Case No. 940/680/22 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional term for acceptance of inheritance under a will.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance, namely objective, insurmountable difficulties that would have made it impossible to submit an application to a notary. The court noted that quarantine restrictions were not an absolute obstacle, and the treatment of children did not cover the entire six-month period. It is important that the defendant, the testator’s daughter, was able to submit an application for acceptance of the inheritance on time. The court also took into account the close location of the plaintiff’s house to the notary’s office. The court indicated that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of 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. The court rejected the arguments about the failure to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstances of those cases differ from this one, in particular, in those cases, the plaintiffs did not know about the existence of the will.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 145/675/23 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of the land plot and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of this plot.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff appealed to the improper defendant, since the owner of the land plot, who is a party to the disputed contract of sale, was not involved in the case as a co-defendant. The court of cassation agreed with this conclusion, noting that establishing the proper defendants is the responsibility of the court, and filing a claim against the improper defendant is an independent basis for rejecting the claim. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the requirements for cancellation of the state registrar’s decision are derived from the requirements for recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale. In addition, the court of cassation recognized as justified the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, since they were documented and commensurate with the complexity of the case, and the plaintiff did not provide objections regarding their amount.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 755/303/24 dated 12/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the apartment sale contract concluded by the plaintiff’s representative on the basis of a power of attorney.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the claim for recognition of the invalidity of the apartment sale contract.
The appellate court reasonably proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to refute her expression of will when issuing the power of attorney to the representative for the sale of the apartment. Also, the court took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement, the power of attorney was valid and had not been revoked, and the very fact of the sale of the apartment to the representative’s daughter is not an unconditional basis for declaring the contract invalid. The court of cassation also noted that the plaintiff’s arguments about not receiving funds for the sold apartment are not a basis for declaring the contract invalid, but are a basis for a separate lawsuit for the recovery of these funds from the representative. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized 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 decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case №635/7163/23 dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway” for compensation for moral damage caused by the death of his son as a result of being hit by a train.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the death of the plaintiff’s son occurred as a result of the action of a source of increased danger owned by the defendant, and that the father undoubtedly suffered moral suffering in connection with the loss of a loved one. The courts took into account that the death occurred due to the gross negligence of the victim, who was in a state of severe alcohol intoxication near the railway track in the dark, which affected the reduction of the amount of compensation. The Supreme Court noted that the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court, based on the principles of reasonableness, justice and proportionality, and should not lead to unjustified enrichment of the injured person. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about the lack of evidence of damage caused by his train, referring to the established factual circumstances of the case and the specifics of the defendant’s activities.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №131/191/25 dated 12/24/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds that the defendant received as the monetary allowance of the plaintiff, who was in captivity.
The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, reasoning that the payment of monetary allowance to the defendant took place on legal grounds, but after the plaintiff’s return from captivity, the defendant retains these funds without sufficient legal basis. The court took into account that alimony for the child was withheld from the plaintiff’s monetary allowance, and the defendant did not prove that the rest of the funds were spent on the needs of the child or their common family needs. The Supreme Court agreed with
with this conclusion, noting that the payment of monetary allowance to the defendant took place on the appropriate legal basis, but the defendant did not prove the grounds for further retention of these funds after the plaintiff’s release from captivity, and also did not prove the grounds for disposing of the received funds. The court also took into account that the defendant received alimony for the child, and did not declare additional expenses for the child. The court of cassation also took into account the behavior of the defendant, who undertook to return part of the funds to the plaintiff.
The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 991/11973/25 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an agreement on recognition of guilt in criminal proceedings regarding the seizure of someone else’s property by abuse of office, committed by a criminal organization, and participation in a criminal organization.
2. Dear journalist, in this case, the court carefully examined the plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused to ensure that it meets the requirements of the law. The court paid attention to whether the accused entered into the agreement voluntarily, whether he is aware of the consequences, and whether the agreed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime. It is important that the court took into account the active cooperation of the accused with the investigation, his sincere repentance, and partial compensation for the damage caused. Also, the court took into account that the accused did not receive personal gain from the crime, and the damage was caused to state interests. The court decided that the approval of the agreement is in the interests of society, as it contributes to the rapid investigation and exposure of other criminals. Regarding the other accused, the proceedings were closed in connection with his death.
3. The court approved the plea agreement, found the accused guilty and imposed the punishment agreed upon by the parties.
Case No. 522/15344/20 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property by recognizing the purchase and sale agreement as invalid, canceling decisions on state registration of ownership of real estate and obliging the restoration of the property to its original state.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision, as the appellate court considered the case in the absence of the defendant, who was not properly notified of the date, time and place of the court hearing, which is a violation of the right to a fair trial and the norms of the civil procedure code, which guarantee the right of a party to the case to be notified of the consideration of the case. The court of cassation emphasized that the court’s obligation to notify the parties to the case of the time and place of the court hearing is one of the basic principles of civil proceedings, and its non-fulfillment leads to a violation not only of the right of the party to the case, but also of the basic principles of legal proceedings. Also, the court of cassation took into account the practice of the European
of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the ensuring of the right to access to justice.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 692/95/25 dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application to declare a natural person who disappeared during hostilities as deceased.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the application, considering that the applicant’s husband had disappeared while performing a combat mission in the area of active hostilities, the search yielded no results, and more than two years had passed since the disappearance. The courts took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, that the disappearance occurred as a result of hostilities, which gave grounds to assume the occurrence of death. The courts relied on the testimony of a witness, excerpts from the order of the commander of the military unit, an extract from the ERDR (Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations), and a notification to the family of the missing person. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established in the decision or rejected by it, resolve the issue of the reliability or unreliability of a particular piece of evidence, or the superiority of some evidence over others.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 947/25252/22 dated 12/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against the court of first instance’s ruling on securing the claim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, as the appellate court reasonably refused to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appeal. The court noted that the appellant’s representative received the appealed ruling of the court of first instance on November 28, 2022, and filed an appeal only on December 26, 2022, i.e., after the statutory deadline. Arguments about the insufficiency of materials in the application for securing the claim to prepare an appeal were not recognized as valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court emphasized the importance of complying with appeal deadlines to ensure legal certainty and stability of court decisions, and also pointed out the obligation of participants in the proceedings to use their procedural rights in good faith. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the need to ensure equal procedural standing of the parties and the inadmissibility of excessive formalism in the application of procedural requirements.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 320/5576/19 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against tax assessment notices by which Sakura-Autotrans LLC was increased the tax
reduced the amount of VAT liability and reduced the amount of the negative VAT value due to the alleged unreality of business transactions with a number of counterparties.
2. The court, granting the claims of Sakura-Autotrans LLC, proceeded from the fact that the company provided sufficient primary documents (expense invoices, TTN, equipment lease agreements, fuel consumption reports) confirming the fact of business transactions with counterparties. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not prove the unreality of these transactions, and the taxpayer should not be held responsible for possible violations by its counterparties. The court also took into account that the controlling authority did not provide evidence of the taxpayer’s awareness of possible violations by the counterparties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the very fact of violations by the counterparties is not a sufficient basis for depriving the taxpayer of the right to a tax credit if the taxpayer has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by law for its formation. The court of cassation emphasized that the controlling authority has the obligation to prove the illegality of the taxpayer’s actions, and in this case, the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to support its position.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the previous instances in favor of Sakura-Autotrans LLC.
Case No. 607/13042/21 dated December 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed by a person who did not participate in the case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of his/her rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations. The court of cassation emphasized that in order for a person who is not a party to the case to appeal the decision, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly affects his/her rights and obligations. The court also noted that the appellate court rightfully did not consider the plaintiff’s application for withdrawal of the claim, since it was first necessary to resolve the issue of the legality of the third party’s appeal. The court of cassation indicated that the plaintiff did not exercise his right to appeal the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the conclusions of the courts are consistent with the practice of the Supreme Court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 446/2178/23 dated December 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership by acquisitive prescription of hydraulic structures.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which closed the appellate proceedings, motivating it by the fact that the prosecutor did not prove the grounds for representing the interests of the state represented by the city council. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor
has the right to represent the interests of the state in court in exceptional cases, in particular, when there is a violation or threat of violation of these interests, and the competent authority (in this case, the city council) does not properly protect them. The court noted that the prosecutor appealed to the city council with a notification of violation of the interests of the state, but the city council did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance, which indicates its inaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the city council did not dispute the existence of grounds for the prosecutor to represent its interests in the court of appeal. The court also pointed out the erroneous conclusion of the court of appeal regarding the absence of grounds for the prosecutor’s office to appeal, since the appeal was filed by the prosecutor, and not the prosecutor’s office as a legal entity.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 947/25252/22 dated 22/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decisions of state registrars regarding the ownership of real estate and the act of acceptance and transfer of this property to the authorized capital of the company.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor’s office in the statement of claim combined claims that are subject to consideration in the order of different jurisdictions: commercial (regarding the recognition of the act of acceptance and transfer of property to the authorized capital as invalid, which is a dispute arising from corporate relations) and civil (regarding the acquisition of ownership of real estate by an individual). The court noted that the combination of such claims in one proceeding is not allowed, and separation is impossible, since they are subject to consideration in the order of different jurisdictions. Therefore, the courts of previous instances reasonably closed the proceedings in the part of the claims that are subject to consideration in commercial proceedings. The court of cassation also indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal about the courts’ failure to apply the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are unfounded, since the circumstances in the cases referred to by the appellant differ from the circumstances in the case under review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 640/20355/19 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions and the recovery of costs for professional legal assistance.
2. The Supreme Court found that the court of appeal, reducing the amount of expenses for legal assistance, did not specify clear criteria for the reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of these expenses, did not take into account the evidence provided by the plaintiff, and did not assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the disproportion of expenses. The court of appeal did not substantiate how it determined the amounts to be recovered and did not take into account the circumstances of the lawyers’ participation in court hearings, preparation of documents, as well as market prices
and similar services. Furthermore, the appellate court failed to consider that the defendant did not file a motion to reduce the costs of legal assistance, which is a necessary condition for applying the principle of proportionality according to procedural law. Considering the mentioned violations, the Supreme Court concluded that the conclusions of the appellate court are premature and unfounded, as they are based on a formal approach to resolving the issue of the reasonableness of the incurred costs of legal assistance and are not based on comprehensively and fully investigated evidence.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 240/2126/24 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the cancellation by the Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Zhytomyr Region of a temporary residence permit for a citizen of the Russian Federation who, according to the migration service, provided forged documents to obtain it.
2. The court of cassation instance, reversing the decisions of the previous instances, emphasized that according to current legislation, to cancel a temporary residence permit, it is sufficient to establish the fact that a foreigner provided false information or forged documents, and the existence of a court verdict is not a mandatory condition. The court noted that the very fact of submitting knowingly false information or forged documents is grounds for canceling the permit, since an act issued on such a basis does not create legal consequences. The court also indicated that the DMS body does not have the authority to assess personal circumstances, such as participation in the defense of Ukraine, as this does not eliminate the fact of the illegality of obtaining the permit. The court emphasized that the main purpose of issuing a permit is to confirm the legal grounds for a foreigner’s residence, and the use of forged documents negates this function. The court also noted that there are other mechanisms for legalizing the stay of such persons on the territory of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim of the citizen of the Russian Federation.
Case No. 520/3714/25 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices and debt payment demands, as well as the suspension of enforcement proceedings initiated on the basis of these decisions.
2. The court, granting the application for securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that failure to take security measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision if the claim is satisfied, since enforcement proceedings have already been initiated and the plaintiff’s property has been seized. The court noted that the amount of arrears, which is the subject of enforcement proceedings, is formed at the expense of amounts, the legality of the accrual of which is disputed by the plaintiff in this case. The court also took into account that the suspension of collection is necessary to preserve the existing situation until the resolution
concerning the merits of the dispute, and the chosen method of securing the claim corresponds to its subject matter and does not lead to the actual resolution of the dispute. The court emphasized that taking measures to secure a claim is a temporary measure aimed at ensuring the effective enforcement of a court decision. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance courts, noting that they reasonably pointed to the existence of grounds defined by paragraph 1 of part two of Article 150 of the CAS of Ukraine for taking measures to secure the claim.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.
Case No. 205/6903/21 dated 12/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a квартиру sale and purchase agreement as partially invalid and the recognition of ownership of a part of the квартиру for the plaintiff, motivated by the fact that the funds from the sale of her share in the previous квартиру were used to purchase a new квартиру, but she was not listed as the buyer.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that 1/3 of the disputed квартиру was purchased with funds received from the sale of the previous квартиру, which belonged to her. The court noted that each party must prove the circumstances they invoke as the basis for their claims. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. Also, the court noted that the statute of limitations can only be applied to substantiated claims, and since the claims were not substantiated, there is no basis for applying the statute of limitations.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.
Case No. 635/4973/16-ц dated 12/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of consumer rights, recognition of actions as illegal, obligation to perform certain actions, and compensation for moral damages.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, as the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear at the preparatory hearing, did not file a motion to have the case heard in their absence, and was duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing, which is grounds for leaving the claim unconsidered according to the CPC of Ukraine. The court noted that persons participating in the case must exercise their procedural rights in good faith and inform the court of the reasons for their non-appearance. The court also emphasized that the consequences of repeated non-appearance occur regardless of the reasons, even if they are valid, since the plaintiff has the right to file a motion to have the case heard in their absence. The appellate court considered the case in an open court session with notification to the parties to the case, which complies with the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decision
