**Case No. 639/7066/23 dated 25/12/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of a part of a house gift agreement as fictitious and the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to the plaintiff as a co-owner.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that the gift agreement was concluded to conceal another transaction, in particular a sale and purchase agreement, and that the parties intended to establish civil law relations other than those arising from the gift agreement. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the onerous nature of the agreement, i.e., the transfer of funds for the property. The court also took into account that in the gift agreement, the parties confirmed the absence of fraud or concealment of facts and the intention to create appropriate legal consequences. An advertisement for the sale of a part of the house on the website was not sufficient evidence, as it did not allow for the unambiguous identification of the real estate object. The court indicated that the burden of proving the fictitiousness of the transaction rests with the plaintiff, and he did not fulfill this obligation.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
**Case No. 521/16935/24 dated 25/12/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of the associated membership agreement in a consumer society and the recovery of damages in the amount of the paid membership fee.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, terminating the agreement and recovering the amount of the membership fee from the society in favor of the plaintiff. The court proceeded from the fact that the society significantly violated the terms of the agreement by failing to ensure construction within the specified period, which gave the plaintiff the right to terminate the agreement and return the funds paid. The court also took into account that although the hryvnia is a legal means of payment, the parties may determine the monetary equivalent of the obligation in foreign currency, and in this case, the courts correctly determined that the return should be made in hryvnia at the dollar exchange rate on the day of payment, since the parties agreed to a reference to foreign currency. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect interpretation of the terms of the agreement, referring to the principle of “contra proferentem”, according to which ambiguities in the agreement are interpreted against the party that introduced them. The court also noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 646/857/18 dated 24/12/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely a residential building and a land plot, which were owned by the plaintiff, but which passed into the ownership of the defendant as a result of a series of transactions that began
related to the extrajudicial foreclosure on the mortgage item.
2. The court of appeal instance, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that “Key-Collect” LLC (mortgagee) violated the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” and the Procedure for State Registration of Real Property Rights, since during the state registration of ownership of the disputed property by the mortgagee, there was no information on the value of the mortgage item, determined at the time of such acquisition, in the registration files. The court also took into account that at the time of the registration actions, there was a court dispute between the parties regarding the debt. The appellate court noted that PERSON_2, as the last acquirer of the property, could assess the risks associated with the acquisition of the disputed property, considering, in particular, the repeated transfer of ownership to it in a short period of time. The court also concluded that the recovery of property from PERSON_2 would not place an excessive individual burden on him, and the mechanism applied to protect the plaintiff’s ownership right corresponds to the legal nature of the relationship between the parties.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusion that there were grounds for recovering property from someone else’s illegal possession.
Case No. 686/4509/23 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of gas supply companies regarding the calculation of gas payments based on the readings of a common building meter and the refusal to install an individual meter, as well as the failure to provide a complete response to the consumer’s request.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the installation of a common building gas meter without the consent of the residents of the building is a violation of the consumer’s rights, as it does not reflect the individual gas consumption of each apartment. The court referred to the постанову of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated October 26, 2021, in case No. 212/5836/17, which stated that the gas distribution system operator cannot unilaterally install a common building meter. The court obliged “Khmelnytskgaz zbut” LLC to recalculate the gas payment, based on consumption norms for apartments without individual meters, starting from November 01, 2017. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the claims regarding the recognition of the defendants’ actions as illegal and the obligation to install an individual meter, considering that this is not an effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights, since the installation of the meter is the responsibility of another organization.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 509/1098/19 dated 12/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, who acted as a property guarantor.
2. The court of cassation instance
upheld the decisions of lower courts, which had partially granted the claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff, as a property guarantor, had fulfilled the obligation under the loan agreement by paying the debtor’s debt and was entitled to reimbursement of the incurred expenses. The court took into account that the loan funds were used in the interests of the defendant’s family and applied the statute of limitations to part of the claims. The defendant’s cassation appeal arguments that the funds were paid not by the plaintiff but by her ex-husband were rejected because they were not confirmed by the case file and contradicted the information provided by the bank. The court also noted that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence.
3. The cassation appeal of PERSON_5 was dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance and the постановa of the appellate court were upheld.
Case No. 705/1073/25 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reduction of the amount of alimony that the father pays for the maintenance of the child under a court order.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings opened on the appeal of a person who was not a party to the case on reducing the amount of alimony. The court noted that only those persons whose rights and obligations are directly affected by the court decision have the right to appeal. In this case, the decision to reduce the amount of alimony for one child does not resolve the issue of the rights and obligations of the mother of another child, for the maintenance of whom alimony is also collected from the same father. The court emphasized that the appellate court correctly established that the decision of the court of first instance does not affect the rights and obligations of the applicant, since it concerns exclusively the rights of another mother and her son. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the justification of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court was upheld.
Case No. 490/2061/24 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person, namely the defendant, as having lost the right to use the житловим приміщенням.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, indicating that for the cancellation of a court decision on the basis of paragraph 8 of part one of Article 411 of the CPC of Ukraine (adoption of a decision on the rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations of persons who were not involved in the case), it is necessary that the decision directly concerns the rights and obligations of these persons. The court noted that in this case, the dispute arose between persons registered in the apartment, the issue of ownership or privatization was not resolved, and therefore, the rights of the Mykolaiv City Council were not violated. The court also к
The court of cassation instance emphasized that only a person whose rights are affected by the decision can appeal it on the basis of not being involved in the case. The court also took into account that the Mykolaiv City Council did not appeal the court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts – without changes.
Case No. 320/13672/24 dated 12/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the accrual of penalty to “Aidia Tech” LLC for violation of payment terms in the field of foreign economic activity.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “Aidia Tech” LLC, canceling the decision of the appellate court in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims regarding the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the tax notification-decision in the part of accruing a penalty in the amount of UAH 34,602.51, based on the following:
* Penalty for violation of payment terms in the field of FEA during the quarantine period is accrued on general grounds, since the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine regarding exemption from penalty for the quarantine period do not apply to currency legal relations regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Currency and Currency Transactions.”
* The date of filing a statement of claim to the court is the date of its actual filing to the court, and not the date of acceptance by the court for consideration, therefore, the penalty is not accrued from the date of filing the claim. In this case, since “Aidia Tech” LLC filed the claim on April 18, 2023, the accrual of penalty for April 17, 2023 is lawful.
* The day of crediting foreign currency revenue to the resident’s account is not considered a day of delay, therefore, penalty for this day is not accrued. In this case, since the funds were credited to the account of “Aidia Tech” LLC on August 7, 2023, the accrual of penalty for this day is illegal.
* The absence of a certificate from the CCI or other proper evidence of force majeure circumstances makes it impossible to suspend the accrual of penalty on the basis of part six of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Currency and Currency Transactions.”
* Article 112 of the Tax Code of Ukraine does not apply to legal relations regarding the accrual of penalty for violation of payment terms in the field of FEA.
3. The court canceled the decision of the appellate court partially and rendered a new decision to satisfy the claims of “Aidia Tech” LLC in the part of recognizing as illegal and canceling the tax notification-decision regarding the penalty in the amount of UAH 34,602.51.
Case No. 362/201/25 dated 12/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the inaction of a private enforcement officer regarding the failure to take actions for the forced sale of the debtor’s property, which was foreclosed by a court decision.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the loan agreements concluded between the bank and the debtor are not consumer loans, since the received funds were directed to financing the construction of a cottage town for the purpose of obtaining
of profit, and not for the satisfaction of personal needs. The court took into account that the debtor provided the bank with documents confirming the intended use of the loan for construction, and was also registered as a natural person-entrepreneur, which indicates that he was engaged in entrepreneurial activity. The court also noted that the moratorium on foreclosure on mortgaged property, provided for in paragraph 5-2 of Section VI “Final Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage,” applies only to loans used for personal needs, and not for entrepreneurial activity. The court indicated that the establishment of the actual circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are within the powers of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation instance verifies only the correctness of the application of legal norms by the courts. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the loans were consumer loans, since they are not supported by the case materials and the established circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 449/570/20 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for providing unlawful benefit to a police officer.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person guilty of bribing a police officer, based on video recordings from police officers’ body cameras and a service vehicle, testimonies of police officers-witnesses, a report on the police officer’s appeal to the “102” service, a protocol of the scene examination, as well as a protocol on administrative offense. The court noted that the defense did not prove the fact of provocation of the crime by the police officers, since the person himself offered a bribe after being warned about criminal liability. The court also rejected arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the protocol of the scene examination, since at the time of the examination, the person did not have a procedural status, and the examination was conducted of the police service vehicle, and not the person’s car. The court of appeal reasonably mitigated the punishment in the form of a fine.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 205/16123/24 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application to declare a natural person dead.
2. The court refused to grant the application, since the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate the probable death of her husband, and the evidence provided only confirms the loss of contact with him, which may indicate his missing status. The court noted that in order to declare a person dead, evidence is needed that gives grounds to assume his death, and not just the absence of information about his whereabouts. The court also took into account
that the applicant did not indicate the date of the probable death of her husband and did not provide evidence of his presence in the area of active hostilities during the specified period. At the same time, the Supreme Court recognized as erroneous the assessment by the appellate court of the starting point for the countdown of the period for declaring a person dead in the combat zone, provided for in the second part of Article 46 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since such an assessment is possible only if the circumstances are proven, on the basis of which a probable assumption about the death of a person can be made. Also, the court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation by the courts of previous instances of the norms of procedural law, in particular regarding the refusal to hold a court session in video conference mode.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, and the cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 922/272/25 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the supply contract and the recovery of funds paid as an advance payment, as well as the recovery of debt under the contract and accrued interest.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the fact that the plaintiff in the original claim (buyer) did not prove a material breach of the contract by the defendant (supplier), which would give grounds for its termination under Articles 651, 652 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the delivery period had not yet arrived, and the buyer did not fulfill his obligations regarding payment. The court also noted that the invasion of the Russian Federation into the territory of Ukraine is not a sufficient basis for terminating the contract, since the buyer did not prove how this prevented him from fulfilling his financial obligations. Regarding the counterclaim, the court agreed that the buyer violated the terms of the contract by failing to make timely payment, which is the basis for the recovery of debt and accrued interest. The court of cassation also noted that the courts of previous instances took into account all the buyer’s objections regarding the seller’s failure to fulfill its obligations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 924/1053/23 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership and lease rights to land plots, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of the land plots themselves.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not take into account important circumstances that must be established when resolving such disputes, namely: which specific land plots overlap with the newly created plots, whether the method of protection chosen by the prosecutor is effective, whether the interference with property rights was proportionate, and whether the defendant’s behavior was bona fide when merging the plots. The court of cassation noted that the courts should have investigated whether the intervention correspondsI am entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of property under the criteria established by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the courts did not assess the good faith of the defendant’s actions in dividing and merging the land plots. The court emphasized that the proper remedy in such cases is the recovery of property from unlawful possession, but the courts of previous instances did not establish all the necessary circumstances for applying this remedy.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 922/1817/25 dated December 24, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement due to the division of the land plot, which was the object of the lease.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the claim of the Kharkiv City Council for termination of the land lease agreement with “Kontakt plus” LLC. The court of cassation noted that the land plot, which was the subject of the lease agreement, ceased to exist as an object of civil rights due to its division, which is consistent with the provisions of Article 79-1 of the Land Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the city council’s permission to divide the land plot was related to the need to terminate the lease agreement by concluding a corresponding agreement, but “Kontakt plus” LLC evaded signing it. The court of cassation emphasized the bad faith conduct of “Kontakt plus” LLC, which consisted of initiating the division of the land plot and subsequently evading the proper registration of lease relations regarding all newly formed plots, which led to the creation of a state of legal uncertainty. Considering the above, the court of cassation concluded that granting the claim for termination of the lease agreement is an appropriate and effective way to protect the rights and interests of the territorial community.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance granting the claim of the Kharkiv City Council.
**Case No. 359/5064/22 dated December 24, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds that the plaintiff considers were unjustifiably withheld by the attorney after the termination of the legal assistance agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, agreeing that the plaintiff had not remedied the defects in the application for review of the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, namely, had not paid the court fee and had not indicated the newly discovered circumstances within the meaning of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which was the basis for the return of the application. The court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the ruling on leaving the application without movement, in particular, to file a motion to reduce or exempt from the payment of the court fee, and
but failed to do so. The court of cassation emphasized that while the court fee does not restrict the right to a fair trial, it must be established taking into account the applicant’s ability to pay it. The court of cassation also emphasized the obligation of the parties to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to adhere to the procedural form established by law.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 300/4639/23 dated 12/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s demand to obligate PrJSC “Ivano-Frankivsk Plant “Promprylad” to bring the civil defense protective structure into readiness for use as intended.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of an agency (Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in the Ivano-Frankivsk region), which does not have the authority to file such a claim independently, since current legislation does not grant the SES the right to appeal to the court with a demand to bring protective structures into readiness. The court noted that the prosecutor cannot substitute for a state authority that must independently protect the interests of the state, but can only act as a subsidiary defender if this authority does not provide protection or does so inadequately. The court also took into account that the special period does not cancel the constitutional principle of legality, which requires that state authorities act exclusively within their powers. Considering that the Main Department of the State Emergency Service does not have the right to appeal to the court with such a claim, the court of cassation decided to dismiss the claim without consideration.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim without consideration.
Case No. 450/1095/24 dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding upholding the judgment of the court of first instance in the part concerning the fate of the material evidence – a forged tractor driver’s license.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, agreeing with the decision of the court of first instance to destroy the material evidence (forged tractor driver’s license), violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely Article 100, Part 9, Clause 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that documents that are material evidence must remain in the case file throughout their storage period. The court noted that the appellate court’s conclusion that the forged document is subject to destruction, and that Article 100, Part 9, Clause 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine applies only to original documents, is unfounded. The court of cassation emphasized that the cited approach regarding the resolution of the issue of the fate of material evidence corresponds to the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court. The court of cassation
of appeals indicated that the shortcomings of the appellate court’s ruling could be corrected by amending it by the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amended the appellate court’s ruling and the local court’s verdict regarding the fate of the physical evidence, ruling to keep the forged tractor driver’s license in the criminal proceedings materials.
Case No. 463/9504/20 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the certificate of inheritance as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of a residential building.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which granted the claim, as the state registration of ownership of the disputed house was carried out on the basis of a court decision that was subsequently overturned. The courts took into account that after the cancellation of the court decision on the basis of which the ownership right was registered, the further inheritance of this property and the issuance of a certificate of inheritance are illegal. The court of cassation noted that although the court of first instance violated procedural rules by accepting clarifications of the statement of claim after the preparatory hearing, this did not lead to a wrong decision on the merits, and therefore is not a basis for canceling court decisions. The court of cassation also emphasized that an effective way to protect violated rights is to demand the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership, and not the cancellation of the entry on state registration. The court of cassation rejected the applicant’s reference to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances of these cases differ from this one.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 924/880/23 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of a land plot, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership and lease rights, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of a land plot that was illegally privatized and subsequently merged with other plots.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the disputed land plot was withdrawn from the ownership of the state against its will, which was established by a prejudicial court decision in case No. 676/197/20. The court noted that for the effective protection of violated rights, it is necessary not only to reclaim the land plot, but also to cancel the state registration of the newly formed land plot, which includes the disputed plot, as well as to terminate the ownership right to it, since only such a method of protection will ensure the restoration of the rights of the territorial community. The court took into account that the disputed plot ceased to exist as a separate object of civil rights after the merger with other plots, and simply reclaiming it would be insufficient.
for the restoration of the state’s rights. The court also emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of interests of the parties and proportionality of interference with the right of ownership, considering that the defendant can register a new land plot excluding the disputed one. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the need for a land-technical expertise, as the courts of previous instances established all the necessary circumstances based on the evidence in the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the legality of reclaiming the land plot and canceling the state registration of the newly formed plot.
Case No. 201/4325/24 dated 12/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for material and moral damage caused by a traffic accident.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim for damages caused by a traffic accident, as the defendant’s guilt in the traffic accident was established by a court decision on an administrative offense, which came into legal force. The amount of material damage is confirmed by an expert’s opinion, and the insurance company paid only part of the compensation within the limit of liability. The court also took into account the provisions of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the recovery of inflation losses and three percent per annum for delay in monetary obligation, as well as the validity of the claims for compensation for moral damage. The court of cassation instance noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, considering them lawful and well-founded.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 497/2923/23 dated 12/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence in the territory of Ukraine for acquiring Ukrainian citizenship by territorial origin.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the application for establishing the fact of a person’s permanent residence in the territory of Ukraine, based on the fact that the applicant has no other way to obtain or restore documents necessary to confirm this fact. The court noted that establishing the fact of the applicant’s mother’s residence in the territory of Ukraine before August 24, 1991, is legally significant for the realization of the applicant’s right to acquire Ukrainian citizenship by territorial origin. The court also took into account that the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Odesa region refused the applicant due to the failure to submit all the necessary documents, as well as the fact that in the court session the representative
The migration service noted that the court decision is the only basis for processing the applicant’s documents. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the absence of evidence of a change of surname, as the relevant documents were available in the case file. The court also indicated that the disagreement of the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine with the application does not indicate the existence of a dispute over law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 759/16048/24 dated 25/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of unjustifiably retained funds in the amount of rent for the actual use of a land plot of communal ownership without оформлення оформлення відповідного договору.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claim of the Kyiv City Council, motivating it by the fact that from the moment of acquiring ownership of real estate located on a land plot of communal ownership, the defendant had an obligation to оформлення оформлення legal relations regarding the use of this plot and pay for its use. Since the defendant did not do this, he unjustifiably retained funds that he had to pay for the use of the land, and therefore is obliged to return them to the owner of the plot. The court also noted that an extract from the technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of the land plot is appropriate evidence for determining the amount of rent. The defendant’s arguments about his payment of land tax do not negate his obligation to pay rent, since he is not the owner or permanent user of the land plot.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 705/648/23 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living as one family without registration of marriage, the recognition of property as jointly acquired property and the recognition of ownership of this property.
2. The court granted the claim, establishing the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased man lived as one family without registration of marriage from 2004 until his death, recognizing the apartment as jointly acquired property and recognizing the plaintiff’s ownership of 1/2 of the apartment. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased man ran a joint household, had a joint budget, mutual rights and obligations, which is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses, written evidence and other materials of the case. The court also took into account that the plaintiff took care of the man during his illness and organized his funeral. The court referred to Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which regulates the property rights and obligations of persons living as one family without registration of marriage, and to the presumption of common property acquired during совместного совместного проживання. The court noted that the defendant did not provide sufficient
of their evidence to rebut this presumption.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 915/1201/24 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “Stevedoring Investment Company” LLC for the recovery from “Mykolaiv Sea Trade Port” SE of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments:
* Reimbursement of court costs is one of the main principles of commercial court proceedings.
* The amount of expenses for professional legal assistance is determined by the court in accordance with the terms of the contract for the provision of legal assistance and on the basis of evidence regarding the scope of services provided and their cost.
* Expenses for legal assistance must be real, reasonable, reasonable and commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided and the time spent by the attorney.
* The court takes into account the immutability of the parties’ legal position during the consideration of the case, the lack of need for additional analysis of new circumstances, the scope of arguments of the cassation appeal, the established nature of regulatory regulation and the stability of the legal positions of the Supreme Court.
* The obligation to prove the disproportionality of expenses rests with the party that files a motion to reduce the costs of legal assistance.
* The criterion of reasonable necessity of expenses is an evaluative category, which is assessed by the court taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The court partially satisfied the application of “Stevedoring Investment Company” LLC and ordered the recovery of UAH 15,000 from “Mykolaiv Sea Trade Port” SE for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 916/4568/23 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the property lease agreement ( площадка з твердим покриттям) and the obligation to return the property, since the prosecutor believes that the agreement is a sham, because in fact a part of the land plot was transferred for use, which the Clinical Center had no right to do.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that площадка з твердим покриттям can be an independent object of lease in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Municipal Property”, if it meets the characteristics of individually defined property. The court took into account that the property was leased in the manner prescribed by law, and the prosecutor did not prove a violation of this procedure. Also, the court noted that the lease of the площадка does not grant the lessee the rights of the owner or user of the land plot. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the conclusions of the appellate court are consistent with the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility
