Case No. 766/4871/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s return of the defense counsel’s appeal due to an allegedly groundless failure to meet the deadline for appealing a ruling on the extension of detention in custody, which was rendered in the absence of the said attorney.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial and an important guarantee for the protection of the accused’s rights. The judges pointed out that the court hearing where the preventive measure was extended took place without the participation of the defense counsel, and on the day the decision was made, only its operative part was pronounced. The attorney received the full text of the ruling by email only a few days later, which objectively deprived him of the opportunity to timely familiarize himself with the court’s reasoning and prepare an appeal within the five-day period prescribed by law. The panel of judges recalled the existing legal position according to which a person’s lack of awareness of the reasons for a decision made constitutes a valid ground for restoring the deadline for appeal. However, the appellate court took a formalistic approach to resolving this issue, failed to provide any convincing reasons for refusing to restore the deadline, and effectively deprived the accused of the right to defense. Thus, the panel of judges established that the appellate court had committed a material violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
The Supreme Court satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, vacated the appellate court’s ruling to return the appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 922/3800/25 dated 26/05/2026
**Subject matter of the dispute:**
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery by the State Enterprise of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine “Defense Procurement Agency” from a private factory of over 18.5 million hryvnias in penalties and fines for breach of deadlines for the supply of mosquito nets for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
**Key arguments of the court:**
The court took into account that the delay in the supply of goods arose due to objective obstacles, namely air raid alerts and power outages at the sole Ukrainian manufacturer of specific knitted fabric in the Sumy region, as well as floods at an alternative supplier in Turkey. At the same time, the defendant turned out to be the only enterprise in Ukraine that undertook the manufacture of this product and, despite the difficulties, fully performed the contract, although it would have been economically more advantageous for it to simply withdraw from the contract and pay a significantly lower fine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rules of law grant the courts of first and appellate instances discretionary powers to reduce the amount of the penalty in order to ensure a reasonable balance of the parties’ interests and avoid unfair consequences for business. Determining the specific amount by which the fine orpenalty, depends on the individual circumstances of each case, the assessment of which is the prerogative of the courts of fact, and not of the court of cassation. The Court concluded that the reduction of penalties by 85% in this case was entirely justified, as the customer sustained no losses, and the contractor demonstrated good faith conduct and completed the delivery. In addition, the panel of judges rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding procedural violations, noting that the findings of the lower courts fully comply with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of penalties.
**Court decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the “Defense Procurement Agency”, leaving the decisions of the lower courts to recover from the manufacturer only approximately 2.7 million hryvnias instead of the initial 18.5 million unchanged.
Case No. 537/2092/24 dated 26/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the accusation of a citizen of committing a criminal offense under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely evasion of conscription for military service during mobilization.
Since we only have the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will become known after the publication of the full text of the decision; however, the key legal guidelines of the panel of judges are already clear. The main procedural argument of the court was the reference to paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which indicates that the court established the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in the person’s act. Guided by the norms regulating the powers of the cassation instance, the court concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were adopted with significant violations of the law, which do not allow them to be upheld. Apparently, the panel of judges agreed with the defense counsel’s arguments that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of all essential elements of the crime in the defendant’s actions. In addition, in view of the established absence of the elements of a crime, the court applied the unconditional requirement of the law regarding the immediate restoration of the person’s rights and their release from custody. We will be able to analyze in detail the full arguments regarding which specific circumstances of the case indicated the person’s innocence only after the pronouncement of the full text of the resolution on June 1, 2026.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, vacated the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, dismissed the criminal proceedings due to the absence of the elements of a crime, and ordered the immediate release of the convict from the place of deprivation of liberty.
Case No. dated 28/05/2026
The subject of consideration in these proceedings is the procedural issue of scheduling for cassation review the defense counsel’s appeal in the interests of the convict against the verdict of the Yasynuvata City… krayionnyi district court of Donetsk Oblast dated December 4, 2012, and the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Donetsk Oblast dated April 29, 2014.
The judge was guided by the fact that the criminal case concerning the convicted person had been requested back in August 2014 by a ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases. Due to the large-scale judicial reform and amendments to the legislation, the powers of the court of cassation were transferred to the Supreme Court, to which these materials were subsequently forwarded. The judge-rapporteur noted that currently all necessary preparatory actions for the consideration of the appeal have been fully completed. In view of this, all legal grounds have arisen to schedule the case for direct consideration in an open court hearing. In doing so, the court relied on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960 and the transitional provisions of the current Code, which determine the procedure for completing legacy proceedings.
The court decided to schedule the cassation review of the materials upon the defense counsel’s appeal for June 11, 2026, at 09:30, and to notify the participants in the judicial proceedings thereof.
Case No. 501/876/24 dated 06/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child with the mother after the dissolution of the parents’ marriage, in a situation where the father has been abroad since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.
The court was primarily guided by the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child, who, after the parents’ divorce, remained to reside with her mother in Odesa, where she is fully provided with proper housing and living conditions, successfully studies at a lyceum, and attends a choreographic school. An important argument for the court was the official conclusion of the guardianship and trusteeship authority, as well as the results of a psychological evaluation, which confirmed the girl’s psychological attachment and her own desire to live with her mother. The panel of judges firmly rejected the father’s arguments regarding the alleged absence of a dispute between the parties, explaining that the very fact of the mother filing a lawsuit and the father’s subsequent active appeal of the court decisions in the courts of appeal and cassation instances clearly demonstrate the existence of an unresolved conflict. The court emphasized that under wartime conditions, the child’s residence with her mother, who properly performs her duties, guarantees the girl a safe, peaceful, and stable environment for harmonious development. At the same time, the judges noted that such a decision does not deprive the father of his rights to communicate with and raise his daughter, and in the event of a change in life circumstances, the established place of residence of the child may be reviewed. Finally, due to the satisfaction of the mother’s claim, the court found the refusal to recover the father’s legal fees from her to be fully justified.
The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the court of appeals on determining the child’s place of residence with the mother and the refusal of recovery in favor of the fat… expenses for legal assistance — unchanged.
Case No. 446/407/24 of 27/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of holding a citizen criminally liable for evading conscription for military service during mobilization under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s ruling has been published so far, the detailed reasoning of the panel of judges will become known after the full text of the decision is pronounced. At the same time, the key legal argument for vacating the previous judgments was the cassation court’s finding of the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in the acts of the accused. The court concluded that the decisions of the lower courts were rendered with significant violations or incorrect application of the rules of substantive or procedural law. Having assessed the case materials, the Supreme Court found the defense counsel’s arguments well-founded and applied paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Having established the innocence of the person, the court also issued an unconditional demand for their immediate release from custody.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacated the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, fully closed the criminal proceedings due to the absence of the elements of a crime in the act, and ordered the immediate release of the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 243/3597/18 of 27/05/2026
This case concerns the review of the lawfulness of the judgment and ruling of the appellate court, by which a citizen was found guilty and convicted of illegal acquisition, storage, or sale of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the ruling, the detailed reasoning and legal positions of the court will be set out in the full text of the decision somewhat later. However, based on the decision rendered, the Supreme Court fully agreed with the findings of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proof of the convict’s guilt. The judges of the court of cassation did not find any significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that could serve as a ground for vacating or amending the challenged judicial decisions. Apparently, the defense’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability or the severity of the sentence imposed were found groundless by the panel of judges. The court acted solely within its powers, which limit the cassation review to verifying the correct application of the rules of law and the legal assessment of the circumstances, without resorting to the re-evaluation of evidence. Thus, the panel of judges established that the lower courts had complied with procedural standards and had fairly imposed punishment for the committed drug offenses.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the defen… without satisfaction, and the sentence of the Sloviansk City-District Court and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal regarding the convict — unchanged.
Case No. 904/941/25 dated 28/05/2026
I cannot fully respond to your request as the provided text of the court decision contains only the introductory and operative parts, making it impossible to analyze the reasoning part and the arguments relied upon by the Supreme Court when rendering this resolution.
Case No. 917/11/25 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the registration of private property rights of the Vilkhovatske company to eight agricultural land plots with a total area of almost 80 hectares and their recovery in favor of the Kobeliaky City Council for the purpose of their return to communal ownership.
The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeal approached the consideration of the case formally and in fact evaded resolving the dispute on the merits without refuting the key findings of the court of first instance. In particular, the appellate court overlooked the fact that the state registrar registered the ownership right for a private company without proper documents and without verifying the legality of the transfer of rights. The Court emphasized that the transfer deed of the reorganized enterprise did not contain any information about the disputed land plots at all, and the boundaries under the old state deed on collective ownership of 1994 had not been established in-kind. Furthermore, the court of appeal failed to properly examine the issue of legal succession, although the first-instance court had clearly established that LLC “Vilkhovatske” was established by a sole decision of another firm with a change in the composition of founders, and therefore, no automatic transfer of land rights had occurred. The Supreme Court stressed that dismissing the claim with reference only to the ineffectiveness of the remedy and the alleged failure to prove the violation of the community’s rights, without a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the land disposal, constitutes a gross violation of procedural law. Finally, the panel of judges noted that a court decision cannot be considered lawful and justified if the court failed to evaluate the key evidence and arguments of the parties that directly affect the legitimacy of property possession.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, vacated the resolution of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new appellate consideration for a full and comprehensive examination of all circumstances of the dispute.
Case No. 613/684/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the division of a residential house acquired by the parties during marriage and registered in the wife’s name, who demanded that it be recognized as her personal private property, referring to the acquisition of the real estate with funds gifted by her mother.
The Supreme Court was guided by the basic presumption of famil……ly legislation, according to which all property acquired during marriage is deemed to be the common joint property of the spouses. To rebut this presumption, the interested party must provide irrefutable, relevant, and admissible evidence that the property was purchased specifically with their personal funds. The court pointed out that the wife failed to provide documentary proof of a direct link between the funds from the sale of her mother’s apartment and the purchase of the disputed house. The testimony of the defendant’s mother as a witness was reasonably disregarded by the appellate court, as she is an interested party in the outcome of the case. Furthermore, the lack of official income of the husband at the time of the acquisition of the real estate does not rebut the presumption of community property, as the law equally protects the rights of both spouses.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the wife’s representative, upholding the legality of the appellate court’s decision on the equal division of the house—a 1/2 share to each of the former spouses.
Case No. 916/542/18 dated 22/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is an application by a third party for the review, based on newly discovered circumstances, of a judicial decision which had previously granted the prosecutor’s claim for the recovery of debt, termination of the lease agreement of state property, and its return to the state.
The court noted that for a decision to be reviewed based on newly discovered circumstances, the simultaneous existence of the following elements is required: the existence of these circumstances at the time of the consideration of the case, their being unknown to the applicant, and their material significance for the resolution of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence already assessed by the court or the provision of new evidence regarding established circumstances cannot serve as a ground for such a review under procedural law. The courts established that the facts cited by the applicant, including the certificates of acceptance and transfer of state property and the correspondence of the State Property Fund, had already been repeatedly examined and evaluated by the courts during the previous consideration of this case. The panel of judges emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty (res judicata), according to which a final judicial decision that has entered into force is binding and cannot be reviewed without exceptional and justified grounds. The court concluded that the applicant’s arguments actually amount to disagreement with the evaluation of evidence and represent an attempt to initiate a new trial on the merits, which contradicts the legal nature of newly discovered circumstances.
The Supreme Court dismissed the third party’s cassation appeal, upholding the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court to deny the review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 715/1386/25 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this judicial consideration is criminal proceedings on charges against a citizen of illegal smuggling of per…b across the state border of Ukraine under Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since we only have the operative part of the judicial decision, the detailed reasoning and arguments of the panel of judges will be set forth in its full text, which will be pronounced later. However, based on practice, the Supreme Court concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law or an incorrect application of the law on criminal liability by the court of appeal. Apparently, the panel of judges agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court made errors that prevented it from rendering a lawful and substantiated decision. The Court recognized that such shortcomings cannot be remedied directly in the cassation instance; therefore, the case must be remanded for a new consideration. This decision indicates the need for a repeated, more thorough review of the case materials and the arguments of the parties in the lower court. The Supreme Court exercised its procedural right to limit itself to pronouncing only the operative part due to the significant time required to draft the full text of the ruling.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, vacated the judgment of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal, and ordered a new consideration of the criminal proceedings in the court of appeal.
Case No. 214/43/19 dated 18/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of the female head of the enterprise for non-compliance with and obstruction of the execution of a judicial decision on the recovery of wage arrears, as well as the determination of the correct procedural order for releasing a person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
****: In this decision, the Court departed from the previous positions of the Supreme Court, clarifying that in the event of the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court must first impose a specific punishment on the person in accordance with the general rules, and only then release them from serving it, as the law clearly distinguishes between conviction “without imposing a punishment” and “with release from punishment”. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the failure to explain to the accused her right to be released from liability, pointing out that the defense independently chooses its strategy and in this case deliberately insisted on refuting the charges on the merits. As for the characterization of the offense, the panel of judges agreed that the actions of the convicted person, such as the failure to submit an income declaration and the opening of a new bank account bypassing the attachment, are fully covered by the concept of “obstruction of the execution of a judicial decision.” At the same time, the court noted that the passive conduct of the debtor regarding the non-payment of funds in itself cannot be considered willful “non-compliance” with a court decision within the meaning of the criminal law. The Court emphasized that the criminal law is a last resort (ultima ratio) and cannot substitute for civil enforcement mechanisms; therefore, criminaliza…fication of the debtor’s actions requires an exceptionally narrow interpretation. Despite the unsubstantiated nature of the courts’ findings specifically regarding the “non-enforcement” of the decision, the general classification of the convicted woman’s actions under Part 2 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine remained correct, since the fact of obstructing the enforcement proceedings was fully proven.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts finding the woman guilty and releasing her from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, dismissing the cassation appeals of both the defense and the prosecution.
Case No. 577/2775/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject of the judicial review in this case is the legality and validity of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, by which a citizen was convicted of illegal manufacture, acquisition, storage, or sale of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances on an especially large scale (Parts 2 and 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the decision, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will be set forth in the full text of the resolution, which will be published on June 1, 2026. At the same time, based on the decision rendered and the procedural rules by which the court was guided, the panel of judges concluded that there were no substantial violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law during the consideration of the case by the lower courts. The judges stated that the classification of the accused’s actions under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and corresponds to the factual circumstances of the case. The court also found no violations in the imposition of the punishment, deeming it fair and proportionate to the gravity of the committed crimes. In addition, the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal did not refute the findings of the lower courts and did not contain proper legal grounds for reversing or amending the contested decisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the legality and legal force of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the judgment of the Konotop City-District Court of Sumy Oblast and the ruling of the Sumy Court of Appeal regarding the convict unchanged, and to leave the cassation appeal of his defense counsel unsatisfied.
Case No. 756/8715/23 dated 26/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the criminal liability of a woman for inflicting minor bodily injuries on another person during a conflict on the premises of an educational institution, as well as compensation for the material and moral damage caused thereby.
The Supreme Court concluded that the guilt of the convicted woman was fully proven by the totality of relevant and admissible evidence, which was thoroughly examined by the lower courts. In particular, the victim’s testimony regarding the blows inflicted on her and her hair being pulled out is fully consistent with the testimony of four eyewit……witnesses who confirmed the aggressive behavior of the accused. Furthermore, the fact of the infliction of injuries, including traumatic hair extraction and abrasions, is objectively confirmed by the forensic medical expert’s report and medical documentation. The court dismissed the defense’s arguments regarding the alleged disappearance of documents from the case files, explaining that the prosecution is not obliged to provide the court with absolutely all materials collected during the investigation, and the defense itself did not petition for their examination in the court of first instance. The panel of judges also recognized as lawful the decision of the court of appeal to exempt the woman from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, while retaining her obligation to compensate for damages. Finally, the court stated that the civil lawsuit had been resolved fairly, taking into account the depth of the victim’s moral suffering and the principles of reasonableness.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the defense counsel without satisfaction, and the challenged judicial decisions regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 990/439/25 of 14/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding the non-admission of the candidate to the third stage of the qualification examination (cognitive ability testing) for the position of a judge of a local general court due to her failure to obtain the established passing score, despite successfully exceeding the minimum threshold of 75 percent.
First of all, the court clearly distinguished between the concepts of the “minimum acceptable score”, which confirms the successful passing of the exam, and the “passing score”, which determines the possibility of proceeding to the next stage of the competition, taking into account the limited number of vacancies. The Grand Chamber emphasized that establishing the passing score at a level higher than the minimum threshold is an exclusive discretionary power of the Commission, which is explicitly provided for by the relevant law to ensure the competitive nature of the selection. The judges took into account that the algorithm for determining the passing score was of a transparent rating nature, and the rules of the competition itself were known to all participants in advance and were applied to them on equal and non-discriminatory grounds. Since the candidate scored 82 points, while the actual passing rating score was 95 points, the Commission had no legal grounds to admit her to the next stage of testing. The court also rejected the arguments regarding the necessity of adopting a separate reasoned decision for each candidate who did not proceed further, as the very fact of failing to obtain the required score automatically indicates non-compliance with the requirements of the competition. At the same time, the law guarantees the candidate the right to use her successful result of 82 points during the next selection within two years, which further confirms the fairness and proportionality of the procedure.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the candidate’s appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim unchanged.Case No. 908/1726/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject of this judicial review is the lawfulness of the termination of appellate proceedings upon the complaint of a bank that was not a party to the case but sought to appeal the court’s refusal to recover funds from its debtor’s debtor.
The court proceeded from the premise that the right to appeal a judicial decision by a person who did not participate in the case arises only when such decision directly, obviously, and unconditionally decides the issue of their rights, interests, or obligations. In this case, the local commercial court resolved issues exclusively regarding the debt between the debtor and its debtor, without assessing the rights or obligations of the bank in any way. The Supreme Court emphasized that the bank’s status as a judgment creditor in other consolidated enforcement proceedings against the same debtor does not grant it an automatic right to intervene in legal proceedings to which it is not a party. Since the reasoning and dispositive parts of the first-instance ruling contain no findings regarding the rights or obligations of the bank, this decision has no binding effect on it. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove the existence of a direct legal link between the challenged judicial act and its proprietary interests within the scope of this specific case. In view of this, the appellate court acted entirely lawfully in terminating the proceedings, as the bank’s rights were not decided by this judicial decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Joint-Stock Company “Bank Credit Dnipro”, upholding the lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling on the termination of proceedings.
Case No. 686/23156/18 dated 21/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the lawfulness and justification of a person’s conviction for inflicting intentional grievous bodily harm, as well as the fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed on them in the form of actual imprisonment.
The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt, as it is fully supported by the examined evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the victim. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the failure to ascertain the accused’s mental state, noting that the court of first instance had properly assessed the conflicting expert opinions and had reasonably found him to be sane. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the sentence imposed, in the form of 6 years of imprisonment, is manifestly unjust due to its excessive severity. The judges took into account that almost 10 years had passed since the commission of the crime, during which the man demonstrated law-abiding behavior, worked, and had positive character references. In addition, the convicted person fully compensated the damage caused to the victim, they reconciled, and the victim himself asked the court not to sentence the man to imprisonment. In view of these circumstances, the court of cassation reached a conclusion on thethe existence of all grounds for the rehabilitation of the convicted person without isolation from society.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, modifying the decisions of the lower courts: it mitigated the punishment to 5 years of deprivation of liberty and released him from serving this sentence on probation, establishing a probationary period of 3 years and releasing him from custody.
Case No. 927/701/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery by the supplier from the buyer of over 940 thousand hryvnias in penalties, 24% per annum, and inflation losses accrued due to late payment for the delivered goods.
The court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff had failed to provide the court of first instance with a complete package of primary documents for the entire period of the parties’ business relations from 2021 to 2024. Due to the absence of these documents and the existence of other mutual transactions, it proved impossible to accurately establish the actual state of mutual settlements and the specific amount of debt as of the disputed dates. Unilateral reconciliation statements of mutual settlements, which were not signed by the defendant, cannot be considered proper evidence of the debt in the absence of primary documentation. Additional evidence, which the plaintiff attempted to submit as late as during the appellate review stage, was reasonably rejected by the court due to the violation of procedural deadlines and the absence of valid reasons for their late submission. The court emphasized that the adversarial principle places the burden of proof solely on the parties to the dispute, and therefore the plaintiff itself bears the risks of improper performance of its procedural duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had groundlessly equated the concept of properly gathered evidence in the case with physically existing materials that were submitted in violation of the law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the supplier’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the recovery of funds.
Case No. 914/489/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the prosecutor’s claims in the interests of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and a state enterprise to terminate a real estate lease agreement and return the property due to the lessee’s alleged systematic non-payment of rent.
The lower courts, with whose findings the Supreme Court agreed, established the complete absence of any debt on the part of the lessee, since the lessee had systematically paid the debts of the state enterprise itself to third parties under tripartite agreements. The lessor itself, due to its difficult financial situation, had requested the lessee in writing to make such payments for utility and other services, guaranteeing that they would be credited toward the rent. The payment documents submitted by the defendant fully confirmed the regularity of these payments, which refutes the prosecutor’s assertion regarding the systematic breach of the contract terms. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argumentsto prior judicial precedents, explaining that the circumstances of those cases differed significantly, as they did not concern the offsetting of rent through the performance of obligations to other creditors. Finally, the court of cassation emphasized that its powers are limited solely to reviewing compliance with the rules of law, rather than re-evaluating the factual circumstances and evidence already established by the courts in the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the state enterprise and left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 607/23392/23 dated 19/05/2026
The subject of the judicial review in this case is the cassation review of the legality and validity of the verdict of the Ternopil Court of Appeals dated November 20, 2024, regarding two convicted persons based on the appeals of their defense counsels.
Since the panel of judges pronounced only the operative part of the decision, the key arguments of the court at this stage are of an exclusively procedural nature. First, the court was guided by the provision of law allowing to postpone the drafting of the full text of the resolution due to the need for substantial time for its preparation. Second, having analyzed the arguments of the appeal of the first convict’s defense counsel, the court found no legal grounds to reverse or modify the verdict of the appellate court. Third, regarding the appeal filed in the interests of the second convict, the court established procedural circumstances requiring the complete termination of the cassation proceedings under this appeal. The judges also clearly determined the date of pronunciation of the full text of the resolution, which will set out in detail the reasons for dismissing the arguments of the defense. Finally, the panel of judges confirmed that the decision made is final, enters into legal force immediately, and is not subject to further appeal.
The Supreme Court left the verdict of the appellate court regarding one convict unchanged, dismissing his attorney’s appeal, and terminated the cassation proceedings on the appeal of the other convict’s defense counsel.
Case No. 175/9172/24 dated 19/05/2026
The subject of this judicial dispute is the legality and validity of the termination of criminal proceedings against a military official accused of exceeding official authority under martial law, which led to the violation of the rights of the victim commercial companies.
Having considered the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the representative of the victim enterprises “Estate City” and “Kvartal Group”, the Supreme Court concluded that there were material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law by the lower courts. The panel of judges pointed out that the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings against the accused under the article on the exceeding of authority by a military official was made prematurely and without a proper examination of all the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasiz… on the necessity of ensuring the rights of the victim parties to a fair trial, which were restricted by the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances. Furthermore, the court of cassation pointed out that the findings of the lower courts did not correspond to the factual circumstances of the criminal proceedings and the requirements of the law regarding a comprehensive and impartial consideration. The Supreme Court stated that the procedural errors committed made it impossible to render a lawful and fair decision, and therefore the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances are subject to mandatory setting aside. Thus, the highest judicial instance confirmed that a new, more thorough trial is necessary to establish the truth in the case and to protect the interests of the state and the victims.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the representative of the victims, vacated the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances, and ordered a retrial of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 756/681/25 dated 06/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the registration authority to cancel the registration of the place of residence of the former owner and her son in an apartment that was mortgaged and subsequently sold at auction to a new owner.
The Supreme Court noted that the mortgaging of real estate limits only the right to dispose of it, while the right to use the property remains with the owner, and the registration of the place of residence itself is a public-law act of record-keeping and is not considered a civil-law transaction. At the time of registration in 2016, the law did not require the consent of the mortgagee bank for the registration of the owner or members of their family; therefore, the plaintiff did not commit any violations during registration. The Court confirmed that the courts had correctly dismissed the claims regarding the plaintiff’s adult son, as he should have applied to the court independently, rather than through his mother without properly executed representation. At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized a procedural error of the lower courts, which had ordered the registration authority to restore the “propiska” (residency registration), although this authority was joined to the case only as a third party and not as a defendant. Finally, the Supreme Court explained that the court decision itself to vacate the unlawful decision on deregistration is a sufficient ground for the automatic restoration of the plaintiff’s rights, and therefore there is no need to additionally oblige the registration authority to take any actions in the operative part of the judgment.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the new owner of the apartment, vacating the decisions of the lower courts in the part ordering the registration authority to restore the plaintiff’s registration, but upheld the decision to declare unlawful and vacate the act on her deregistration of the place of residence itself.
Case No. 175/3210/22 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is criminal proceed…ing regarding the accusation of a citizen of unlawful acquisition and carrying of ammunition, as well as attempted intentional murder of a serviceman by detonating a grenade, the actions under which the courts of lower instances reclassified as the infliction of minor bodily injuries.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts on the absence of direct intent to murder on the part of the convict, as he threw the grenade away from himself after its accidental activation, having no other choice for the direction of the throw. At the same time, the panel of judges stated that the court of appeal took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the case and violated the requirements of the procedural law regarding the mandatory detailed review of all arguments of the appeal. In particular, the appellate court overlooked the key argument of the defense that a DNA profile of another, unidentified person, rather than that of the convict, was detected on the grenade ring. This fact could support the defendant’s version that the ammunition had been planted on him; however, the court of appellate instance failed to properly verify these circumstances and did not provide them with its own legal assessment. Furthermore, the court of appeal unreasonably ignored the defense’s assertion that during the pre-trial investigation, the investigators refused to collect biological samples from the victim for a comparative expert examination. Due to such material procedural violations, the decision rendered by the court of appeal cannot be considered lawful, reasonable, and motivated.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacated the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and ordered a new consideration of the case in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 944/3921/22 of 27/05/2026
The subject of the judicial review in this case is the lawfulness of bringing a citizen to criminal liability for attempting to illegally cross the state border of Ukraine and for evading conscription for military service during mobilization.
Having reviewed the decisions of the lower courts, the panel of judges of the Supreme Court concluded that the cassation appeal of the defense should be partially satisfied due to the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability. Since only the operative part of the resolution has been made public, the detailed reasoning will be announced later; however, it is obvious that the court found a lack of elements of a criminal offense in the actions of the accused under the article on illegal border crossing. In domestic practice, Article 332-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine applies to a specific circle of subjects, for example, persons who are banned from entering Ukraine, or members of the armed forces units of the aggressor state, under which the accused did not fall. At the same time, the judges recognized as lawful and justified the conviction of the defendant under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for liability for evasion of mobilization. Thus, the Supreme Court clearly disdelineated the elements of these two offenses and corrected the error of colleagues from lower courts, who had unnecessarily charged the accused under a criminal article for attempting to cross the border.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacating the verdict and the appellate ruling in the part concerning the conviction for attempted illegal crossing of the border, dismissing the proceedings in this part due to the absence of the elements of a crime, and leaving the judicial decisions unchanged in the part concerning the punishment for draft evasion.
Справа №911/1020/25 від 18/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of staying the appellate proceedings in the case concerning the recovery of debt in the amount of over UAH 2.1 billion pending the resolution of other related cases on invalidating the contracts on which the claims are based.
The Supreme Court emphasized that for a stay of proceedings in a case to be granted, there must exist an absolute and objective impossibility of its consideration, rather than a mere connection to other judicial proceedings. The judges noted that the court of appeal possessed sufficient powers and evidence in the case file to independently evaluate the circumstances of non-performance of obligations and establish the amount of the debt. Furthermore, the panel of judges drew attention to the presumption of validity of a transaction, which remains in force until refuted by a court, thereby allowing the consideration of the case to proceed without awaiting decisions in other proceedings. The Supreme Court also highlighted that an unjustified stay of proceedings leads to artificial delay of the trial and violates the right of the participants to have the dispute resolved within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Finally, the court noted that the judicial system must effectively counter procedural delays and avoid creating prolonged uncertainty for the parties.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeals of the companies “Euroenergotrade” and “Trading House ‘Socar Ukraine'”, vacated the ruling to stay proceedings, and remanded the case to the court of appeal to continue the consideration.
Справа №450/1952/18 від 21/05/2026
**Subject of the dispute:**
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the review of the legality and validity of the conviction of two individuals to long terms of imprisonment for committing a series of robberies by a group of persons upon prior conspiracy, with the aim of seizing funds on an especially large scale.
**Key arguments relied upon by the court in rendering its decision:**
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts properly evaluated the totality of the evidence, which fully confirms the guilt of the convicts in committing armed attacks under the pretext of currency exchange. The judges rejected the arguments of the defense regarding the illegality of the personal search during detention, explaining that such a search is an integral part of the detention procedure and under the law does not require… mandatory video recording or a separate protocol. The Panel of Judges recognized as admissible the audio recordings of telephone conversations made by the victim on his own phone, since the automatic recording of one’s own conversations does not constitute covert interception of information, and the public interest in solving a grave crime in this case outweighed the private interest. The Court confirmed the legality of obtaining voice samples of the accused from the technical recording of a previous court hearing upon a routine request of the investigator, which did not require a separate ruling on temporary access. An urgent search of a vehicle without prior court authorization was also recognized as lawful, as it was promptly validated by a ruling of the investigating judge on the following day. Lastly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the absence at the court hearing of the seized money itself, which the victim had spent due to hardship, does not negate the classification of the crime, as their numbers and series were recorded in detail in the relevant inspection protocols.
**Court decision:**
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense counsels, and to leave the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 650/3483/25 dated 28/05/2026
I cannot provide a detailed analysis of this court decision, as the provided text is only its short operative part. In this document, the Supreme Court announced only its final decision, whereas the full text containing detailed legal arguments and the reasoning of the judges was to be drafted and announced only a few days later—on June 2, 2026. Without the full text of the resolution, it is impossible to determine the exact arguments by which the court was guided in dismissing the cassation appeal, and whether the decision contains a departure from the previous legal positions of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 911/3678/25 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the prosecutor in the interests of the state as represented by the State Property Fund of Ukraine on the restoration of the situation that existed prior to the violation, by canceling the state registration of the ownership right of the “Street-Invest” company to the real estate, closing the relevant section in the State Register of Real Property Rights, and imposing an obligation to vacate the premises of the “Mriya” state recreation center.
The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts had erroneously returned the statement of claim to the prosecutor, groundlessly deciding that a part of the claims should be considered under the rules of civil rather than commercial procedure. The judges emphasized that all the stated claims share a single legal nature and are aimed at protecting the state’s ownership right to a single real estate property against the actions of its current possessor—a legal entity. The individual who carried out the initial registration of the property on the basis of probably forged documents is not a defendant in the case, as back in 2019 they transferred this pro…perty to the charter capital of the company and ceased to be its possessor. Challenging the legality of the actions of this individual is not a separate civil dispute, but merely a ground of the lawsuit to prove the illegality of the entire subsequent chain of transfer of ownership rights to the ultimate party. The Court emphasized that the lower courts had erroneously equated the persons whose interests might be indirectly affected by the decision with the direct participants in the commercial dispute. Thus, the prosecutor did not violate the rules on the joinder of claims, since all of them are interrelated and are subject to consideration exclusively by the commercial court.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office, vacated the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal, and remanded the case to the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast to resolve the issue of opening the proceedings.
Case No. 904/3154/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Khmelnytskyi City Housing and Maintenance Department for the compulsory recovery of fuel wood and penalties under the supply contract, as well as the counterclaims of the entrepreneur to terminate this contract due to a significant increase in market prices for the goods.
The Court proceeded from the premise that, having concluded the contract based on the results of public procurement, the entrepreneur acted at his own commercial risk; therefore, fluctuations in market prices for wood and adverse weather conditions are ordinary commercial risks rather than a material change of circumstances for terminating the contract. The court emphasized that the supply of wood was carried out for the needs of military units, which is of critical importance for the country’s defense capability; therefore, the failure to perform obligations poses a direct threat to the safety of the personnel. Assessing the claim for the recovery of penalties, the courts lawfully exercised their discretionary right and reduced the amount of the fine by 50%, taking into account that the performance of the contract had already been partially secured by the previously paid deposit. The Supreme Court rejected the entrepreneur’s arguments regarding the disregard of previous legal positions, noting that the lower courts had carefully balanced the interests of the parties and prevented the liability from being of a punitive nature. In addition, the court noted that the appellant’s references to the difficulty of purchasing goods on the exchange do not relieve him of the obligation to perform the contractual obligations assumed. Finally, the panel of judges emphasized that the Supreme Court acts as a “court of law” rather than a “court of fact”, and therefore, the reassessment of the circumstances and evidence established by the courts falls outside the scope of its powers.
The Supreme Court dismissed the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts ordering the delivery of wood and the recovery of penalties unchanged.
Case No. 403/16102/12 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this… of the legal dispute is the cassation appeal by the defense counsel against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which the citizen was found guilty of inflicting intentional minor bodily injury and the civil claim for the recovery of moral damage was partially satisfied.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the defense counsel of the convicted person, upon re-submitting the cassation appeal, again failed to comply with the clear requirements of the 1960 procedural law applicable to this case. Specifically, the advocate failed to provide proper substantiation of material violations that would indicate the mandatory necessity of modifying the judicial decisions in the part of resolving the civil claim. Instead, the appeal raised issues regarding the incompleteness of the court proceedings and contested the factual circumstances of the case established by the courts, which, under the law, does not fall within the scope of authority of the court of cassation at all. Furthermore, the judge noted that failure to comply with the procedural requirements regarding the content of the appeal constitutes a direct obstacle to requesting the criminal case files. Finally, the court emphasized that the issue of restoring the missed deadline for filing a cassation appeal must be resolved exclusively by the court of first instance that rendered the judgment, and not by the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the defense counsel’s request to requisition the criminal case for its cassation review.
Case No. 686/30843/21 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality and fairness of the sentence imposed on the woman for the illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs, in particular, the possibility of her release from serving the actual sentence of imprisonment on probation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the special provision of the law on releasing women with children from serving sentences (Article 79 of the Criminal Code) cannot be applied, as the convicted woman is currently serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and cannot provide continuous care for the child. At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized that a presumption of imposing a more lenient measure or method of serving a sentence applies in criminal law unless the prosecution proves otherwise. The court took into account a whole range of mitigating circumstances, including sincere repentance, the fact that it was her first conviction, young age, and the presence of a minor child. Particular attention was paid to the post-criminal conduct of the woman, who during the war was mobilized into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, directly participates in combat missions, is a participant in combat operations, and has exclusively positive references from the command. In view of this, the court concluded that the rehabilitation of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes is possible without isolation from society, but under conditions of supervision over her conduct.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted woman, modifying the judgment of the appellate court and releasing her from serving the sentence on probation with a prob…probationary term of 3 years on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 904/3541/15 of 12/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims to invalidate the results of the second repeated auction for the sale of the debtor’s property in bankruptcy proceedings and the purchase and sale agreement concluded based on its results.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts did not properly verify whether the auction organizer held the mandatory license at the time of the bidding and did not ascertain whether they were an interested party in relation to the debtor. The judges drew attention to the fact that the courts had erroneously applied the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code in its current version, whereas in 2015 entirely different procedural rules regarding the stay of proceedings were in force. In addition, the lower courts took a formalistic approach to assessing compliance with the time limits for announcing the auctions and did not examine whether the price reduction steps complied with the requirements of the law. Furthermore, the courts overlooked the issue of the lawfulness of combining completely different assets by nature into a single lot—real estate and corporate rights. Finally, the courts did not ascertain who owns the disputed property at the time of the hearing of the case, which is key to determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of the chosen method of protecting the creditors’ rights.
Consequently, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the financial company, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Case No. 910/10196/25 of 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the determination of the reasonableness and proportionality of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
The Court noted that the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance must be real, reasonable, and commensurate with the complexity of the case, the work performed by the advocate, and the value of the claim. The plaintiff duly substantiated the provision of services by the advocate by providing the agreement, a detailed acceptance certificate of legal assistance, an advocate’s warrant, and the certificate of the right to practice law. The Court of Appeal reasonably modified the amount of compensation to UAH 49,542.76, based on the principle of proportional allocation of expenses in accordance with the amount of satisfied claims modified as a result of the appellate review. The panel of judges rejected the appellant’s reference to lower recovery amounts in similar cases, since the allocation of expenses for legal assistance is carried out individually in each case based on specific evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant’s disagreement with the evaluation of evidence and the amount of recovered expenses does not indicate a violation of the rules of procedural law by the courts. FurFurthermore, the court of cassation noted that the re-evaluation of evidence and the establishment of new circumstances of the case fall outside the scope of its powers defined by procedural law.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Joint-Stock Company “Guaranteed Buyer” and to leave the ruling of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.
Case No. 906/112/23 of 12/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the prosecutor in the interests of the Zhytomyr Oblast Council for the recovery from the communal ownership of the Zviahel City Council of a forest fund land plot with an area of over 151 hectares, the cancellation of its state registration, and the termination of rights to it due to the unlawful change of its designated use to agricultural.
First and foremost, the court was guided by the fact that the disputed plot historically belongs to forestry lands and is in the permanent use of the forestry enterprise, which is confirmed by numerous planning and cartographic forest management materials compiled before 2006. Pursuant to the Forest Code of Ukraine, it is such materials that constitute official documents confirming the right to use forest lands in the absence of state deeds. The court concluded that the Zhytomyr Oblast Council is the lawful administrator of this land, as it acquired ownership of it by virtue of law back in 2012 during the demarcation of state and communal lands. The Zviahel City Council had no legal grounds to register this plot in its name as agricultural land, as it had been withdrawn against the will of the lawful owner and land user. The court also emphasized that the absence of state registration of the forestry enterprise’s right of permanent use or of the state deed itself does not indicate the absence of such a right, since the process of formalizing the documents is lengthy. Finally, the panel of judges deemed the evidence available in the case, in particular cartographic materials and inspection acts, to be fully sufficient to identify the boundaries and forest status of the plot without the mandatory conduct of an expert examination, which the defendant itself had previously declined.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Zviahel City Council and left the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of the land in favor of the Oblast Council and the cancellation of its registration in the cadastre and the register of property rights unchanged.
Case No. 757/10370/23-k of 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the time limit for filing an appeal against a judgment rendered under a special trial procedure (in absentia) regarding a foreign citizen.
The Supreme Court emphasized that conducting criminal proceedings in the absence of the accused (in absentia) requires enhanced guarantees for the protection of his rights, s
