Case №910/13001/23 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and the annulment of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the registration action regarding the entry of information about the plaintiff as the head of PrJSC “Bilotserkivska CHPP” to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the order of the Ministry of Justice as illegal, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not give due assessment to the arguments of the parties. In particular, the courts did not take into account the arguments of PrJSC “Bilotserkivska CHPP” regarding the existence of other violations that could indicate the illegality of the disputed registration action, such as failure to provide documents on payment of the administrative fee, provision of a document with corrections for registration, submission of an application with incorrect information about the legal entity, as well as the existence of a prohibition on registration actions on the basis of the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the legal position of the Supreme Court that the existence of a ruling on securing a claim, which prohibits state registrars from entering information into the USR, is an unconditional basis for canceling the entry, regardless of whether there was a prohibition in the USR at the time of the action.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the satisfied claims and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №873/116/25 (873/122/25) dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court on the recovery of debt under the supply contract and the issuance of an writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of this decision.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate commercial court, noting that the commercial court should not assess the legality and validity of the decision of the arbitration court, but only establish the presence or absence of grounds for its cancellation or refusal to issue a writ of execution. The court indicated that the dispute between the parties arose from commercial legal relations that can be considered by an arbitration court, and the parties agreed to consider the dispute in such a court. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the list of grounds for canceling the decision of the arbitration court is exhaustive and not subject to broad interpretation, and failure to properly notify about the place and time of the arbitration hearing is not a basis for canceling the decision. The court emphasized that the defendant did not provide objective reasons for not receiving postal correspondence within a reasonable time and did not deny receiving a copy of the statement of claim.
3. The court granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the court of first instance, refused the claiin satisfying the application to set aside the arbitral award and granted the application for the issuance of an order for the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Case No. 910/3027/24 (910/1429/23) dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine refusing to satisfy the complaint of LLC “Financial Company “Investohills Vesta” against the actions of a private notary regarding the re-registration of ownership of the company’s real estate to another legal entity.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect its rights, since the dispute concerns property rights to real estate, and the substantive legal claims must be brought directly against the person in whose name the property right is registered (Hanso Company LLC), and not only to the Ministry of Justice, which verified the legality of the registration actions. The court emphasized that the Ministry of Justice cannot be the sole defendant in a dispute over property rights, since the plaintiff has no dispute with it over ownership of the property. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should promote effective protection of rights, but cannot formulate claims instead of the plaintiff or involve defendants if the plaintiff has not done so. Although the courts of previous instances committed certain procedural violations, their decision to dismiss the claim is correct in substance, since the claim was brought against an improper defendant.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Financial Company “Investohills Vesta” and to uphold the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 910/13168/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the supply of a diesel power plant, as well as penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instance courts, indicating that the plaintiff (Invo Union LLC) had not fulfilled all the obligations under the contract, in particular, had not carried out commissioning works and training of the customer’s personnel (PJSC Ukrnafta), which was stipulated by the terms of the contract and the specification. The court noted that the buyer’s obligation to pay for the goods arises only after the seller has duly fulfilled all its obligations. Also, the court rejected the tax invoice as the sole evidence of the delivery of goods, indicating that it should be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the appellant’s reference to the failure to take into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since these conclusions concerned other legal relations. The court also rejected the arguments about improper examination of evidence, since the appellant did not properly substantiate the grounds for cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court left
the cassation appeal of “Invo Union” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 918/95/25 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s monetary claims against an individual within the framework of the insolvency case, which arose on the basis of a loan agreement in foreign currency, the debt on which was recovered by a court decision.
2. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances should have taken into account that the debtor’s obligations arose on the basis of a loan agreement, which provided for granting a loan in foreign currency, and, accordingly, the amount of the creditor’s monetary claims should be determined in the national currency at the NBU exchange rate on the date of filing the application with claims. The court emphasized that the existence of a court decision on debt recovery does not change the nature of the obligation as a currency obligation, and the courts should have examined the terms of the loan agreement regarding the interest rate and the period of its accrual, as well as taken into account the provisions of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the accrual of interest for overdue fulfillment of a monetary obligation. The court also pointed out the need to take into account the arguments regarding the application of the statute of limitations to the bank’s claims. The court emphasized that a court decision does not create a new obligation, but only ensures the compulsory execution of an already existing one, which arose from the loan agreement. The court also noted that the courts did not properly examine the debt calculation provided by the bank and did not assess the terms of the loan agreement regarding the interest rate.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance in the part of considering the bank’s monetary claims against the debtor.
Case No. 910/11815/24 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by PrJSC “Zakarpattyaoblenergo” from the illegal possession of the Zakarpattia Regional Council of a real estate object – a transformer building, recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of this object, as well as termination of the defendant’s ownership of it.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, as it established that a dispute between the same parties already existed regarding the same subject matter and on the same grounds in case No. 910/6927/20, although the proceedings in it were closed due to the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that the subject matter and grounds of the claim in both cases are identical, since both claims are aimed at reclaiming the same property from the illegal possession of the defendant, despite some differences in the circumstances, in particular, regarding the decision on state registration of ownership. The court noted that the requirement to recognize as illegal the rThe decision of the state registrar does not change the essence of the dispute, as it is derived from the main claim for the recovery of property. The Supreme Court emphasized that repeated обращения to the court with the same dispute between the same parties is inadmissible.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo,” and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/1460/25 dated 12/16/2025
The subject of the dispute is the claim of PrJSC “Ibox Bank” against PrJSC “VF Ukraine” for the return of unreasonably acquired funds in the amount of UAH 6,365,910.00.
In this case, the courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the bank’s claim, and the Supreme Court agreed with these decisions. The court of cassation instance, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, likely proceeded from the fact that the bank did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the groundlessness of the defendant’s acquisition of funds. Perhaps there was no evidence of erroneous transfer of funds, or there were other legal grounds for PrJSC “VF Ukraine” to receive them. Also, the court could take into account the defendant’s arguments regarding the lawfulness of receiving the disputed amount. The absence of the defendant’s representative at the court session did not affect the court’s decision, since, obviously, the case file contained enough information to make a reasoned decision. The court probably carefully examined the circumstances of the case and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law to conclude that there were no grounds for satisfying the bank’s claims.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Ibox Bank,” and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/3268/22 dated 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings on the basis of a court order for the recovery of funds, while the execution of the court decision, on the basis of which the order was issued, was suspended by a ruling of the Supreme Court.
2. The court of cassation instance did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the actions of the private enforcement officer as illegal, motivating this by the fact that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the suspension of execution of a court decision is not an obstacle to the opening of enforcement proceedings, since the suspension of enforcement actions is possible only in open enforcement proceedings. The court noted that the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” does not contain provisions that would prohibit the creditor from applying to the enforcement officer with a request to perform enforcement actions in the event of suspension of execution of a court decision. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the decision of the court of first instance entered into legal force, and therefore the order issued in execution of this decision is subject to acceptance for enforcement.
by state executive service bodies or private enforcement officers, with the simultaneous suspension of enforcement actions, which was done by the private enforcement officer. The court of cassation also rejected the references of the courts of previous instances to paragraph 9 of part four of Article 4 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since this norm is not applicable in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the Bank’s complaint against the actions of the private enforcement officer and issued a new decision to refuse to satisfy the Bank’s complaint.
Case No. 990/248/25 dated 04/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the failure to consider a disciplinary complaint against a judge within the period established by law.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and closing the proceedings in the case, was guided by the fact that the person who filed a disciplinary complaint against a judge is not a direct participant in legal relations regarding bringing the judge to disciplinary responsibility, and therefore the circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings do not affect the rights and interests of the complainant. The court emphasized that the right to file a complaint is not identical to the right to influence the course of disciplinary proceedings through judicial appeals. The HCJ has discretionary powers in disciplinary proceedings, and the law clearly regulates the procedure for appealing HCJ decisions, without providing for judicial control at the stage of preliminary verification of the complaint. The court also took into account that the issue of disciplinary responsibility of judges is related to guarantees of their independence, and therefore cannot exercise control over bodies that make decisions regarding the opening of a disciplinary case.
3. The court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and closed the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 910/16204/24 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum in connection with the improper performance by PrJSC “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” of contractual obligations for payment of services provided by PrJSC “Kharkivenergozbut” to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of PrJSC “Kharkivenergozbut”, motivating this by the fact that PrJSC “Ukrenergo” violated the monetary obligation regarding timely payment for the services provided, which is confirmed by acceptance-transfer acts signed without comments. The court noted that the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum is a special measure of responsibility for delaying a monetary obligation and a way to protect the property right of the creditor. The court also indicated that the absence of fault of the debtor does not exempt him from liability for the violation
monetary obligation. The court rejected PJSC “Ukrenergo’s” arguments regarding financial difficulties and the necessity of including the corresponding expenses in the tariff structure, emphasizing that these circumstances do not release them from the obligation to fulfill contractual commitments. The court also noted that reducing the amount of annual interest is a right, not an obligation of the court, and may be exercised by it in each specific case based on the assessment of the case’s circumstances and the evidence provided by the parties involved.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/13963/21 dated 10/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the general meeting of a religious organization regarding the change of subordination and the new version of the charter, as well as the cancellation of the order of the Chernivtsi Regional State Administration regarding the registration of changes.
The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that neither the charter of the religious organization nor the law contains a clear procedure for accepting members into the religious community, as well as the procedure for registering and maintaining a register of members. The Supreme Court emphasized that the realization of the community’s right to freely change subordination cannot be made dependent on the consent of the hierarch of the religious organization from which the community intends to withdraw. The court also noted that membership in a religious community and membership in the management body – parish meetings headed by the rector – cannot be equated. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the residents of the village who voted for the change of canonical subordination are not members of the community, the court applied the criterion of territorial connection, considering it justified in the absence of other evidence. The court rejected references to the parish meetings convened by the rector as not being part of the subject of proof in this case.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 904/4326/20 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application for the imposition of subsidiary liability on the founders and manager of “TOTAL” LLC in connection with bringing the company to bankruptcy.
2. The court refused to satisfy the liquidator’s cassation appeal, since in order to impose subsidiary liability, it is necessary to prove the existence of all elements of the offense, including the object, subject, objective and subjective aspects. The court noted that the liquidator did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm specific actions or omissions of the founders and manager that led to the bankruptcy of “TOTAL” LLC, and also did not prove a causal link between their actions and the insolvency of the enterprise. The court emphasized that the liquidator did not conduct a detailed analysis of the financialThe liquidator did not conduct an analysis of the debtor’s economic condition and did not provide a conclusion based on the results of such analysis. The court also noted that the liquidator did not prove that the defendants made key decisions in violation of the principles of good faith and reasonableness, or that they used the debtor’s property for their own benefit to the detriment of creditors. The court pointed out that the liquidator did not provide evidence to support the intentional actions or omissions of the defendants aimed at bringing LLC “TOTAL” to bankruptcy.
2. The court dismissed the liquidator’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 910/15224/24 dated 12/16/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in favor of the Private Enterprise “SPHERA PLAST.”
The decision does not contain any arguments of the court, it only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were upheld. The absence of a reasoning part makes it impossible to understand why the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts. It is impossible to determine which arguments of the appellant were rejected and why. It is also impossible to understand whether the court deviates from the previous legal position.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Private Enterprise “SPHERA PLAST,” and to uphold the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 914/3456/23 dated 12/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a ruling refusing to review a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in a case on the recovery of material and moral damages from the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, since the applicant did not prove the existence of such circumstances that were not known at the time of the case consideration and could significantly affect the court’s decision. The court noted that the newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the case consideration, be unknown to the applicant, and be of significant importance to the case, which was not established in this case. In addition, the court emphasized that the review of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances is not a re-evaluation of evidence that has already been evaluated by the court, and cannot be used as a disguised appeal procedure. The court took into account that the Supreme Court had already considered the issue of jurisdiction in this case and defined it as commercial.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of Lviv Oblast and the decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 910/18250/16 dated 12/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance on the approval of
tion of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance sheet of the bankrupt, as well as the closure of the bankruptcy proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance, when overturning the appellate court’s ruling, proceeded from the fact that the liquidator had taken all necessary actions to identify the bankrupt’s assets, and the creditors had not proven which specific actions the liquidator should have taken but did not, and how this affected the formation of the liquidation estate. The court noted that the appellate court unreasonably considered the existence of unresolved court disputes involving the debtor, as they do not affect the formation of the liquidation estate. Also, the court pointed to the absence of grounds for imposing subsidiary or joint liability on the former head of the debtor, since no facts of bringing to bankruptcy, concealing bankruptcy, or violating the deadline for applying to the court with a bankruptcy petition were established. In addition, the court took into account that at the time of opening the bankruptcy proceedings in 2016, the current legislation did not provide for the possibility of imposing joint liability on the manager for violating the deadline for applying to the court with a bankruptcy petition. The court also took into account the decision of the creditors’ meeting to recognize the completeness of the liquidator’s actions and approval of the liquidation balance sheet.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the approval of the liquidator’s report, liquidation balance sheet, and closure of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Case No. 910/6774/25 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a supply contract and counterclaims for the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms of the same contract.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts, which left the counterclaim of LLC “RECHI” without consideration. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff in the counterclaim was duly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing, but did not ensure the appearance of an authorized representative, did not inform the court of the reasons for non-appearance, and did not submit a request to consider the case in his absence. The court emphasized that, under such circumstances, according to the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court has an imperative obligation to leave the claim without consideration. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the court of first instance did not explain the consequences of non-appearance at the court hearing, since such consequences were clearly stated in the ruling on the acceptance of the counterclaim. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the provisions on leaving a claim without consideration are imperative and do not depend on whether the appearance of the plaintiff was mandatory.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “RECHI” and left the ruling of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
