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 905/1666/24 dated December 2, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of vehicle lease agreements concluded between two LLCs as invalid, and the application of the consequences of invalid transactions in the form of recovery of funds to the state revenue.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the tax authority did not prove the existence of grounds for признання договорів недійсними згідно зі статтею 228 Цивільного кодексу України, оскільки не було встановлено умислу сторін на порушення інтересів держави та суспільства. The courts of previous instances established that the lease agreements were concluded between the defendants as equal participants in хозяйственных отношений, and хозяйственные операции за цими договорами були реальними, що підтверджується відповідними документами. The fact of suspension of registration of tax invoices is not an indisputable proof of fictitious transactions. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case or переоцінювати докази, а його завдання полягає лише в перевірці правильності застосування норм матеріального та процесуального права судами попередніхof instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/13912/23 dated 03/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is a request for an additional decision regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance in a commercial case, which was returned for a new trial to the court of appeal.
The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the request for an additional decision, as the previous decision of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial. The court noted that the distribution of court costs, including expenses for professional legal assistance, is carried out by the court that makes the final decision in the case based on the results of the new trial, guided by the general rules for the distribution of court costs, defined in Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Since the cassation court does not resolve the dispute on its merits, it has no legal grounds to distribute the costs incurred in connection with the consideration of the case. The court also emphasized that the rejection of the request does not prevent the applicant from submitting a corresponding request after the new trial of the case by the appellate court.
The court rejected the request for an additional decision.
Case No. 128/564/21 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the requirement of LLC “Operator GTS of Ukraine” to oblige an individual to eliminate obstacles in the use of the protection zone of gas pipelines by dismantling certain objects located on her land plots.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which satisfied the claim, motivated by the fact that the defendant (the owner of the land plots) leased these plots to LLC “Vinbeton”, which actually carries out economic activities on them, and therefore LLC “Vinbeton” should be involved in the case as a co-defendant. The court of appeal indicated that the plaintiff knew about the activities of LLC “Vinbeton” on these plots even before filing the claim. The cassation court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that both owners and users of land plots in protection zones are obliged to comply with the established restrictions, and the non-involvement of the lessee (LLC “Vinbeton”) in the case is a basis for rejecting the claim due to an improper subject composition. The cassation court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the appellate court unlawfully accepted new evidence, since the defendant did not participate in the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, and the plaintiff was aware of the activities of LLC “Vinbeton” on the disputed land plots even before filing the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Operator GTS of Ukraine”, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case
a Case No. 640/33910/21 dated 10/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine regarding the change of tariff coefficients for freight transportation by rail.
2. The court of cassation upheld the position of the previous courts that the disputed order is a regulatory act that must comply with the principles of state regulatory policy, but overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of recognizing the order as invalid, since at the time of the case consideration in the cassation court, this order had already expired. The court noted that the Ministry of Infrastructure did not properly justify the need to increase tariffs, did not provide an economic justification, calculation of the cost of transportation, did not take into account the impact of tariff increases on other sectors of the economy, and did not analyze alternative ways to solve the problem, in particular, did not consider the possibility of reducing the cost of transportation. The court also emphasized that the Ministry of Infrastructure did not prove the existence of grounds for reviewing tariffs, in particular, did not provide a reasonable calculation of the shortage of funds for capital investments and did not add a report on the implementation of the capital investment development plan. The court pointed out shortcomings in the regulatory impact analysis, in particular, the lack of assessment of all acceptable alternative ways to achieve the set goals.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturning the decisions of the previous courts in the part of recognizing the order as invalid, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions, confirming the violation of the procedure for adopting a regulatory act.
Case No. 140/3540/23 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the serviceman’s right to receive a one-time monetary allowance upon discharge from military service.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the serviceman’s claim, motivating it by the fact that only those servicemen who were discharged on the grounds determined by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and not directly by the Law “On Military Duty and Military Service,” are entitled to receive a one-time monetary allowance upon discharge. In this case, the plaintiff was discharged on the basis of subparagraph “g” of paragraph 3 of part 5 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service” (due to family circumstances, when both spouses are servicemen and have a child under 18 years of age), which is not included in the list of grounds determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for the payment of such assistance. The court noted that since the dismissal occurred on the basis provided for by law, and not by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, the right to the payment of a one-time monetary allowance does not arise. The Court refers to its previous practice in case No. 140/1143/23, where a similar conclusion was made.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part
