Case №824/67/25 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Lampochka” to set aside the decision of the Maritime Arbitration Commission regarding the recovery of demurrage, penalty, inflation charges, 3% per annum and arbitration fee expenses in favor of PJSC “Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company”.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal of LLC “Lampochka”, amending the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal. The court of cassation excluded from the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling a reference to the fact that the claims of PJSC “Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company” are justified, filed within the statute of limitations and subject to satisfaction. At the same time, the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal was left unchanged in other respects. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal, but decided to remove superfluous statements from the reasoning part that could affect further consideration of the case in another instance, if any. The court of cassation thus exercised caution so as not to create the impression of resolving the case on the merits at the stage of considering the application to set aside the arbitration award. The judges referred to the articles of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which they were guided by when making the decision.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal of LLC “Lampochka”, amending the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal in the part of motivation, and left it unchanged in other respects.
Case №910/14264/24 dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of a non-residential building, the invalidation of the land lease agreement and the obligation to return the land plot.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the initial registration of ownership of the cafe was carried out on the basis of a canceled court decision, and the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine established that the object is a temporary structure, the ownership of which is not subject to registration. Reconstruction of a temporary structure does not turn it into a real estate object, as this requires commissioning. Since at the time of the decision to transfer the land plot for lease, there were no real estate objects on it, the transfer took place in violation of the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the requirement for dismantling (demolition) of the building meets the requirement for demolition of unauthorized construction, and therefore is a proper method of protection. The court indicated that the plaintiff’s error in referring to incorrect legislative provisions cannot be the basis for denying the claim if the claims can be interpreted in accordance with the proper method of protecting rights.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of
denial of the claim for invalidation of the lease agreement and obligation to return the land plot, granted the claim in this part, and regarding the denial of the claim for cancellation of state registration – left the decision unchanged, only changing the reasoning part.
Case №922/619/25 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract and recovery of UAH 241,331.89 between two individual entrepreneurs.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Lisovykh D.S., canceling the appellate court’s ruling and partially canceling the appellate court’s decision regarding the allocation of legal aid costs related to the consideration of the plaintiff’s appeal, sending the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court; the cassation appeal of Chornoshtan R.I. was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances were left unchanged in other parts. The court probably agreed with the arguments of the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Lisovykh D.S. regarding the incorrect allocation of legal costs related to legal aid provided during the consideration of the appeal. At the same time, the court did not find grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal of Chornoshtan R.I., which indicates that the decisions of the previous instances regarding the termination of the contract and recovery of funds are justified and lawful.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Lisovykh D.S. regarding the allocation of legal costs and dismissed the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Chornoshtan R.I.
Case №761/2551/21 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Zaporizhzhia Oblast to disclose by PJSC Ukrgasbank of information containing banking secrecy regarding the financial transactions of JSC Zaporizhzhia Aluminum Combine.
2. The court refused to satisfy the tax authority’s application, as the latter did not prove the impossibility of conducting an audit regarding JSC Zaporizhzhia Aluminum Combine in other ways provided by law, in particular, by conducting a documentary unscheduled on-site audit, and also did not justify the objective need to disclose the entire scope of information on the circulation of funds in the company’s bank accounts, indicating counterparties. The court noted that regulatory authorities have the right to receive information necessary for the performance of their functions, but the disclosure of banking secrecy is possible only if the performance of these functions without obtaining such information is impossible or there is another objective need for its disclosure, while the amount of information should be limited by law. The court also took into account that the tax authority did not make a decision to conduct a documentary unscheduled on-site audit and did not send itcopy of the order on conducting such an inspection to the taxpayer. The court emphasized that the applicant must justify the objective need for disclosing the requested information, which was not done in this case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 203/3245/23 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of moderate bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the verdict, as it found that the court of first instance, having examined and assessed the evidence in its entirety, reached a reasonable conclusion on the proof of the person’s guilt in committing the crime under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely, the intentional infliction of moderate bodily injuries to two victims as a result of conflicts. The court took into account the testimony of the victims, witnesses, expert opinions, protocols of investigative experiments, and other evidence that is consistent with each other and confirms the person’s guilt. The appellate court, having examined the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, providing proper justification for its position. The court of cassation instance did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could affect the legality and validity of the court decisions. The arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal regarding the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case and the incorrect assessment of the evidence were deemed unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, and the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 761/16312/25 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings regarding PERSON_8 in the criminal proceedings.
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 991/9294/20 dated 04/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the acquittal of PERSON_9 under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of office) and reclassified his actions to Part 1 of Article 396 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (concealment of a crime), and also released him from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court:
* Failed to properly assess the totality of the evidence in the case, in particular
* Ignored letters from state authorities confirming the absence of actual activity of counterparties and did not fully assess the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
* Failed to substantiate the recognition of the results of covert investigative (search) actions (hereinafter referred to as CISSA) protocols as inadmissible evidence, which, according to the prosecution, confirmed OSOBA_9’s awareness of the fictitiousness of enterprises and his influence on witnesses.
* Did not assess the arguments of the appeal regarding the unsubstantiated recognition of the expert opinion as inadmissible evidence.
* Did not consider the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of establishing the nature, content, and scope of authority of an official when considering cases of abuse of official position.
* Erroneously asserted the absence of evidence of OSOBA_9’s responsibility for approving draft contracts, disregarding the documents available in the case file and the Instruction on Records Management in the Prosecutor’s Office, which is publicly available.
* Worsened the position of the acquitted by issuing a decision in the form of a ruling instead of a judgment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 740/6310/24 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of OSOBA_7 under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed under martial law, combined with breaking into premises).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and their conclusions about the guilt of OSOBA_7 are based on a combination of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim and a witness, video footage from a surveillance camera, and protocols of investigative actions. The court of cassation did not take into account the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, as the verification of such circumstances is not within its competence. The court also rejected the arguments about the violation of the right to defense due to the failure to ensure the defendant’s participation in the appellate review, as the convicted person did not file a motion for this, and his interests were represented by a lawyer. The court of cassation also disagreed with the arguments about the appellate court’s violation of the requirements for re-examination of evidence, as such examination is a right, not an obligation of the court, and there were no grounds for its conduct.
3. The court decided to uphold the judgment and ruling of the appellate court and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 569/19842/21 dated 11/12/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment regarding OSOBA_6, convicted under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs).
of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or their analogues).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defender, amending the decision of the appellate court. The court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for the imposition of a lighter sentence than provided for by the sanction of the article of charge, considering the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person. The Supreme Court decided that a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years without confiscation of property would be sufficient to correct PERSON_6 and prevent the commission of new crimes. In all other respects, the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
The court decided to amend the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal of August 14, 2025, sentencing PERSON_6 to imprisonment for a term of 3 years without confiscation of property, leaving the court decisions unchanged in all other respects.
Case No. 916/1339/25 dated 12/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of UAH 5,755,643.49 from the Servicing Cooperative “Residential Construction Cooperative “Materyk Comfort” in favor of the Fontanska Village Council of the Odesa District of the Odesa Region.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, leaving them unchanged. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case and properly assessed the evidence presented by the parties. The absence of reasoned grounds for canceling these decisions indicates their validity and compliance with current legislation. The Prosecutor’s Office, in filing a cassation appeal, failed to provide convincing arguments that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances. The absence of representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant at the hearing of the Supreme Court may indicate their agreement with the previous court decisions or the absence of new arguments that could affect the outcome of the case.
The decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Region and the resolution of the South-Western Commercial Court of Appeal shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the Deputy Head of the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office shall be dismissed.
Case No. 911/578/24 dated 11/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a natural gas supply agreement, including the debt, penalty, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the partial satisfaction of the claim, in particular, regarding the reduction of the amount of the penalty, based on the following:
* Reducing the amount of the penalty is the right of the court, which is based on the analysis of the specific circumstances of the case, the degree of fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor, the property status of the parties, and other interests that deserve attention.
* The court must ensure a balance of interests of the parties, taking into account the compensatory, and not punitive, nature of liability measures.
*In this case, the courts took into account that the contract was concluded during martial law, which affects the activities of both parties, as well as the fact that the defendant partially fulfilled the obligations.
* Considering the compensatory nature of the penalty and the court’s discretion to decide on the reduction of the penalty and the amount to which it should be reduced, the court of appeal reasonably reduced the amount of the penalty by 50%, which will ensure a balance of interests of the parties.
* The cassation court emphasized that there is no universal maximum and minimum amount of penalty by which it can be reduced, and this issue is decided by the court within its discretionary powers.
* The cassation court noted that the individual nature of the grounds, which in specific legal relations determine the reduction by the court of the amount of penalty (which is subject to recovery for violation of the obligation), as well as the discretionary nature of the court’s determination of the amount to which the court reduces it, lead to the conclusion that there is no universal maximum and minimum amount of penalty by which it can be reduced, which at the same time requires that this amount complies with the principles of the rule of law.
4. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover the full amount of the penalty remained unchanged.
Case No. 607/18335/20 dated 04/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the court of appeal regarding the satisfaction of the civil claim for compensation for moral damage caused as a result of a traffic accident, where the trolleybus driver belonging to “Ternopilelectrotrans” Municipal Enterprise ran over a pedestrian, which resulted in the death of the latter.
2. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal of the representative of the civil defendant, since the court of appeal, when reviewing the verdict of the local court, fully complied with the requirements of criminal procedural and civil legislation. The cassation court noted that the court of appeal reasonably dismissed the appeal of the representative of “Ternopilelectrotrans” Municipal Enterprise, providing relevant reasons regarding the amount of compensation for moral damage determined by the court of first instance. Also, the cassation court took into account that the victim did not file a civil claim against the direct perpetrator of the traffic accident, but only against “Ternopilelectrotrans” Municipal Enterprise, therefore, the court of appeal had no grounds to make a decision to reduce the amount of compensation for moral damage by the amount voluntarily paid by the perpetrator. The cassation court emphasized that “Ternopilelectrotrans” Municipal Enterprise has the right of recourse against the guilty party in the amount of compensation paid in accordance with Article 1191 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 757/60692/19
-ц dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State Treasury Service of Ukraine and the Main Department of the National Police in the city of Kyiv for compensation for property and moral damage caused, as the plaintiff claims, by an official of a state authority.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim pursuant to paragraph 3 of part one of Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, leaving the cassation appeal without satisfaction. The courts found that the plaintiff had been duly notified of the court hearings but repeatedly failed to appear, did not report the reasons for the failure to appear, and did not file a motion to have the case heard in his absence. The court noted that the procedural law does not require consideration of the validity of the reasons for the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear, as this is related to the principle of disposition in civil proceedings, where a person independently disposes of their procedural rights. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s procedural conduct, which abused his rights, indicating a reluctance to obtain the result of the claim he initiated. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the case was considered by an unauthorized panel of judges, as no evidence was provided of a violation of the procedure for determining the judge to hear the case.
3. The court of cassation ruled to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv and the постанову of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 295/9580/24 dated 12/02/2025
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 Parts 1, 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as lawful, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal because a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law was established, namely, the decision was made by an illegal panel of judges. The judge of the court of appeal, who participated in the appellate review of the judgment, had previously, during the pre-trial investigation, authorized the conduct of covert investigative actions against the convicted person. The participation of the same judge in the appellate review, according to the Supreme Court, casts doubt on the objectivity and impartiality of the judicial review. Such a violation is an unconditional ground for overturning the decision of the court of appeal. Given the risk of absconding from the court, the convicted person was remanded in custody for a term of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, imposing a preventive measure on the convicted person in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
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 a person convicted under Part 1, 3, Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (appropriation, embezzlement or seizure of property by abuse of office).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132513250](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132513250)
**Case No. 466/10524/22 dated 26/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of a private enforcement officer regarding the non-suspension of enforcement proceedings against a debtor who is performing military service upon conscription during mobilization.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the debtor’s cassation appeal, stating that:
* The private enforcement officer committed unlawful inaction by not responding to the debtor’s notification of his mobilization and not deciding to suspend the enforcement proceedings.
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that the debtor’s personal presence was not mandatory at the subsequent stages of the enforcement proceedings, since the debtor has the right to challenge the valuation of the property and the results of the auction.
* The debtor’s military service during mobilization makes it impossible to carry out enforcement actions, since the military unit where he serves has been transferred to martial law.
* The suspension of enforcement proceedings in this case ensures compliance with the principles of fairness, impartiality and the right to appeal the actions of the enforcement officer.
* The court took into account the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that military formations during martial law are considered to have been transferred to martial law, which should be taken into account when deciding on the suspension of proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to recognize the unlawful inaction of the private enforcement officer and issued a new decision to satisfy the complaint in this part, and also reversed the decision of the appellate court in the part of obliging the private enforcement officer to suspend the enforcement proceedings, changing the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132513279](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132513279)
**Case No. 2-1595/11 dated 09/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of the garage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of appeal on the closing of the appellate proceedings, since the person who filed the appeal (PERSON_2) was not a party to the case in the court of first instance, and the decision of the court of first instance did not decide the issue of his/her rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations. The court noted that PERSON_2 did not accept the inheritance after his/her father, who was the previous owner of the garage, and did not provide evidence of challenging the certificates of inheritance issued to other heirs. The court of cassation
the court of appeal emphasized that a person who did not participate in the case must prove their legal connection with the parties to the dispute or directly with the court decision, substantiating that the court decided the issue of their right, interest, and/or obligation. Since such a connection was not established, the appellate court rightfully closed the appellate proceedings. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to disagreement with the court decision and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 917/814/16 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of JSC “AutoKraz”.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the bankruptcy case of JSC “AutoKraz”, as the company meets the criteria defined in paragraph 8-1 of part one of Article 90 and paragraph 1-9 of the “Final and Transitional Provisions” Section of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, namely: it is a critical infrastructure operator, the shares were forcibly alienated during martial law, and the state owns more than 50% of the shares. The court noted that the closure of bankruptcy proceedings under martial law pursues a legitimate goal – ensuring the operation of critical infrastructure facilities. At the same time, the court of cassation recognized as partially justified the arguments of the arbitration manager regarding the need for the appellate court to consider the application for approval of remuneration and expenses, but indicated that this is not a basis for canceling the ruling in its entirety, since the arbitration manager can protect their rights in another procedure.
3. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of JSC “AutoKraz”, changing only its reasoning part.
Case No. 910/25640/14 dated 26/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv to the State Enterprise “Agency for Restructuring Debt of Enterprises of the Agro-Industrial Complex” within the bankruptcy case.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the tax authority’s claims as justified, considering that the debt arose on the basis of loan agreements in foreign currency, and although the amount of the debt was established in national currency by a court decision, this does not transform the obligation into national currency without taking into account the NBU exchange rate on the date the creditor filed the application with monetary claims. The court also took into account that after the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv dated October 31, 2012, in case No. 5011-12/9747-2012, the repayment
no overdue debt of SE “ARZPAK” occurred. The court of cassation instance noted that commercial courts must carry out a legal analysis of the submitted creditor claims, the grounds for their occurrence, their nature, establish the amount and time of occurrence of these claims. The court also indicated that the Law on Bankruptcy, which was in effect at the time of the claim, obliges secured creditors to submit written statements with claims against the debtor and documents confirming them within thirty days from the date of official publication of the announcement of the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 582/518/20 dated 04/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm).
2. The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, noting that the conclusion of the local court on the proof of the person’s guilt is justified and made on the basis of an objective clarification of all circumstances confirmed by evidence examined and verified during the trial. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings regarding the convicted person was observed. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court considered the criminal proceedings on the appeal of the defense lawyer in compliance with the rules provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation instance did not establish significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which would be the grounds for canceling or changing the disputed verdict and ruling. The court of cassation instance drew attention to the fact that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, although they do not contain among the principles of criminal proceedings the inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights, however, the prohibition of abuse of procedural rights is a general legal principle and applies to all branches of law.
3. The court decided to leave the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 521/18780/21 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of state registrars on state registration of ownership of real estate and amendments thereto.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the right of ownership to the object was recognized by a court decision that entered into legal force, and according to the law, state registration of rights is carried out on the basis of such decisions. The court noted that the requirement for mandatory commissioning of the object applies to cases where there are no court decisions on ownership. In addition, at the time of consideration of the case, the Sp
rights, the entries in the State Register of Real Property Rights were brought into compliance with the court decision determining the area of the house. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the binding nature of court decisions is one of the fundamental principles of justice. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the binding nature of court decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 681/1459/21 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the city council for the recovery of a land plot from the illegal possession of an individual and a legal entity, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot and its state registration.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings regarding the claims against A.T.K. LLC, since the dispute between legal entities is subject to consideration in commercial proceedings, and not in civil proceedings. Regarding the claims against the individual, the court noted that the recovery of the land plot is an effective way of protection, as it ensures the return of the property to the owner, and the claims for cancellation of the state registration of ownership and the land plot are ineffective, as they do not lead to the restoration of ownership. The court also took into account that the disputed land plot was not merged with another, so there is no need to cancel the registration of the newly formed plot. The court of cassation emphasized that if the claim for recovery of property is satisfied, the court decision is the basis for entering a record on the state registration of ownership for the plaintiff.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 522/9185/22 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions on state registration of ownership of non-residential premises as unlawful, the recognition of gift agreements and acceptance certificates as invalid, and the termination of ownership of these premises.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court in the part of closing the proceedings regarding the claims against Marlet PE, since these claims are subject to consideration in commercial proceedings. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the reasons for refusing to satisfy the claims against individuals, noting that the Odesa City Council did not prove the fact of violation of its rights at the time of applying to the court, as it did not provide evidence that the defendants were preventing it from using and disposing of the property, and a claim for protection of rights in the future is not provided for by the norms of the Civil Procedure Code and the Civil Code.
of Ukraine. The court emphasized that an actual violation of rights, and not just a potential possibility of such a violation, is necessary to appeal to the court. Thus, although the appellate court correctly concluded that the claim should be dismissed, its reasoning was erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to amend the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, leaving unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim and to close the proceedings regarding the claims against PP “Marlet.”
**Case No. 335/1854/22 dated 12/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of minor children from an apartment that is under mortgage.
2. The court dismissed the bank’s claim for the eviction of minor children from the mortgaged apartment, because the bank did not prove that the registration of the children violates its rights as a mortgagee, did not provide evidence of foreclosure on the mortgaged property, and also chose an improper method of protection, since the eviction of children is a disproportionate interference with their right to housing. The court noted that the bank referred to violations of the mortgage agreement regarding the registration of persons without the consent of the mortgagee, but did not prove that this violation prevents the realization of its rights. The court also took into account the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the protection of the right to housing. The court emphasized that eviction is possible only on the basis of the law and by a court decision, and in this case there are no legal grounds for the eviction of children. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot independently collect evidence in favor of one of the parties, as this violates the principle of equality of the parties in the court process.
3. The court of cassation left the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 161/7185/14-ц dated 12/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on mortgaged property due to non-fulfillment of the terms of the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, in particular, did not investigate the amount of the debt, its components, and did not check the arguments of the appeal regarding the bank’s accrual of interest and penalties after the decision to prematurely recover the debt. The court noted that after the decision to recover the entire amount of the loan debt, the creditor has no right to continue accruing interest, referring to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which were relevant at the time of the case, but referred to the judicial practice that existed at the time of the disputed legal relations. Considering that the court of cassation cannot establish new circumstances of the case, the case must be sent for a new trial to
of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the amount of debt, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case №552/7194/22 dated 04/12/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132476378](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132476378)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment imposed on the convicted PERSON_8 for committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Article 345, Part 2 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding conditional release from serving the sentence, considering the severity of the crimes, including threats of violence and murder against law enforcement officers while performing their official duties, as well as illegal handling of edged weapons near a residential building. The court also took into account the fact that PERSON_8 was in a state of alcohol intoxication, which is an aggravating circumstance. The court of appeal noted that the actions of the convicted person posed a real threat to others and constituted an increased public danger, which makes it impossible to achieve the purpose of the punishment without isolation from society. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, noting that the appellate court took into account all the circumstances that are legally relevant in choosing the measure of punishment and the method of serving it, and reached a reasonable conclusion about the impossibility of correcting the convicted person without isolation from society. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the defense counsel about active assistance in the disclosure of crimes, since no evidence of active voluntary assistance to the investigation was provided.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Poltava Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
**Case №727/684/21 dated 01/12/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132476351](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132476351)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for receiving undue advantage.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, citing significant violations of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the court from making a lawful and well-founded decision. The court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the defense regarding the possible provocation of the crime, did not take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the distinction between protection against provocation and denial of the fact of committing the crime. In addition, the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments regarding the refusal of the local court to summon a key prosecution witness for questioning, failing to ensure the defendant’s right to cross-examination. Also, the court of appeal did not justify the refusal to grant the defense’s request to call witnesses for questioning in court, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedureactual law.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the court of appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 646/7651/24 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal regarding a person accused of illegally acquiring and storing narcotic drugs without the purpose of distribution, committed repeatedly.
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 204/977/25 dated 12/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed repeatedly under martial law).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that PERSON_7’s guilt in committing an open theft of property had been proven, taking into account the testimony of witnesses, video recordings from surveillance cameras and other evidence. The court noted that PERSON_7’s actions were correctly qualified as robbery, since he was aware that his actions were noticed and tried to escape with the stolen property. The court also emphasized that the court of appeal properly analyzed all the arguments of the defense and reasonably dismissed the appeal. The court of cassation noted that the absence of a motion for re-examination of evidence does not oblige the court of appeal to re-examine the circumstances established during the criminal proceedings. Also, the court of cassation did not take into account the defender’s arguments about inconsistencies in the date of the crime, as this does not affect the essence of the accusation.
3. The court decided to leave the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – unsatisfied.
Case No. 212/10184/19 dated 12/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which caused serious bodily injuries to the victim.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the prosecutor, in which the proof of guilt, the admissibility of evidence, the validity of the imposed punishment and the violation of the principle of immediacy of the examination of evidence by the court of appeal were questioned. The court of cassation noted that the local court, having examined the evidence, reasonably recognized the person’s guilt as proven, and the court of appeal, although it allowed a formal violation of the principle of immediacy, referring to the testimony given during the pre-trial investigation, did not justify its conclusions with them. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments regarding the inadmissibility
sibility of the video recording from the DVR, as it was voluntarily provided by a witness, and also recognized as justified the punishment imposed by the appellate court, taking into account the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict and dismissed the convicted person’s and the prosecutor’s cassation appeals.
Case No. 910/15182/24 dated 04/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the registration action regarding changes in the information about “Ukraine” Agricultural Limited Liability Company in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations (USR).
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to appeal to the court, it is necessary to have a violated right or legitimate interest, and in this case, “Ukraine” Agricultural Limited Liability Company did not prove that the appealed order of the Ministry of Justice violates its rights, since in fact the dispute concerns the corporate rights of the company’s participants, and not the company itself. The court noted that the company is not a holder of corporate rights within the meaning of the Civil Code of Ukraine, unless it has acquired a share in its own authorized capital. Also, the court indicated that the purpose of the claim is to protect the corporate rights of the participants, and not the rights of the company itself, and therefore the company is not a proper plaintiff in this dispute.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and issued a new decision to dismiss the claim of “Ukraine” Agricultural Limited Liability Company.
Case No. 922/868/25 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Kharkiv City Council to “Helios” LLC regarding the cancellation of the registration of the declaration of readiness of the object for operation, recognition of the certificate of ownership as invalid, cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights, and obligation to rebuild the non-residential building to its previous state.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the Kharkiv City Council, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding unauthorized construction, namely the reconstruction of the building with a change in the external configuration and an increase in area without obtaining the necessary permits and the consent of the owner of the land plot. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not differentiate between the circumstances of acquiring ownership of the initial area of the building and subsequent reconstruction, and also did not take into account the provisions of the land lease agreement, which prohibited unauthorized construction on the site. In addition, the court pointed out the need to assess the legality of issuing a certificate of ownership for the building of an increased area, taking into accountconsidering possible violations of urban planning legislation. The court of cassation emphasized that for a complete and comprehensive examination of the case, it is important to establish and analyze the totality of circumstances, and their absence does not allow the dispute to be considered in accordance with the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 926/3255/24 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the concluded sale and purchase agreement for a land plot between TОВ “Tsetsyno Skyline” and the Chernivtsi City Council.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the Chernivtsi City Council, having made a decision to sell the land plot to TОВ “Tsetsyno Skyline” and not having canceled it, was obliged to act in good faith and take all necessary actions to conclude the sale and purchase agreement. The court indicated that the inaction of the City Council violates the legitimate expectations of TОВ “Tsetsyno Skyline” to obtain ownership of the land plot, especially considering the payment of the land value by the company. The court also noted that the discretionary powers of the local government body cannot be used arbitrarily and without complying with the principles of good faith and fairness. In addition, the court emphasized the importance of the principle of “good governance”, which requires government bodies to act in a timely and consistent manner, especially when it comes to property rights. The court also took into account the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it, according to which the owner of the building has a civil interest in registering the right to the land plot under it.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decision of the court of first instance only in the part of the distribution of court costs, determining that the dispute is of a non-property nature, and in the rest it left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/18250/16 (910/33/24) dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from TОВ “VKP “Avtofurgon” in favor of TОВ “VBK “Wizard” of UAH 30,000 in expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the additional resolution of the appellate court, agreeing that TОВ “VBK Wizard” provided sufficient evidence to confirm the incurred expenses for legal assistance, and TОВ “VKP “Avtofurgon” did not exercise its right to file a motion to reduce these expenses. The court noted that the amount of the fee is determined by agreement between the lawyer and the client, and the court has no right to interfere in these relations. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that although TОВ “VBK Wizard” did not fulfill the requirement to register an electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS), this does not disprove the fact of providing legal assistance. The court indicated that the procedure for recovering expenses
on legal aid should not be used for unjust enrichment or punishment for unfair procedural conduct.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “VCP “Avtofurgon” LLC without satisfaction, and to leave the additional ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 17.09.2025 unchanged.
Case No. 642/2001/22 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement from the heir of the deceased borrower and the foreclosure on the inherited property.
2. The court dismissed the claim for recovery of debt from the heir, as the creditor (plaintiff) did not appeal to the heir with a demand for debt repayment within six months from the date the heir received the certificate of inheritance, as provided by Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that appealing to the court with a lawsuit is not a properly presented demand to the heir, as the statements of claim were returned or the opening of proceedings was refused. The court emphasized that the creditor should have sent the demand directly to the heir or through a notary, which was not done. The court also took into account that the creditor knew about the death of the debtor and the heir’s receipt of the certificate of inheritance, but appealed with a demand only a year after that. The court indicated that non-compliance with the deadlines for submitting claims deprives the creditor of the right to claim against the heirs.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/9411/24 dated 19/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal inaction of the State Property Fund of Ukraine regarding the failure to enter information about “FH Service” LLC as a tenant in the Unified Register of State Property Objects and the obligation to enter this information.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that “FH Service” LLC did not prove with proper evidence the occurrence of an obligation for the State Property Fund of Ukraine to enter information about the plaintiff in the register. The court also took into account that the additional agreement, on the basis of which “FH Service” LLC acquired the right to lease, was recognized as invalid by another court decision, which has prejudicial significance for this case. The Supreme Court found no grounds for cassation appeal, as it did not see an incorrect application of the norms of substantive or procedural law by the courts of previous instances. The court also noted that the conclusions referred to by the appellant relate to other legal relations that are not similar to those considered in this case. In addition, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the unreasonable refusal of the appellate court to request evidence, as this did not affect the correctness of the dispute’s resolution on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court leftcassation appeal of “FH Service” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 607/22769/20 dated 12/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of non-residential premises between two owners, each of whom believes that the other violates their rights.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, which satisfied the claim of PERSON_1, obliging “T-PS” LLC to restore the destroyed walls in the premises of PERSON_1. The court proceeded from the fact that PERSON_1 acquired ownership of the premises earlier than “T-PS” LLC acquired the adjacent premises. The court also took into account that the technical passport of PERSON_1 was drawn up on the basis of an actual technical inventory, and the actions of “T-PS” LLC to destroy the walls deprived PERSON_1 of the opportunity to fully use their property. The arguments of “T-PS” LLC about the prejudicial nature of the facts established in another case were rejected, since the circumstances of these cases are different. The court of cassation emphasized that only those circumstances that were directly investigated and established by the court have prejudicial significance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “T-PS” LLC and left the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 136/10/23 dated 12/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of state registration of ownership of a land plot, termination of ownership, cancellation of state registration of a land plot, and its recovery.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the land plot was disposed of from state ownership illegally, and therefore, for the effective protection of the violated property rights of the territorial community, it is necessary not only to recover the land plot, but also to cancel the state registration of ownership of the newly formed (consolidated) land plot, which included the disputed plot, and to terminate ownership of it. The court noted that in this case it is impossible to apply the established practice that vindication is an effective means of protection without canceling intermediate decisions, since the disputed land plot was combined with another, and therefore ceased to exist as a separate object of civil rights. The court emphasized that the termination of ownership of the newly created land plot and the cancellation of its state registration is a necessary condition for the implementation of the main method of protection – the recovery of the land plot. The court also took into account the balance of interests of the parties, placing on the defendant all additional costs associated with the renewal of their property right to other land plots that will be subject to new registration.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims for cancellation of state registration of ownership and termination of ownership of the land.
land plot, and issued a new decision to grant these claims.
Case No. 466/8834/24 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to two children.
2. The court dismissed the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as it was not established that the mother deliberately evaded the performance of parental duties, and it was not proven that she did not wish to communicate with the children and participate in their upbringing. The court took into account that the mother wishes to communicate with the children, objects to the deprivation of parental rights, participates in their maintenance by transferring funds. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which issues of family relations should be based on an assessment of the applicant’s personality and behavior, and deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure. The court noted that the child’s interests lie in ensuring his/her right to have his/her needs for love, care and material support met, and unjustified deprivation of parental rights is not in the best interests of the children. The court also took into account the psychologist’s opinion, which indicated a possible influence on the children’s opinion regarding the deprivation of the mother of parental rights.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 706/828/21 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damage caused to a person as a result of illegal criminal prosecution, conviction and other illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office and the court.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which increased the amount of compensation for moral damage to the plaintiff, based on the amount of the minimum wage established by law at the time of the case, namely UAH 8,000 for each month of illegal detention under investigation and trial. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Engaged in Operational and Investigative Activities, Pre-trial Investigation Bodies, Prosecutor’s Office and Court” is a special law in these legal relations, and it does not provide for the possibility of establishing a separate type of minimum wage in the Law on the State Budget of Ukraine for calculating payments under court decisions. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the amount of compensation for moral damage should be based on the amount of the minimum wage in effect at the time of the case, and should also be guided by the principles of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to apply the limited amount of the minimum wage established in the Law on the State Budget, since compensation for moral damage
That the compensation for moral harm is not a “payment” within the meaning of this Law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor’s Office and PERSON_1, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case №161/18354/23 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the local court’s verdict concerning a person convicted of illegal production and storage of psychotropic substances, precursors, and equipment for their production.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, noting that the appellate court formally reviewed the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to impose a sentence under Part 1 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code in the form of probationary supervision, did not properly refute them, and did not motivate its decision. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account the changes to Part 1 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code, introduced by Law № 3342-IX, which excluded punishment in the form of arrest, and did not consider the application of the provisions on the retroactive effect of the law in time. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the possibility of applying the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code on exemption from serving a sentence with probation to the convicted person, taking into account the positive characteristics of the person, sincere remorse, and other circumstances indicating the possibility of his correction without isolation from society. The court of cassation emphasized that the positive post-criminal behavior of a person is an important element in assessing their ability to reform, and excessive punitiveness without proper justification contradicts the principle of humanism.
3. The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the previous courts, mitigating the punishment under Part 1 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code from arrest to probationary supervision, and left the court decisions unchanged in other respects.
Case №741/784/20 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of an agronomist accused of violating labor protection rules, which led to the death of a driver.
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, as the prosecution did not provide sufficient and admissible evidence that would unequivocally indicate the defendant’s guilt in committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 271 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the assessment of witness testimonies and written evidence, emphasizing that none of the witnesses were direct eyewitnesses to the event, and the written evidence contains contradictions and does not confirm the circumstances constituting the objective side of the crime. The court also took into account that the defendant was not responsible for the technical condition of the vehicles, and the responsibility for the safe performance of work was not properly proven by the prosecution.
Furthermore, the court of cassation emphasized that all doubts regarding the proof of a person’s guilt must be interpreted in favor of the accused, and the prosecution did not prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 686/140/21 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of three individuals for committing criminal offenses, including theft, illegal handling of weapons, and narcotics.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the convicts and their defenders, overturning the appellate court’s verdict. In making this decision, the court of cassation was likely guided by the arguments of the cassation appeals, which may have concerned significant violations of the criminal procedural law, incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, or the unsubstantiated nature of the imposed punishment. Considering that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, the specific grounds for overturning the appellate court’s verdict are currently unknown. The court also chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for one of the accused for a period of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 916/4928/24 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the joint venture agreement between LLC “Uvhp-System”, CE “Suzirya Budova”, and LLC “Baubud” and the application of the consequences of the invalidity of this transaction.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s decision to close the appellate proceedings, as the persons who filed the appellate appeals (PERSON_1 and PERSON_2) were not parties to the joint venture agreement, and their rights and obligations do not directly arise from this agreement. The court noted that although the appellants are associate members of CE “Suzirya Budova”, their rights and obligations are regulated by a separate associate membership agreement, which is not the subject of the dispute in this case. The court also emphasized that the resolution of the issue of the validity of the joint venture agreement depends on the compliance with the requirements of the law by the parties to this agreement, and not on the rights of third parties who are not parties to it. The Supreme Court indicated that, in order to appeal a court decision, a person who did not participate in the case must prove that their rights and obligations are directly violated by this decision, and not indirectly through other legal facts. The court also took into account that a similar decision had already been made by the Supreme Court in another resolution regarding the same case, but concerning other appellants.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 and upheld the ruling of theAppellate court ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings – unchanged.
Case No. 604/4/20 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for obstructing the activities of a state enforcement officer and inflicting minor bodily harm on him.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment without changes, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances comprehensively examined the evidence, including witness testimonies, protocols of investigative actions, expert opinion, and reasonably found PERSON_7 guilty of committing criminal offenses. The court rejected the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, stating that the powers of the investigators were confirmed, the notice of suspicion was served properly, the defense was given the opportunity to review the materials of the pre-trial investigation, and the absence of medical documentation in the case file is not a significant violation. The court also noted that conducting investigative experiments at the police station did not affect their objectivity, and the victim acted within the scope of his authority as a state enforcement officer. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances ensured the participants in the court proceedings the right to defend their position and properly motivated their decisions.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 924/23/25 dated 12/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of land sublease agreements due to systematic non-payment of sublease payments.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which terminated the sublease agreements, since the systematic non-payment of the sublease payment by the defendant was established, which is a violation of the terms of the agreements. The courts took into account that, according to clause “d” of part 1 of Article 141 of the Land Code of Ukraine, systematic non-payment of rent is an independent basis for termination of the agreement, and in such a case there is no need to assess the materiality of the violation in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine. The appellate court also noted that the fact of debt repayment after filing the claim does not affect the plaintiff’s right to demand termination of the agreement. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the decision to recover expenses for professional legal assistance, considering them reasonable and commensurate with the complexity of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 303/458/22 dated 12/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of inflationary expenses and three percent per annum in connection with the deldelay in the execution of a court decision on compensation for the cost of a part of the apartment.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the defendant missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, and the reasons for missing the deadline were not recognized as valid. The court took into account that the defendant was duly notified of the case hearing, received court notices at the registered place of residence, and also received a copy of the appealed decision earlier than stated in the application for renewal of the term. The court also noted that the conscientious performance of official duties by postal workers is presumed, and there is no evidence to refute this. In addition, the court emphasized that the interested party has a duty to exercise due diligence in protecting their interests and to take the necessary measures to familiarize themselves with the events of the process. The court of cassation also noted that the unfounded renewal of the term for appealing a court decision that has entered into legal force is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 554/11048/23 dated 26/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a man’s paternity of a child born by a surrogate mother, and the obligation of the civil registry office to carry out state registration of the child’s birth.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not pay attention to important circumstances, namely: the plaintiff (alleged father) entered into an agreement on admitting guilt in criminal proceedings regarding the forgery of a marriage certificate, which he provided for the registration of the child; the courts did not ascertain who the biological parents of the child born by the surrogate mother were; the courts did not properly assess the surrogate mother’s statement about the forgery of the marriage certificate. In addition, the courts did not request the materials of the criminal proceedings to fully clarify the circumstances of the case. Considering these shortcomings, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances made premature conclusions regarding the merits of the dispute, without ensuring a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/1140/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the court of cassation.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the application for the recovery of legal aid costs, was guided by the following: firstly, the defendant provided a preliminary (estimated
