Case No. 930/526/24 dated 12/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding a person accused of violating traffic safety rules while intoxicated and unlawfully seizing a vehicle.
The court decision does not provide any arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as only the operative part is provided. There is no information about the circumstances of the case, the evidence provided by the parties, and the reasons that guided the appellate court in rendering the judgment, as well as the cassation court in upholding it. Therefore, based on the information provided, it is impossible to analyze the court’s reasoning.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s judgment regarding the accused.
Case No. 930/526/24 dated 12/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment for PERSON_7 for unlawful seizure of a vehicle while intoxicated, which resulted in a traffic accident with passenger injuries.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the imposed punishment, as it considered that the local court did not sufficiently take into account the degree of severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person, who did not admit guilt and did not compensate the victim for the damage. The appellate court noted that the convicted person having five children and the victim’s request not to punish him severely are not sufficient grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a punishment below the lowest limit). The appellate court took into account that the crime under Part 1 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code is quite serious, and therefore imposed the minimum punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of 3 years, provided for by the sanction of the article, as well as deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for the same term. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the imposed punishment corresponds to the principles of proportionality and individualization, and is necessary for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s judgment.
Case No. 398/4667/24 dated 12/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the encumbrance on real estate and mortgage, initiated by the plaintiff due to the expiration of the term of the loan agreement secured by the mortgage.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the dispute regarding the termination of the mortgage exists between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and not between the mortgagor and the notary to whom the plaintiff applied. The court noted that the claims for termination of the mortgage and removal of the encumbrance should be resolved in a dispute between these parties, and not by appealing the actions of the notary. The court took into account that there are already court decisions that relate
of this credit agreement and mortgage, including the decision to dismiss the claim for termination of the mortgage, which makes the circumstances established by these decisions prejudicial. The court also pointed out that the notary is an improper defendant in this dispute, as the dispute concerns substantive legal relations between the bank and the borrower. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the facts of the case and evaluating the evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation has no authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 565/1517/23 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of non-residential premises and the recovery of property from illegal possession of another.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which granted the claim for recovery of property from illegal possession of another, as the owner of the property denied the fact of concluding the sale agreement and did not sign it, and the original agreement, referred to by the defendant, was not available in the notarial archive. The court noted that the signature is a mandatory element of the written form of the agreement, and its absence indicates the non-conclusion of the transaction. The court also took into account that the owner of the property was outside Ukraine at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. The court indicated that the proper way to protect the right of a person whose property has left his/her legal possession under an uncompleted agreement is a vindication claim. The court also emphasized that the theft of the original agreement does not release the defendant from the obligation to prove the legality of acquiring ownership of the disputed property.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 741/852/24 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling to close the appellate proceedings, as the defendant did not exercise the right to review the default judgment in the court of first instance, which is a mandatory condition for filing an appeal against the default judgment. The court noted that the right to appeal a default judgment arises only after the court of first instance has considered the application for review of this judgment on the merits and dismissed it. In this case, the court of first instance dismissed the application for renewal of the term for filing an application for review of the default judgment, and not the application for review itself, therefore the defendant did not acquire the right to appeal. The court also emphasized that ensuring the right to appeal is possible only if the establishedof procedural requirements of the law.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 367/3847/19 dated December 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a production facility as unauthorized construction, the cancellation of the record of registration of ownership, the demolition of the object, and compensation for moral damages.
2. The court of cassation instance, agreeing with the decision of the court of appeal, noted that the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the violation of his rights by the defendant’s unauthorized construction. In particular, it was established that the defendant eliminated the circumstances of misuse of land plots by changing their intended purpose. In addition, the court took into account that the controlling body in the field of construction refused to satisfy the claim for the demolition of the production facility, without establishing signs of unauthorized construction. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence regarding exceeding the permissible noise level and air pollution, and his arguments are in the nature of assumptions. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of the first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 642/1161/24 dated December 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on full financial liability concluded between the employee and LLC, since the employee’s position allegedly is not included in the list of positions with which such an agreement can be concluded.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff’s duties as a hall administrator included direct servicing of the company’s inventory items, which corresponds to the list of works with which an agreement on full financial liability can be concluded. The court noted that the plaintiff did not deny the fact of performing work related to the preservation, processing, and sale of valuables. The court also took into account that the court of appeal reasonably recognized the plaintiff’s right to challenge the agreement, even after its expiration. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases were rejected, since the conclusions of the courts in this case do not contradict the previous decisions of the Supreme Court. The court also emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence and establish new circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 759/3440/24 dated December 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of the arrest from property imposed on the basis of
of the writ of execution issued in connection with the debt obligations of the deceased daughter of the plaintiff.
2. The Court of Appeal, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not notify the creditor of the opening of the inheritance after the death of her daughter, as provided for by Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, although she knew about her debt obligations; the destruction of the enforcement proceedings is not an unconditional ground for the removal of the arrest from the property; the plaintiff did not fulfill the obligation to make a one-time payment to the creditor within the value of the inherited property, as provided for by Article 1282 of the Civil Code of Ukraine; and that the behavior of the heirs regarding the failure to notify the creditors of the death of the debtor and the debtor’s prolonged evasion of the execution of the court decision indicates the absence of grounds for the removal of the arrest from the disputed property. The Supreme Court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding legal succession in enforcement proceedings in the event of the debtor’s death and the obligations of the heirs to the creditors.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged, confirming the refusal to remove the arrest from the property.
Case No. 552/3383/24 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of the applicant’s birth in the territory of another state for the realization of future rights, in particular, inheritance rights.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the application, motivating this by the fact that the establishment of the fact of birth does not entail the occurrence, change, or termination of rights at the time of application to the court, but only aims at the future occurrence of inheritance rights. The Court of Appeal noted that in order to establish the fact of birth, it is necessary to prove the impossibility of obtaining documents of birth in the foreign state where the registration took place, as well as to provide proper evidence of paternity. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the establishment of the fact of birth is possible for the renewal of an act record if it is absent in Ukraine or a foreign state, and the applicant must provide evidence of applying to the competent authorities to obtain the relevant documents. The court also noted that the suspension of the Convention on Legal Assistance with Russia is not a basis for establishing the fact of birth if the birth registration took place in a foreign state.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 361/10108/23 dated 12/24/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties for late payment of alimony.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim for the recovery of penalties for late payment of alimony, since the penalty is accrued only in the event of the alimony payer’s fault in the occurrence of the debt. The courts took into account that the obligation to pay
to collect alimony in a compulsory manner arose from the moment of the commencement of enforcement proceedings, and also that in certain periods the defendant paid amounts that exceeded the amount of alimony established by the court, which indicates the absence of arrears in these periods. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the defendant’s arrears in alimony payments in an amount exceeding the penalty already collected by the court. The court of cassation emphasized that it is the alimony payer who has the obligation to prove the absence of his guilt in non-payment of alimony, but in this case, the courts of previous instances reasonably established the partial guilt of the defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the evidence provided. The Supreme Court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the justification of court decisions.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 686/26880/23 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts of sale and donation of an apartment as invalid, as well as the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation of the creditor’s rights.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the debtor, knowing about the existing court decision to recover the debt from him, took actions to alienate his property (share of the apartment) in favor of close persons (son and wife) in order to avoid foreclosure on this property in payment of the debt. The court took into account that the debtor gave consent to the alienation of the apartment, not having other real estate in his ownership, and continued to live in this apartment after its alienation. The court also noted that such actions of the debtor are unfair and indicate abuse of rights, which is unacceptable. The court emphasized that a transaction made to the detriment of creditors (fraudulent transaction) can be both gratuitous and for consideration, and that private law instruments should not be used to avoid paying debts. The court also took into account that although the enforcement proceedings lasted for a long time, the time interval between the determination of shares in joint ownership and the conclusion of the disputed sale agreement was relatively short.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 195/2005/23 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of the defendant from the right to inherit by law after the death of his wife, since the plaintiff (the mother of the deceased) believes that the defendant evaded providing assistance to his wife, who needed it.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant evaded providing assistance to the testator, who was in need.
in a helpless state due to a serious illness. The court noted that in order to remove a person from the right to inheritance, it is necessary to prove a set of circumstances: evasion of providing assistance when it is possible to provide it, the helpless state of the testator, and the need for assistance from this particular person. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had not proven that the testator needed assistance specifically from the defendant, and whether the defendant had the material and physical ability to provide it. The court emphasized that deprivation of the right to inheritance is an extreme measure that is applied taking into account the defendant’s behavior. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are their prerogative.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 216/5143/23 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the russian federation for compensation for property and moral damage caused by armed aggression and occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine, as well as recognition of the rf’s actions as genocide of the Ukrainian people.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering moral damages from the rf. The court proceeded from the fact that the armed aggression of the rf is a well-known fact that led to the mental suffering of the plaintiff. At the same time, the court refused to compensate for property damage, since the plaintiff did not prove direct damage to her property rights, as well as to recognize the actions of the rf as genocide, since this issue already has political recognition and is being considered by international judicial institutions. The court noted that applying to a Ukrainian court is a reasonably accessible means of protecting the right. The court also indicated that the commission of an act of armed aggression by a foreign state is not the exercise of its sovereign rights, but indicates a violation of the obligation to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state – Ukraine, which is enshrined in the UN Charter.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 947/15829/24 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of an individual against the aggressor state rf for compensation for moral damage caused by armed aggression against Ukraine.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances partially satisfied the claim, recovering UAH 200,000 from the rf in compensation for moral damage, based on the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s moral suffering, the significance of the violation of her constitutional rights, forced changes in life, and the inevitability of the consequences of aggression. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, noting that the courts of previous instances took into account the well-known facts of armed aggression by the rf, which lewere reduced to the moral переживань та душевних страждань of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff must prove the existence of moral damages and a causal link to unlawful conduct, and the defendant may prove the absence of illegality and guilt. The court also reminded that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court has no authority to interfere in this assessment.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 347/193/22 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement jointly and severally from several defendants.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings, since the defendant missed the one-year term for appealing, established by the CPC of Ukraine. The court noted that the defendant was aware of the case, participated in it through a representative, but did not take measures to appeal the decision in a timely manner. The court took into account the ECtHR practice regarding the obligation of parties to be interested in the progress of court proceedings in their case. The court also indicated that the defendant did not provide evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances that would have made it impossible to file an appeal within the established term. The court emphasized that the procedural inactivity of the defendant cannot cast doubt on the administration of justice in accordance with the requirements of the procedural law. The court also noted that a reference to the failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court is not a basis for cassation appeal if the difference in court decisions is due to different factual circumstances of the cases that are legally significant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 129/1702/25 dated 29/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of former spouses, where the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court of first instance.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance to approve the settlement agreement, since the subject of division was property acquired by the defendant after the dissolution of the marriage with the plaintiff, and third parties (the defendant’s ex-wife and their children) reside in this property, whose rights and interests may be violated by this settlement agreement; the court of first instance did not take this fact into account, and therefore, prematurely approved the settlement agreement; the appellate court reasonably noted that the settlement agreement may directly concern the rights and interests of third parties, therefore the conclusion of the court of first instance on its approval is premature; The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, indicating that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court and do not affect the legality and validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme
