**Case No. 922/2288/25 dated 12/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the joint temporary gratuitous use agreement of immovable property, concluded between ESVE Development LLC and Military Unit NUMBER_1, initiated by Terias LLC as a co-owner of the property.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly suspended the proceedings in the case, citing the objective impossibility of its consideration until the resolution of another case (No. 922/2972/24), in which the issue of the division of joint property is being resolved; the Supreme Court emphasized that the circumstances relevant to the recognition of the agreement as invalid are determined at the time of its conclusion, and the probable possibility of property division does not affect the establishment of defects in the disputed transaction; the court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the collected evidence allows to establish and assess the circumstances that are the subject of judicial review in this case, and therefore the suspension of proceedings is unreasonable; the Supreme Court also indicated that abuse of procedural rights was not detected by the appellate court, although the defendant’s actions had signs of delaying the consideration of the case; the court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to reasonable time limits for the consideration of the case, which is one of the priority principles of commercial justice.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings and sent the case to the appellate court for continued consideration.
**Case No. 574/875/20 dated 12/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the courts of first and appellate instances to review the sentence based on newly discovered circumstances upon the application of the convicted PERSON_7.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the circumstances referred to by the convicted person are not newly discovered within the meaning of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since they were either already known to the court during the consideration of the case, or are not supported by proper evidence. The court noted that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is an extraordinary procedure that is applied in exceptional cases, when the discovered circumstances objectively existed at the time of the decision, are relevant for assessing the circumstances of the case, and prove the incorrectness of the sentence. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the consideration of the proceedings during an air raid alert.
, lack of authority of the prosecutor, and improper notification of the victims, as these circumstances did not affect the legality of the decision. The court emphasized that review based on newly discovered circumstances is not a retrial of the case on its merits, but only a verification of the existence of legally prescribed circumstances that could have influenced the correctness of the court’s decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 945/1703/20 dated 12/16/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the sentence of a person accused of abandonment in danger and violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in the death of the victim.
The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, reasoning that the statute of limitations for bringing criminal charges under Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code (abandonment in danger) had expired, therefore the person was released from criminal liability under this article, and the proceedings in this part were closed. The court also excluded reference to the application of the provisions of Part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the aggregate of offenses, since the person was released from liability for one of the offenses. At the same time, the person remained convicted under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim) to a punishment of imprisonment for a term of 6 years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the courts of previous instances regarding the sentence under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code.
Court decision: The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the previous courts, releasing the person from criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but upheld the sentence under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code.
Case No. 380/4302/22 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision to terminate enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the plaintiff’s appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper notification of the person about procedural actions. The court indicated that the return of the postal item marked “expired storage period” is not proper confirmation of receipt of the ruling on leaving
filing an appeal without movement, and therefore, cannot be a ground for the return of the appeal. The court also drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff, which could complicate her procedural actions within the established period. In addition, the court noted that the appellate court violated the terms for considering the issue of leaving the appeal without movement. The court emphasized that ensuring the right of access to the court requires the state to refrain from creating obstacles to the realization of this right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 450/1555/18 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the appellant missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance by more than 10 months and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The appellate court reasonably noted that the decision of the court of first instance does not contain signs of a default decision, since it does not indicate the procedure for its review as a default decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the parties to the case cannot independently determine whether the decision is a default decision and must appeal it in the manner prescribed by law. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of procedural law, refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the applicant did not prove the existence of circumstances that objectively made it impossible to file an appeal within the established period. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, emphasizing that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute these conclusions and are reduced to their own interpretation of the law.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of the appellate court was left unchanged.
Case No. 728/1651/22 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against 242 resolutions of Ukrtransbezpeka on bringing to administrative responsibility for violations of dimensional and weight norms, recorded in automatic mode.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to suspend proceedings in the case, considering that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine
The court is considering the constitutionality of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine (КУпАП), based on which the plaintiff was held liable. The court took into account that if the relevant norms are declared unconstitutional, this may affect the plaintiff’s legal liability. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the suspension of proceedings in such circumstances was recognized as justified. The court of cassation emphasized the need to analyze the relationship between the circumstances of the case and the rule of law regarding which the issue of its constitutionality is being decided. The court also noted that the suspension of proceedings is appropriate in cases where the subject of consideration by the body of constitutional jurisdiction is the rule of law that regulates the issue of legal liability of an individual.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Ukrtransbezpeka and upheld the appellate court’s decision to suspend proceedings in the case.
Case No. 120/15874/24 dated December 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual of indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff and the request for recalculation and payment of indexation surcharge.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the dispute arose at the stage of execution of a court decision in a previous case between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds, namely regarding the payment of indexation of monetary allowance for a certain period. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is impossible to oblige a subject of power to enforce a court decision by adopting another court decision on this matter, since the compulsory enforcement of a court decision is carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court also noted that there are special methods of judicial control over the execution of court decisions in administrative cases, defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (КАС України), which exclude the possibility of applying the general judicial procedure for protecting the rights of the claimant by filing a lawsuit. The violation by the court of first instance of the term for consideration of the case did not become an unconditional basis for canceling the decision, as it did not affect its legality and validity.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
