**Case No. 495/29/21 dated 29/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the business reputation of the Tuzly Estuaries National Nature Park (NNP) by recognizing the information disseminated by the defendant as untrue and obliging them to refute it.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating this by the fact that the defendant was not duly notified of the date of the court hearing, which is a violation of procedural rules. In addition, the court noted that the defendant’s Facebook post of INFORMATION_8 is evaluative in nature and does not contain factual statements that could be refuted. The court also indicated that the plaintiff’s statement regarding the change of the subject of the claim is effectively the filing of a new claim, as it contains new claims and circumstances that were not specified in the original statement of claim. Thus, the court did not investigate or evaluate the posts from INFORMATION_9, from INFORMATION_13, from INFORMATION_12 on the social network “Facebook.” The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the consideration of the case in the absence of proper notification of the defendant is a violation of the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Tuzly Estuaries NNP and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 2-587-09 dated 29/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the inaction of the head of the Pavlohrad Department of the State исполнительной Service regarding the failure to levy execution on the crops of the debtor (Farm “Sokol-1999”) located on land plots that, according to the recoverer, belong to the debtor or are used.
by him.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of PERSON_1, motivating this by the fact that the appellate court, taking into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in this case, established that the owners of the land plots (on the crops of which the claimant requested to impose a levy) are not members or participants of the FFH “Sokil-1999”. The court also noted that FFH “Sokil-1999” is not a user of these land plots and there is no evidence that the farm owns or uses them on legal grounds, and is also the owner of the agricultural products grown on them. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the courts of previous instances reasonably concluded that the inaction of the head of the Pavlohrad SDES in the execution of the court decision was not proven, since there was not enough evidence that it was the debtor who used the disputed land plots and owned the crops on them. The court of cassation instance refused to satisfy the claimant’s request to attach new evidence, since the court of cassation does not establish the circumstances of the case and does not evaluate the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 753/11201/22 dated 12/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement formalized by a receipt regarding the transfer of jewelry.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which granted the claim for debt recovery, as it established that a loan agreement was concluded between the parties, confirmed by the defendant’s receipt for receipt
