**Case No. 554/8210/24 dated 07/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings on a complaint against the investigative judge’s ruling granting permission to inspect the territory and premises.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court erroneously closed the proceedings because the investigative judge issued a ruling not expressly provided for in the CPC, namely, permission to inspect the territory and premises with excavation work, photo and video recording, and the involvement of specialists and experts. The Supreme Court emphasized that in such cases, when the CPC does not regulate a specific issue, the general principles of criminal proceedings should be followed, in particular, ensuring the right to appeal procedural decisions. The court also referred to previous conclusions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which indicate the need to ensure appellate appeal of rulings not provided for in the CPC, in order to guarantee the right to fair judicial protection. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have verified the legality of the investigative judge’s ruling, based on the general principles of criminal proceedings, and not closed the proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 910/4088/22 dated 11/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the decision of a private notary on the registration of ownership of a non-residential premise by “Creative Workshop “Prestige” LLC.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, reasoning that “Creative Workshop “Prestige” LLC filed a claim to an improper defendant, namely the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, instead of PrJSC “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1”, which initiated the cancellation of the ownership registration. The court emphasized that the disputed legal relations concern the property rights of PrJSC “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1”, and it is to this person that the plaintiff’s claims must be addressed for the effective protection of his rights. The court also noted that the Ministry of Justice is not a party to the dispute over property rights, and therefore cannot be a proper defendant in this case. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to involve PrJSC “Trust Kyivmiskbud-1” as a co-defendant. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/2546/22, according to which, in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice regarding the registration of property rights, the proper defendant is the person who initiated the cancellation of the entry in the register.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of “Creative Workshop “Prestige” LLC unsatisfied, and to leave the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal be.
with amendments.
**Case No. 910/11614/24 dated 25/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the business reputation of Limon LLC by refuting inaccurate information disseminated by Digitals Solutions LLC and TRC Studio 1+1.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, as the appellate court mistakenly believed that the plaintiff is not obliged to prove the existence of damage to business reputation if it does not demand compensation for losses; however, to satisfy a claim for protection of business reputation, it is necessary to prove the fact of dissemination of information, its inaccuracy, and negative impact on business reputation. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not directly examine the videos and publications containing the disputed information and did not assess the defendants’ arguments regarding the nature of the information (factual assertion or value judgment). The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not substantiate why it rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding the inadequacy of the expert opinion. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court’s ignoring of important arguments of the defendants contradicts the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim.
**Case No. 990/293/25 dated 08/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions (inaction) of the President of Ukraine regarding the non-signing of the Law of Ukraine and obliging him to take actions to restore the plaintiff’s violated rights to receive compensation for destroyed housing.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to open proceedings, proceeded from the fact that administrative courts hear cases where a subject of power exercises its authoritative managerial functions. The signing of a law by the President is part of the legislative process, not a managerial function. The Constitution of Ukraine grants the President the discretionary right to sign or veto laws, and judicial interference in these powers violates the principle of separation of powers. The court noted that the right to judicial protection presupposes the existence of a real violation of rights, which must be substantiated. Since the actions of the President in the legislative process are not managerial, they are not subject to control by administrative jurisdiction.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance without amendments.
**Case No. 922/744/25 dated 11/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the supplier in favor of the state customer of penalties and interest for the use of advance payment funds due to violation of the terms of delivery of goods.
2. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the appellateof the commercial court, which recovered funds from the supplier, motivating this by the fact that interest for the use of advance payment, provided for in Article 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, has a different legal nature than penalties and is a payment for the use of funds, and not a measure of responsibility, therefore, their reduction on the basis of Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is not allowed. The court noted that the legal position regarding the recovery of such interest is a stable judicial practice. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the funds were state-owned and had a specific purpose, as this does not affect the obligation to pay interest for the use of these funds. Also, the court indicated that the defendant did not provide convincing evidence of the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 536 and 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and his arguments are reduced to a subjective interpretation of the norms of law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/1825/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of CJSC “Spika” for the recovery from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of court costs for professional legal assistance for the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the application of CJSC “Spika”, motivating this by the fact that the initial court decisions in the case, which were the subject of cassation review, refused to satisfy the claims of CJSC “Spika”, and the Supreme Court only changed the reasoning parts of these decisions, leaving their operative parts unchanged. The court noted that, according to the general rule of distribution of court costs, there are no grounds for assigning them to the defendant, since the claim was not satisfied. In addition, the court pointed out that the dispute arose as a result of the incorrect actions of the plaintiff himself, who did not involve the proper defendant in the case, namely the person whose property right is disputed, which actually led to the absence of grounds for satisfying the claim. Taking these circumstances into account, the court did not consider it justified to impose the court costs incurred by the plaintiff on the defendant.
3. The Supreme Court decided to refuse to satisfy the application of CJSC “Spika” for the adoption of an additional decision on the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 911/2133/24 dated 12/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Avtospecprom” in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation instance.
The court partially satisfied the application of LLC “Avtospecprom”, motivating this by the fact that the costs of legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided and the time spent by the lawyer. The court took into account that the defendant’s legal position was formed at the previous stages of the case, and there is no evidence of additionalNo comprehensive study of the legal nature of the disputed legal relations was provided. The court also took into account the prosecutor’s objections regarding the disproportionality of the claimed expenses. The court emphasized that the recovery of legal aid expenses cannot be a way for a party to enrich themselves and must meet the criteria of necessity, validity, and reasonableness.
The court ruled to recover UAH 10,000 from the Office of the Prosecutor General in favor of “Avtospecprom” LLC for professional legal assistance expenses incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation, refusing to satisfy the application in the remaining part.
Case No. 908/2480/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as partially invalid of the decision of the general meeting of the Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding the establishment of a maintenance fee for the building for a non-residential premises.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not fully establish the circumstances of the case, namely: whether the plaintiff voted for changes to the charter regarding the method of notification about the HOA’s activities, whether she provided her phone number for receiving notifications, how exactly she was notified about the meeting, and whether the disputed decision violates the plaintiff’s rights. The court noted that not all violations during the convening of the meeting are an unconditional basis for recognizing the decision as invalid, and it must be proven that the decision contradicts the law or the charter, and also violates the plaintiff’s rights. The court also indicated that the establishment of different prices for management services for owners of the same type of real estate (for example, different non-residential premises) is unacceptable and may be a manifestation of discrimination. The court also noted that the appellate court incorrectly took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in another case, since there the different amounts of contributions were established for residential and non-residential premises, and not for different non-residential premises. In addition, the court of cassation pointed to the lack of clarity regarding the sufficiency of votes for making a decision, since the total number of co-owners and the number of votes required for making a decision were not established.
3. The decision of the appellate court was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 926/1964/24 dated 12/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation to vacate the premises, termination of the land lease agreement, release of the land plot, and recovery of debt.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claims of the entrepreneur, since the defendant did not provide convincing evidence of the absence of contractual relations regarding the lease of non-residential premises and land, and also did not refute the fact of using the property after the expiration of the premises lease agreement and systematic non-payment of land rent. The court
The court of cassation emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the parties, and the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to support their objections, in particular, regarding the signing of contracts and the legality of using the company’s seal. Also, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the courts of previous instances to refuse the appointment of a handwriting examination, since there were no sufficient grounds for its conduct, and the available evidence allowed establishing the circumstances of the case without special knowledge. The court of cassation also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 911/679/25 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the temporary lease agreement of communal property as invalid and the eviction of the tenant from the premises.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “Intellex”, overturning the decisions of previous instances regarding the eviction of the tenant. The court proceeded from the fact that LLC “Intellex” timely applied to the lessor with a request to extend the lease agreement, albeit in paper form, which was permissible at the time of the application. According to the law, in such a case, the lease agreement is considered extended until the conclusion of an agreement with the winner of the auction or the occurrence of other circumstances defined by law. Since the auction was not held, there are no grounds for evicting the tenant. At the same time, the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of previous instances regarding the recognition of the temporary agreement as invalid, since it was concluded in violation of the procedure established by law. The court also noted that the special law on lease has priority over the general provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the renewal of lease agreements.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the eviction of LLC “Intellex”, refusing to satisfy this claim, but upheld the decision on recognizing the temporary agreement as invalid.
Case No. 160/22649/23 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to consider additional monetary remuneration and indexation when calculating financial assistance for health improvement to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings, since the defendant missed the deadline for appellate appeal and did not provide sufficiently valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the introduction of martial law itself is not an unconditional ground for renewing the term, and the defendant did not prove how exactly martial law affected his ability to file an appeal on time.
that the defendant repeatedly tried to file an appeal, which indicates the possibility of filing it, and the shortcomings were related to improper execution, and not with objective obstacles. The court emphasized that the defendant’s references to the performance of combat missions are of a general nature and are not supported by evidence.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 916/5569/24 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of certificates of ownership and decisions on state registration of ownership of non-residential premises between the Condominium “TROITSKA-17” and the Odesa City Council.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim of the Condominium, motivating it by the fact that the auxiliary premises of the apartment building are the common property of all co-owners by virtue of the law, and no additional actions are required to confirm this right. The court noted that the Odesa City Council did not provide evidence that the disputed premises were built as separate objects, and not as auxiliary ones, and did not prove the fact of reconstruction of these premises. The court also rejected the arguments of the city council regarding the application of the statute of limitations, emphasizing that a negatory claim can be filed throughout the duration of the violation. The court took into account the conclusion of the judicial construction and technical expertise, which confirmed that the disputed premises are auxiliary and intended for the maintenance of the building and its residents. The court emphasized that the association of co-owners is not obliged to prove ownership of common areas, as it arises automatically on the basis of the law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Odesa City Council and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 908/3497/23 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “DTEK Dniproenergo” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” of debt for the provided services of dispatch (operational and technological) management, inflation losses and 3% per annum.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of reducing the amount of 3% per annum accrued on the amount of debt, referring to the fact that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Article 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, which allow reducing the amount of penalty or fines. The court noted that 3% per annum is the minimum amount of interest that a creditor can count on in case of improper performance of the obligation by the debtor, and this amount is not subject to reduction by the court. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which specified that 3% per annum is the legislatively established minimum
of interest. The court also took into account that the legal relations in this case are similar to those considered in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation instance decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of previous instances in the part of refusing to recover 3% per annum and issued a new decision to recover from JSC “DTEK Dniproenergo” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” UAH 4,926,600.58 of 3% per annum.
Case No. 906/13/25 dated 02/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the reclamation of land plots from the private ownership of individuals and from the lease of legal entities, since the prosecutor’s office believes that these plots were transferred to ownership in violation of the established procedure.
The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the criteria for distinguishing jurisdiction are the composition of the subjects, the subject of the dispute and the nature of the legal relations, and in this case the dispute concerns the ownership rights of individuals to land plots, and not their economic activity. The court noted that the appellate court did not take into account that at the time of filing the claim, the defendants are individuals who have registered ownership of the disputed plots, and not lessees, and that the resolution of the dispute affects the rights and obligations of these individuals. The court also indicated that the appellate court unreasonably took into account the conclusions in another case, since they differ in the content of the disputed legal relations, subjects and grounds of the claim. The court emphasized that ensuring the uniformity of judicial practice is important for legal certainty and equality before the law.
The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to open proceedings in the case in the commercial court.
Case No. 922/619/25 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the non-residential premises lease agreement and the recovery of rent arrears, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to recover the rent arrears, since the defendant proved the impossibility of using the leased premises due to circumstances for which he is not responsible, namely the occupation of the premises by the military, which falls under the sixth part of Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the provisions of Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since they established the fact that it was impossible for the lessee to use the property for reasons beyond his control. At the same time, the cassation court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the distribution of legal aid costs, since the appellate court incorrectly applied the provisions of Articles 124, 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and sent the case
in this part to the appellate court for a new review to properly allocate court costs in proportion to the satisfied claims of the plaintiff’s appeal. The cassation court emphasized that it does not re-evaluate the evidence, but only checks the correctness of the courts’ application of substantive and procedural law based on the facts established by them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and partially granted the defendant’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision regarding the allocation of court costs and remanding the case in this part for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 902/1014/23(902/1319/24) dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property (land plot, non-residential premises, and apartments) from the possession of “Aero-Zet Ready Breakfast Plant” LLC in favor of an individual within the insolvency case of this individual.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing the importance of considering the specifics of insolvency proceedings, where the priority is to satisfy the claims of all creditors and restore the debtor’s solvency. The court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, did not properly assess the good faith acquisition of the property by the defendant, did not consider the consequences of the property’s recovery for the debtor, creditors, and other participants in the insolvency case, did not investigate the legality of interference with property rights, the existence of a legitimate purpose, and compliance with a fair balance between the interests of protecting property rights and general interests. The court also noted that the courts did not establish whether there were violations during the electronic auctions, at what stage the auctions were at the time of the opening of the insolvency proceedings, and how this affects the case. In addition, it was not clarified whether the area of the existing object corresponds to the area of the property acquired at the auctions, whether the debtor has other property to repay debts, and whether the recovery of the property violates the rights of creditors.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and local commercial courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 911/1291/24 dated 12/09/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition of the invalidity of the decisions of the board and general meeting of the “Zaliske” Horticultural Society.
The Supreme Court refused to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, and the cassation proceedings were closed in part. The court noted that the cassation appeal based on paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (regarding violation of procedural law) is not subject to review, since the applicant did not prove the existencof an exceptional legal problem, and also because there is no conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of procedural law in similar legal relations. In other part, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances were left unchanged, since the court did not establish violations of substantive and procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appealed court decisions remained unchanged.
Case №910/7700/19 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the electricity distribution service agreement and the obligation to conclude a new agreement with another entity.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection, without claiming restitution as a consequence of the invalidity of the agreement. In addition, at the time of the case consideration, the plaintiff was no longer the owner of the property, which, according to him, gave him the right to conclude an electricity distribution agreement. The court also noted that there is no evidence of violation of the plaintiff’s rights, and his arguments about the connection of the defendants with the Russian Federation are only assumptions. The court of cassation emphasized that choosing an improper method of protection and the absence of a violated right are independent grounds for rejecting the claim, and therefore there is no need to investigate other arguments of the plaintiff on the merits of the dispute.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №910/3479/24 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the auction for the sale of a special permit for the use of mineral resources and the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement of this permit, concluded based on the results of the auction.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of recognizing the auction as invalid, proceeded from the fact that the claim to recognize the auction as invalid is an improper and ineffective method of protection, since the rights and obligations of the parties arise directly on the basis of the agreement concluded as a result of the auction. Regarding the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement, the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, since the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources provided unreliable information about the subsoil plot, which was essential for the possibility of its use for its intended purpose, in particular, regarding its location on the territory of the landscape reserve and the presence of private land plots, which makes it impossible to extract minerals. The court also took into account that Budtransoil LLC was not informed about all restrictions on the use of the plot, which led to the conclusion of the agreement under the influence of a mistake. Rejecting the arg
documents of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, the court noted that the invalidity of the transaction makes it impossible to refer to the consequences of non-performance of obligations under this transaction, in particular, regarding the non-return of the guarantee fee.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the признання недійсним аукціону, refusing to satisfy this claim, and left the decision unchanged regarding the признання недійсним договору та застосування наслідків його недійсності.
Case No. 921/525/24 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of an individual entrepreneur to recognize and write off tax debt as hopeless in the restructuring procedure within the insolvency case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that the write-off of tax debt is possible only after the restructuring manager checks the debtor’s declarations, establishes the completeness and reliability of the information in them, assesses the manager’s report and evidence by the court for the debtor’s good faith, and also assesses the minutes of the creditors’ meeting. The court noted that although the recognition of debt as hopeless does not depend on the approval of the restructuring plan, it must take place after checking the debtor’s property status. In this case, the court of appeal found that the debtor did not provide complete information about his property, and there are also discrepancies regarding the decision of the creditors’ meeting. Considering these circumstances, the court of cassation emphasized that the conclusion on writing off the debt is premature until all the circumstances are clarified.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/8565/23 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the признання протиправним та скасування наказу Міністерства юстиції України, яким було скасовано рішення державного реєстратора про державну реєстрацію права власності на земельні ділянки за СТОВ “Колос”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal did not take into account that the dispute arose due to the disagreement of СТОВ “Колос” with the order of the Ministry of Justice, which canceled the decision of the state registrar on the registration of land ownership for СТОВ “Колос” on the basis of a complaint from the executive committee, which considered that these lands are owned by the territorial community; the proper defendant in such a case is the person who disputes the plaintiff’s property right, and not only the Ministry of Justice. The court also took into account that the court of appeal did not properly assess the points of the order regarding blocking the state registrar’s access to the register and did not establish how these points violate the plaintiff’s rights, and the proper defendant in this part is the state registrar, who was not involved in the case. The court of cassation referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in
case No. 910/2546/22 and the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the failure to involve a proper co-defendant is an independent ground for dismissal of the claim.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 757/55923/16-к dated 12/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of embezzling funds from an enterprise by abusing their official position.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, by which the person was acquitted, and found them guilty of abuse of official position, reclassifying the actions from Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the director of ZTMK LLC, contrary to the interests of the service, used their official position in the interests of a third party (Tolexis Trading Limited Company), transferring the company’s funds to pay off the debt of SE “ZTMK” for electricity, although the obligation to repay this debt rested with the aforementioned company. The court noted that the director acted intentionally, with the aim of providing unlawful benefit to Tolexis Trading Limited Company, which led to the loss of ZTMK LLC’s assets in a large amount. The court did not take into account the arguments about the need to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the plant, since the director did not address the founders on this issue. Also, the court critically assessed the conclusions of the expert examinations, which indicated the economic expediency of the director’s actions, emphasizing that the transfer of funds did not contribute to the increase in assets of ZTMK LLC.
3. The court of appeal overturned the acquittal of the court of first instance and found the person guilty of abuse of official position, sentencing them to imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions and a fine.
Case No. 910/11054/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of participants of TERRA DA BOSCO UKRAINE LLC on termination of powers and dismissal of the general director, cancellation of the registration entry on the change of the manager, and reinstatement to the position of general director.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the general meeting of participants of TERRA DA BOSCO UKRAINE LLC had the right to make a decision on the termination of the powers of the general director, since this issue falls under their exclusive competence according to the charter of the company and the legislation; at the same time, the circumstances of the director’s being on vacation and the absence in the minutes of the grounds for termination of powers are not grounds for recognizing the decision as invalid. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff is not a participant of the company, therefore, the disputed decision does not violate their corporate rights, but concerns
solely his right to manage the company as an executive body. The court noted that the violation of the procedure for convening the meeting is not a ground for invalidating the decision, since all participants of the company took part in the meeting and agreed to consider the issues on the agenda. The court also rejected the arguments about the lack of authority of the representative of one of the participants, since the legal relations of representation arise between the participant and his representative and do not concern the rights of the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/1290/24 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Morshyn City Council to refuse LLC “Morshynske Dzherelo” permission to develop technical documentation on land management for the allocation of a land plot and its transfer for lease.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting their conclusions that the current state act on the right of permanent land use issued to the “Svitanok” sanatorium was not canceled, and the right of permanent use was not terminated in accordance with the procedure established by law, therefore there are no grounds for satisfying the claim of LLC “Morshynske Dzherelo”. The court also noted that the requirement to oblige the city council to grant permission to develop technical documentation is an interference with the discretionary powers of the local government body. The court indicated that the plaintiff requested permission to allocate a land plot, although it was necessary to request permission to divide the land plot. The court found no grounds for applying the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding legal succession, as the circumstances of the case differ. The court also emphasized that the cassation instance has no right to re-evaluate the evidence, and its powers are limited to verifying the observance of the norms of substantive and procedural law by the courts.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Morshynske Dzherelo” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 925/36/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the requirement of the Condominium “Zhuzhomy 3” to recognize the conclusion of an additional agreement to the contract with PJSC “Cherkasyoblenergo” regarding the procedure for electricity metering.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the dispute is not pre-contractual, but concerns the amendment of an already existing contract, the terms of which were agreed upon by the parties. The court noted that the Condominium did not prove the existence of grounds for amending the contract in court, such as a material breach of the contract by “Cherkasyoblenergo” or a material change in circumstances. The court also took into account that the regulatory legal acts governing the relationship between the parties have not changed. The court emphasized that the use
not being the defendant of these building-wide meters, as stipulated by the contract terms, is not a material breach of the contract terms. The court also noted that the inconsistency of the contract terms with the requirements of current legislation is not a basis for amending the contract.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Condominium “Zhuzhomy 3” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 916/2156/25 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the appeal of Spectrum Assets LLC against the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on real estate.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, as Spectrum Assets LLC missed the deadline for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim. The appellate court recognized the reasons for missing the deadline cited by the appellant, including the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, as invalid, as no proper justification was provided for the impact of martial law on the impossibility of timely appealing to the court and relevant supporting evidence. The court of cassation noted that the issue of restoring the procedural term in case of its missing due to reasons related to the introduction of martial law is resolved in each specific case, taking into account the arguments presented in the application for the restoration of such term. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and the clear fulfillment by the parties of the requirements regarding the deadlines for appealing to the court.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Spectrum Assets LLC and upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court.
Case No. 904/624/19 dated 12/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts for the sale of a share of real estate as invalid, recognition of ownership, and recovery of property within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which declared the sale contracts invalid, as they were concluded to avoid fulfilling obligations to creditors, which is an abuse of rights and a violation of the principle of good faith. The court found that at the time of concluding the contracts, Effectinvest-2015 LLC had outstanding obligations to JSC CB PrivatBank, and the alienation of property took place through a complex scheme with the assignment of the right of claim, which had no economic purpose and led to the impossibility of satisfying the creditors’ claims. The court also took into account that the property was transferred to Ozerna Ploshcha LLC, which was created by Agrocenter-Plus LLC, which indicates an attempt to complicate the return of assets.
v. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the purchase and sale agreements are fraudulent, and therefore, the property is subject to reclamation for inclusion in the bankrupt’s liquidation estate. The court of cassation agreed that in this case, “Ozerіna Ploscha” LLC cannot be considered a bona fide purchaser.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 991/1307/25 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_8 of abuse of office in a prior conspiracy with PERSON_10, which caused severe consequences to the State Enterprise “CSESM,” and the accusation of PERSON_10 of aiding and abetting this abuse.
2. The court found that PERSON_8, acting in prior conspiracy with PERSON_10, ensured the conclusion of additional agreements to the contracts, which led to an artificial overestimation of the cost of agricultural works and underestimation of the value of the sold corn. The court took into account that PERSON_10 actually managed the financial and economic activities of “Kozelshchynskyi Pellet Plant” LLC and “Shyshaky Pellet Plant” LLC, and also coordinated actions with PERSON_8. The court found that the actions of PERSON_8 contradicted the interests of the service, since the contracts were unprofitable for the enterprise, and also that PERSON_8 had direct intent to obtain unlawful benefits for “Kozelshchynskyi Pellet Plant” LLC and “Shyshaky Pellet Plant” LLC. The court also found that the actions of PERSON_8 led to severe consequences for the State Enterprise “CSESM” in the form of losses in the amount of UAH 13,407,841. The court noted that the losses are in direct causal connection with the actions of PERSON_8 and PERSON_10.
3. The court found PERSON_8 guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and PERSON_10 guilty of committing a crime under Part 5 of Article 27, Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and imposed appropriate penalties on them.
Case No. 911/2308/23 (369/2814/23) dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of measures to secure a claim imposed by a court of civil jurisdiction on the property of an individual against whom insolvency proceedings have been opened.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, guided by the fact that from the moment of opening proceedings in the case of insolvency, the debtor is in a special legal regime where the special norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP) have priority. The court emphasized that in accordance with the CUoBP, the seizure of the debtor’s property and other restrictions may be applied exclusively by the commercial court within the framework of the insolvency case, and previously imposed seizures may be lifted on the basis of its ruling. The SC referred to previous practice, according to which the commercial court in whose proceedings the bankruptcy case is pending has the authority to cancel arrests
