Case No. 990SСGС/53/25 dated 05/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is an appeal by a judge of the Sviatoshynskyi District Court of the City of Kyiv against the decision of the High Council of Justice to hold him disciplinarily liable in the form of a two-month suspension from the administration of justice due to the protraction of the Maidan case and the violation of the rights of victims.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the judge had committed gross negligence, as the consideration of the high-profile case against the former commander of the Lviv “Berkut” lasted for over seven years and concluded with the dismissal of the proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Court emphasized that the presiding judge failed to take effective measures to counter the systematic non-appearances of defense counsels, which virtually allowed the accused to evade liability. Furthermore, the decision to dismiss the case was made in gross violation of the principles of equality and adversarial proceedings, as the judge examined the defense’s motion without proper notification of 78 victims and without seeking their opinion. The judges emphasized that a heavy workload cannot serve as an excuse for inaction when there is a risk of the expiration of the statute of limitations in a case of extraordinary public importance. In view of this, the Grand Chamber found the disciplinary sanction applied by the High Council of Justice in the form of temporary suspension and referral for training to be entirely proportionate to the gravity of the committed violations.
Ultimately, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the judge’s appeal, leaving the decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.
Case No. 521/17174/24 dated 21/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the termination of an associated membership agreement in a consumer society and the return of the share contribution in the hryvnia equivalent to foreign currency due to the developer’s failure to perform its obligations regarding the construction and transfer of the apartment.
In substantiating its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the conduct of participants in civil legal relations must comply with the principles of good faith, justice, and reasonableness. The Court pointed out that since the parties to the agreement had clearly defined the monetary equivalent of the share contribution in US dollars, then pursuant to Article 533 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the amount in hryvnia calculated at the exchange rate on the date of payment is subject to return. The panel of judges also applied the *contra proferentem* principle (interpretation of contract terms against the party who drafted them), noting that any doubts or ambiguities in the agreement prepared by the society must be interpreted in favor of the consumer. The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the return of only the nominal amount in hryvnias paid years earlier, as this would lead to the depreciation of the shareholder’s funds and the unjust enrichment of the developer. In addition, it was taken into account that the construction of the housing had not started at all, and the right to lease the land plot for development had been judicially cancelled, which indicates…material breach of contract by the defendant. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed the conformity of its findings with the current jurisprudence of the Grand Chamber regarding the possibility of a court determining the amount of debt in the equivalent of a foreign currency.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the consumer society and left the decisions of the lower courts on the termination of the contract and the recovery of 980,726.30 Hryvnias (equivalent to 23,886.76 US Dollars) in favor of the plaintiff unchanged.
Case No. 991/2018/21 dated 26/05/2026
The subject of these proceedings is the accusation of the former management of the State Treasury Enterprise “Maritime Search and Rescue Service” of abuse of office by prior conspiracy of a group of persons, which allegedly caused losses to the state in the amount of over 6.5 million Hryvnias through the conclusion of an unfavorable operating lease agreement for seven vehicles.
Assessing the case materials, the panel of judges concluded that the prosecution had not proven the actual financial capability of the enterprise to purchase these vehicles outright under a purchase and sale agreement, since the available funds were earmarked for ensuring Ukraine’s international obligations on the safety of navigation. The court noted that although procedural violations were committed during the tender and the conclusion of the contract in the absence of an approved financial plan, and the participating bidding companies acted in collusion, these facts in themselves do not indicate the presence of intent in the actions of the accused to cause harm to the enterprise. Furthermore, an essential element of the crime — the causation of grave consequences — was not substantiated, as the lease agreement was not fully executed, and subsequently, the vehicles were transferred to the ownership of the state-owned enterprise free of charge under a deed of gift. The financial calculations performed showed that the amount actually paid under the lease agreement was almost equal to the market value of the received vehicles, and therefore, no actual material damage was caused to the state, while the prosecutor’s position was based on hypothetical and potential losses. In view of this, the court established the absence of both the objective element of the crime (actual damage) and the subjective element in the actions of the officials, as their decisions were dictated by the operational necessity of ensuring the functioning of rescue services under conditions of limited funding.
The High Anti-Corruption Court rendered a verdict of acquittal with respect to both defendants due to the failure to prove the presence of the elements of a criminal offense in their acts.
Case No. 280/8933/24 dated 07/05/2026
The subject of this dispute is the right of a serviceman to receive compensation for the late payment of an additional monetary reward in the amount of 100,000 Hryvnias, which was accrued to him for the period of treatment after sustaining a wound.
The Grand C… Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that compensation for delayed payments under the relevant law is accrued only on those monetary incomes of citizens that are not of a one-off nature. The Court analyzed in detail the structure of the financial allowance of military personnel and established that the additional remuneration for the period of martial law, by its legal nature, is classified by regulatory acts as a one-off additional type of payment. The judges emphasized that the assignment of this payment is linked to a specific and special legal fact—sustaining an injury during the defense of the Motherland. Even if the treatment of a servicemember lasts for several months and the funds are paid on a monthly basis, this does not change the one-off nature of the payment itself, but only indicates its payment in installments. Thus, since the disputed remuneration is a one-off income, it is not subject to the requirements of the legislation on compensation for loss of part of income due to breach of payment deadlines.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine and the military unit, set aside the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court, and dismissed the servicemember’s claim in its entirety.
Case No. 991/7774/24 of 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a lawsuit by the State represented by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to declare a three-room apartment in Poltava, registered in the name of the mother of the deputy head of the territorial center for recruitment and social support, as an unsubstantiated asset, and to recover it to the state revenue.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the military official is a subject of declaration, and his being on leave at the time of the purchase of the real estate does not exempt the asset from anti-corruption scrutiny. The Court emphasized that the “balance of probabilities” standard is applied in civil forfeiture cases, and the prosecutors successfully proved the official’s indirect link to the apartment where he and his family actually resided, carried out renovations, and paid utility bills. At the same time, the official income of the servicemember’s mother and her husband over the past twenty years was meager and objectively did not allow for making such an expensive purchase. The Court critically assessed the assertions regarding the receipt of USD 30,000 as a gift from the official’s father and a loan of UAH 600,000, since these agreements were not made in writing and notarized as required by law, and the fact of the transfer of money cannot be proven solely by witness testimony. Other declared sources of family income, including from the sale of agricultural products or unofficial side jobs, were also not confirmed by any proper documents. Since the defendants failed to prove the lawful origin of the funds for the acquisition of the property, the recovery of the apartment to the state revenue is a proportionate interference that serves the public interest.
The Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, set aside the resolution of the court of appeal, and uph…upheld the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court, by which the apartment was recognized as an unjustified asset and recovered to the state revenue.
Case No. 991/1871/22 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the charges against the former chief engineer and chief mechanic of the separate subdivision “Zolote Mine” of the SE “Pervomaiskvuhillia” of aiding and abetting the abuse of office by the management of the state enterprise, which led to the embezzlement of millions in state budget funds through the entry of false data regarding the scope and cost of works to prevent a man-made emergency.
The court concluded that the defendants, holding managerial positions at the state mine, by virtue of their official duties, clearly knew the actual state of affairs at the facility, but intentionally endorsed the certificates of acceptance of completed works of Form KB-2v containing knowingly false data. The endorsement of these documents removed obstacles for the head of SE “Pervomaiskvuhillia” to abuse his office and allowed the groundless transfer of state funds in favor of the private general contractor LLC “E-MKZ”. The court independently recalculated the amount of damage caused, correcting the arithmetic and tax errors of the experts regarding the cost of pipes and cables, and clearly delineated the scope of damage for each of the defendants in accordance with the certificates signed by them. The defense’s arguments regarding the absence of a victim and damages were rejected, since the ultimate beneficiary of the funds allocated from the reserve fund was the state enterprise itself, which suffered actual property damage. The court found the defendants’ claims of signing the documents under pressure from management to be untenable, emphasizing that under the Constitution of Ukraine, no one is obliged to execute manifestly criminal orders, and their actions were voluntary. The court also emphasized that the separate consideration of the case against the accomplices in the absence of the principal offender, who is currently wanted, is fully consistent with the case law of the Supreme Court and does not violate the right to a fair trial.
The High Anti-Corruption Court found both officials guilty of aiding and abetting the abuse of office and sentenced the former chief engineer to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and the former chief mechanic to 3 years of imprisonment, with both being deprived of the right to hold certain positions for a term of 1 year, and ordered the payment of fines in the amount of 8,500 hryvnias and procedural costs for expert examinations.
Case No. 990/465/25 dated 05/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine approving the results of the cognitive abilities testing of the plaintiff, due to which she was not admitted to the next stage of the competition for the position of a judge, and her claim to oblige the Commission to conduct re-testing.
The court noted that the selection for the position of a judge has an exclusively competitive chcharacter, and the establishment of a passing score is a legitimate selection tool under conditions of a limited number of vacancies. The Grand Chamber emphasized that the law does not oblige the commission to disclose specific test questions for assessing cognitive abilities in advance, unlike other types of testing. The plaintiff voluntarily participated in the testing, having agreed to its rules, and expressing doubts regarding the correctness of the system only after receiving a negative result is not a ground for setting aside the decision. The Court established that the software and test database utilized had undergone proper psychometric validation and technical testing, which confirmed their high reliability and the absence of malfunctions. The Commission did not violate the plaintiff’s right of access to information, as it explained to her the procedure for obtaining a detailed report on the test results, subject to a properly submitted request. Finally, granting the plaintiff the opportunity to retake the test solely because of her disagreement with the scores would violate the principles of equality and competitiveness with respect to other participants in the competition.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 990/294/25 of 14/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the demand of a candidate for the position of an appellate court judge to annul the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine on the approval of the results of his practical exam, due to which he was barred from the next stage of the competition, and to oblige the Commission to reinstate his participation in the selection.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the assessment of candidates’ practical tasks falls within the exclusive discretionary powers of the examination commission, judicial intervention in which is strictly limited. The judges noted that the current legislation and the internal regulations of the Commission require the assignment of a total final score for the work, rather than a detailed breakdown of scores for each individual element of the judicial decision. Furthermore, the existence of the approved Methodological Guidelines does not oblige the examiners to record scores element-by-element in the final decisions, as this document is merely indicative and auxiliary in nature to unify the assessment. The Court also emphasized that the anonymity of the exam is a key guarantee of its objectivity and equality for all participants, and a personal review of results or a change in the procedure for an individual candidate would violate these principles and the rights of other competitors. Finally, the Grand Chamber pointed out that the judiciary cannot assume the functions of a judicial governance body and oblige the Commission to reinstate a candidate’s participation in the competition contrary to the established rules.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the candidate’s appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the lawsuit.
Casase No. 990/224/23 of 28/04/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claim to declare unlawful and set aside the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part of enacting the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on the application of personal five-year sanctions to the plaintiff.
****: In this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court clarified and departed from its previous position, ruling that judicial review in sanctions cases cannot be limited to a mere formal check of the procedure, but must necessarily include an assessment of the existence of a sufficient factual basis for the application of restrictions. The Court emphasized that sanctions by their legal nature are preventive measures to protect national security, rather than a form of legal liability; therefore, their imposition does not require the mandatory prosecution of the person or the initiation of a counterintelligence case. Having examined the materials provided by the Security Service of Ukraine, including restricted documents, the court was satisfied of the existence of compelling factual data confirming that the activities and connections of the plaintiff posed potential threats to the national security of Ukraine in the context of the ongoing armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The restriction of the plaintiff’s property rights was found to be lawful and proportionate, as it is temporary, does not permanently deprive him of his right of ownership, and provides an effective extrajudicial mechanism for lifting the sanctions in the event of a change of circumstances. The Court also noted that although the text of the Decree itself lacked individualized justification, this deficiency was fully remedied during the trial, where the plaintiff’s representative had access to the classified materials of the case and was able to submit their objections. In view of this, the Grand Chamber concluded that the President and the NSDC acted solely within the scope of their discretionary powers, and the challenged decision contains no signs of arbitrariness or discrimination.
Ultimately, the court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance in accordance with the new standards of judicial review, but left its operative part unchanged regarding the refusal to lift the sanctions.
Case No. 990SCGC/32/25 of 14/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a judge’s challenge to the decision of the High Council of Justice, by which he was held disciplinarily liable and dismissed from office for ex parte communication with an intermediary in order to lift the seizure of property in exchange for an improper benefit.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that disciplinary and criminal liability are completely autonomous institutions, and therefore the dismissal of a judge for breach of ethics does not depend on the existence of a criminal conviction. The judges emphasized that declassified materials of covert investigative (search) actions (CISA) may be lawfully used in disciplinary proceedings, provided there is a written permission from a prosecutor. At the same time, the High Council of Justice did not…determines the criminal guilt of a person, but merely independently assesses whether the judge’s conduct tarnishes their office and whether it undermines the authority of justice. In this case, the totality of evidence, including video recordings of meetings and the verdict regarding the intermediary, clearly and convincingly proved the fact of ex parte communication and the judge giving instructions regarding the adjustment of motions. Such use of the criminal case materials was recognized by the court as proportionate and legitimate, as it pursues a paramount public interest — cleansing the judiciary of corruption and strengthening public trust. In the court’s conviction, the established facts leave no doubt that the judge’s conduct grossly violated the standards of impartiality and ethics, which is incompatible with his status.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the judge’s appeal and to uphold the decision of the High Council of Justice on submitting a motion for his dismissal.
Case No. 464/7075/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the mother’s claims for an increase in the amount of child support and the deprivation of the father’s parental rights regarding their minor son due to systematic and prolonged evasion of parental duties.
In making its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the defendant, since at least 2014 (over 10 years), had completely distanced himself from the upbringing, financial support, and spiritual development of the child. The judges took into account the clear and voluntary opinion of the teenager himself, expressed in the presence of a psychologist, who noted that he does not know his biological father at all, considers him a stranger, and has no desire to communicate with him, instead considering his stepfather to be his father. The court also took into account the official opinion of the guardianship and trusteeship authority, which deemed the deprivation of parental rights appropriate and in the best interests of the child. The defendant’s arguments regarding the existence of obstacles to communication were rejected, as he had only applied to state authorities once in 2018, and after receiving a refusal, had taken no action over the next six years to establish contact or appeal this decision in court. Furthermore, even during the lengthy litigation, the father did not make any real attempt to meet or speak with his son, which indicates the purely formal nature of his objections to the lawsuit. In view of this, the panel of judges agreed that in this case, the application of such an extreme measure is justified and fully protects the best interests of the child.
The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality and fairness of the decisions of the lower courts on the deprivation of his parental rights and the recovery of legal assistance costs.
Case No. 175/615/14-ts dated 29/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of Joint-Stock Company “UkrSibbank” against the property guarantor for foreclosure…foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage — a residential house and a land plot — to satisfy the debt under the loan agreement.
The Court proceeded from the premise that the final deadline for the performance of obligations under the loan agreement was clearly defined by the additional agreement as December 27, 2010. In view of this, the three-year limitation period for the bank to apply to court with claims for foreclosure on the mortgaged property expired on December 27, 2013. Since the financial institution filed this lawsuit only in February 2014, it missed the statutory limitation period, the application of which was timely requested by the defendant. The panel of judges reasonably rejected the bank’s arguments that the limitation period was interrupted due to its previous application to another court in September 2013. The Supreme Court confirmed its principled position, according to which the filing of a lawsuit in violation of the rules of jurisdiction does not interrupt the running of the limitation period. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not file any motion with the court of first instance for the renewal of this period and did not provide any valid reasons for missing it.
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit due to the expiration of the limitation period unchanged.
Case No. 462/35/24 dated 29/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Lviv City Council against an individual for the removal of obstacles to the use of a municipally owned land plot by demolishing an unauthorized non-residential building with an area of 54.9 sq. m and terminating the defendant’s ownership rights thereto.
The Court was guided by the fact that the disputed land plot belongs to the city community, and the local authorities have never made any decisions to transfer it to the defendant’s ownership or use. The building constructed on this land was recognized as unauthorized construction, as it was built without the appropriate permits and commissioning. The judges emphasized that the registration of ownership rights to such an object outside the procedure established by law does not remedy the violations and significantly restricts the rights of the lawful owner of the land. In this regard, the proper and effective method of protection is precisely a negatory action for the demolition of the structure, rather than the recovery of property from another’s possession. Since such a violation of rights is ongoing, the limitation period does not apply to these claims, and the landowner may seek protection at any time. In addition, the principle of the unity of the legal fate of the land and the property located thereon makes it impossible for a person who has no rights to the land plot to acquire ownership rights to the building.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal, confirming the lawfulness of the decisions of the lower courts on the demolition of the unauthorized building and the termination of the ownership rights thereto.
Case No. 362/3587/22 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claims to declare invalid the decision of the village council… , the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot and of another person’s ownership title to it, as this plot, in the plaintiff’s opinion, overlaps with the land that she had used for a long time and for the development of a land management project of which she had previously received a permit.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that obtaining a permit to develop a land management project in itself does not constitute a title-establishing act and does not guarantee a person the automatic acquisition of ownership rights to the land. The Court noted that in disputed situations, the priority right to receive a land plot belongs to the person who was the first to complete the development of the project, formed the land plot in the prescribed manner, and registered it. Since the defendant, prior to the plaintiff, took all necessary legally significant actions and properly registered her ownership rights, the plaintiff’s legitimate expectations were not violated. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide the court with proper evidence, in particular, an expert opinion, that would confirm the actual overlap of the boundaries of her potential plot with the defendant’s already registered land. The court also emphasized that long-term use of land by virtue of acquisitive prescription does not confer automatic advantages in the course of privatization, as this procedure still takes place on general grounds. Due to the failure to prove the violation of the plaintiff’s rights, the court rejected her arguments regarding the procedural defects of the village council’s decision, in particular, the absence of an authorized person’s signature on the document.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts dismissing the claim unchanged.
Case No. 638/6144/14-ts of 29/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claims to declare invalid the public auction for the sale of the arrested apartment, to cancel the minutes and the deed on conducting the auction, to declare invalid the certificate of ownership title, as well as to recover this property from the buyer, evict the latter, and reinstate the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the mere fact of improper notification of the debtor about the public auction cannot be an absolute ground for declaring it invalid. The main condition for canceling the auction results is the presence of such material procedural violations that could have realistically affected the final outcome of the auction and resulted in the violation of the rights or legitimate interests of the challenging party. The Court established that the information about the auction had been properly published on the official website and in the press, and the plaintiff failed to provide convincing evidence of any violation of the auction rules. Since the foreclosure on the apartment took place within the framework of the compulsory enforcement of court decisions on the joint and several recovery of debt from both spouses, the arguments regarding the alienation of joint property without the wife’s consent are groundless. The panel of judges also rejected the arguments regarding the groundless exclusion of another potential buyer from participating in the auction, as the applicants failed to prove exactly how this violated theirand their own rights. In addition, the claim to declare the certificate of purchase of property invalid was recognized as an inappropriate method of protection, since this document in itself does not generate new rights, but only confirms the already acquired right of the winner of the auction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of prior instances to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 352/1665/23 dated 29/05/2026
The subject matter of this judicial review is the application of a financial company for the recovery from the plaintiff of the costs of professional legal assistance incurred during the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court.
The Court was guided by the fact that the current procedural legislation allows for the adoption of an additional decision if the issue of the allocation of court costs was not resolved during the adoption of the main resolution. The panel of judges took into account that the defendant had declared in advance, back in the response to the cassation appeal, his intention to submit evidence of the expenses incurred within five days after the decision was rendered. The financial company duly confirmed its expenses by submitting to the court a copy of the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, a detailed description of the work performed by the advocate, the corresponding act, and evidence of their dispatch to the other party. At the same time, the plaintiff did not exercise her procedural right and did not submit to the court any objections or a motion to reduce the amount of these expenses. Since the burden of proving the disproportion of expenses rests precisely on the party challenging them, in the absence of such objections, the court had no grounds to reduce them. The Supreme Court concluded that the claimed amount is justified, verified, and fully proportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the advocate.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the application of Digi Finance Limited Liability Company, recovering 25,000 hryvnias of professional legal assistance expenses from PERSON_1 in its favor.
Case No. 509/3844/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiffs’ claims to declare invalid their own notarized statement of consent to the sale of a residential building and a land plot, which they signed, according to their assertion, in a state of temporary mental disorder, as a result of which they did not understand the significance of their actions.
The Supreme Court first of all drew attention to the fundamental principle of good faith in civil relations, pointing out that the plaintiffs’ conduct contradicts their prior actions, since during five years of legal battles in another case concerning the same property, they never once mentioned any mental health problems. The Court emphasized that the attempt to challenge the document after such a long period of time appears to be an abuse of rights and an attempt to avoid fulfilling debt obligations to creditors. Furthermore, the panel of judges agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that declaring the statement of consent invalid is an ineffective…m remedy of protection, as such a decision in itself is incapable of returning the lost real estate to the plaintiffs. A proper and effective instrument of protection in such situations is the filing of a vindicatory action, i.e., a claim for the recovery of property directly from its ultimate acquirer. As to the refusal to appoint a forensic psychiatric examination, the courts of lower instances acted lawfully, as this motion was submitted with a failure to meet procedural deadlines, and the case files contain no medical documents at all regarding the treatment of the plaintiffs during the disputed period. Thus, the Court confirmed that due to the inconsistent conduct of the plaintiffs and their choice of an improper legal path, the claim is not subject to satisfaction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ cassation appeals and left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 922/3826/24 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the mutual claims of the enterprises regarding the recovery of penalties for the delay in the delivery of industrial equipment and the lawfulness of the buyer’s withholding of payment for the goods as an operational and economic sanction.
Regarding the arguments that guided the court in rendering its decision, I will highlight several key aspects. First, the court pointed out that the buyer’s application of an operational and economic sanction in the form of withholding payment for the goods was groundless, as by the time the notification thereof was sent, the supplier had already fully delivered the products. Second, in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, the purpose of such sanctions is precisely to terminate or prevent a violation, which becomes impossible when the obligation has already been actually performed. Third, the courts took into account that the delay in the delivery of the equipment occurred due to objective force majeure circumstances — regular shelling of Kharkiv and damage to power grids, which was officially certified by certificates of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Fourth, the courts lawfully exercised their legal right to reduce the amount of the fine for the supplier, considering the absence of actual damages to the buyer, the financial standing of the manufacturer, and its execution of deliveries under the extremely difficult conditions of war. Fifth, the Supreme Court emphasized that the reduction of the penalty is a discretionary right of the court, based on the general principles of civil legislation — justice, good faith, and reasonableness. Lastly, the panel of judges noted that the appellant’s arguments actually require a re-evaluation of the already examined evidence, which goes beyond the scope of powers of the cassation instance acting exclusively as a court of law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Joint Stock Company “Ukrgasvydobuvannya”, confirming the legality of the decisions of the lower courts on the partial satisfaction of both claims and the conducting of a set-off of monetary funds.
Case No. 910/16375/23 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to grant a private enterprise’s application for an additional decision on the redistribution of court fees after the partial satisfaction of a lawsuit filed by the Security Service of Ukraine for the recovery of penalties.
The Supreme Court emphasized that an additional judicial decision is an instrument for correcting errors and can be adopted solely when the court has not resolved the issue of court costs at all. In this case, the appellate commercial court had already distributed the court fees in its main resolution, imposing them on the defendant because the reduction of late payment interest and fine occurred on the basis of the court’s discretionary powers rather than due to the unsubstantiated nature of the claim. Since the issue of the allocation of costs had been resolved in the main decision, the procedural grounds for rendering an additional decision under Article 244 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine were completely absent. The panel of judges dismissed the appellant’s request to depart from the current legal position of the Supreme Court regarding the allocation of costs upon the reduction of a penalty, as these rules were not applied in the appealed ruling at all. The Court emphasized that the defendant’s disagreement with the allocation of court costs already carried out cannot be remedied by filing an application for an additional decision or appealing the refusal to render it. Dissenting opinions of judges, referenced by the appellant, are not a source of law or binding case law, and therefore cannot serve as a ground for setting aside a lawful judicial act.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Private Enterprise “Fobos” and upheld the ruling of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court refusing to render an additional decision.
Case No. 916/574/15-g dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the recovery from a local government authority of over UAH 4.6 million in inflation losses and 3% per annum under a contract for the development of design and estimate documentation for the construction of the “North-South” highway in Odesa, whereas the direct subject of the cassation review was the lawfulness of leaving this claim without consideration.
The court of first instance left the claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear at the hearing, deeming the plaintiff to have been duly notified via the electronic cabinet. However, the appellate court established that the local commercial court failed to take into account at all the fact of the official replacement of the original plaintiff, LLC “KOMPAS PROEKT”, with its lawful legal successor — LLC “Odeski Restavratsiini Maisterni”. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the court of appeal that the case file completely lacked any evidence of sending court summonses or rulings to the address of the new legal successor specifically. The panel of judges emphasized that the proper notification of the participants in the case of the time and place of the hearing is an imperative duty of the court, rather than a formality, as it directly affects the securing of the right to a fa…fair trial and the adversarial nature of the proceedings. In addition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged lack of requisites of the new plaintiff, as all necessary data and addresses of the successor were contained in the case materials and the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim. Thus, leaving the lawsuit without consideration in the absence of information on the proper notification of the new plaintiff was recognized as a gross violation of the rules of procedural law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Road Facilities Department of the Odesa City Council and left the resolution of the court of appeal on remitting the case to the court of first instance for the continuation of consideration unchanged.
Case No. 910/20114/23 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Deputy Prosecutor General in the interests of the state for the termination of lease agreements for two state-owned buildings in Kyiv and the eviction of the lessee due to a material change of circumstances, namely the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, which caused an urgent need for the National Museum of the History of Ukraine in the Second World War to expand its areas to cover the events of the modern war.
The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances had reached a premature conclusion regarding the absence of grounds for terminating the agreements, as they did not properly assess the impact of the full-scale invasion as an unforeseeable factor that radically changed the socio-political realities and vectors of the museum’s activities. The Court emphasized that the beginning of the full-scale war in 2022 and the imposition of martial law are qualitatively different circumstances compared to the limited conflict that had been ongoing since 2014, and the parties to the lease agreement could not have foreseen such a scale of aggression when revising the lease terms in 2019. In addition, the panel of judges pointed out that other vacant areas of the museum are purely auxiliary or technical premises, which, under the law on museums, cannot be used for the storage and exhibition of new artifacts. The Court also pointed out the erroneousness of the findings of the lower courts regarding the lessee’s mandatory performance of capital repairs without compensation, as the terms of the agreements did not contain such direct requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court emphasized that a material change of circumstances is an evaluative category aimed at protecting the parties from adverse consequences when the performance of the contract becomes excessively burdensome or deprives one of the parties of what it expected to receive. Due to the incomplete determination of these key factual circumstances and the improper examination of the evidence in its entirety, the decisions of the lower courts cannot be considered lawful and justified.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, vacated the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the lawsuit, and remitted the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 205/294/25 dated 27/05/2026
**Subject matter of the dispute:**
The subjThe subject matter of this dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to reclaim a land plot with an area of almost 2 hectares from the private ownership of a citizen into the communal ownership of the community, which, according to the plaintiff, left the possession of the state against its will due to the use of a forged order of the State Geocadastre.
**Key arguments relied upon by the court in rendering its decision:**
In this case, the court was primarily guided by the presumption of the lawfulness of acquisition of the right of ownership, which imposes on the plaintiff the burden of convincingly proving the illegality of possession of the property. The judges pointed out that in the event of discrepancies between the electronic database of the State Geocadastre and the paper order that served as the basis for the registration of the land right, priority under the law is given precisely to the information on paper media. The prosecutor failed to provide the court with irrefutable evidence of the forgery of the paper order, such as a court verdict in criminal proceedings or a forensic expert opinion, while civil proceedings strictly prohibit rendering decisions based on assumptions. In addition, the court applied the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the principle of “good governance”, according to which mistakes of state authorities cannot be remedied at the expense of private individuals, and the risk of such mistakes must be borne by the state itself. It was also taken into account that due to hostilities and the temporary occupation of the Mariupol district, collecting additional original documents is currently objectively impossible. Considering the balance of probabilities, the panel of judges concluded that the prosecutor failed to rebut the good faith of the acquisition of the land by the defendant.
**Court decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the decisions of the lower courts to refuse the reclamation of the land plot in favor of the community.
Case No. 2-2616/11 dated 27/05/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute is an application by a financial company to substitute the recoverer in enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of a loan debt.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the procedural substitution of a party to enforcement proceedings is possible only if there are pending enforcement proceedings. In this case, the materials did not contain proper evidence that at the time of filing the application, there were open enforcement proceedings against the debtor under the relevant writ of execution. Furthermore, the period for submitting the enforcement document for execution had long expired, and the court had previously twice denied the original creditor’s request to renew this period. The Supreme Court confirmed that a successor in material legal relations cannot acquire those procedural rights that the previous creditor had already lost due to missing the deadlines. The court also took into account a significant violation of the rights of the debtor, who was not notified at all about the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, as court summonses were sent to her old address. In view of this, the court of appeal quite reasonably set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and denied the application of the financial comcompany.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Svea Finance Limited Liability Company, and left the resolution of the court of appeal refusing to substitute the recoverer unchanged.
Case No. 212/3248/25 of 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the current owner of an apartment in Bakhmut to lift the ban on the alienation of her real property and to remove the corresponding record from the state register, which was imposed back in 1998 due to the loan obligations of the previous owner to “Oschadbank”.
The Supreme Court noted that, as a general rule, a pledge remains in force upon the transfer of ownership of the property to another person, and since the loan debt of the previous owner to the bank has not yet been fully repaid, the courts of lower instances erroneously considered the plaintiff to be merely a “bona fide acquirer” without any obligations. At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized that, according to the law, a pledge is mandatorily terminated in the event of the destruction or loss of the pledged property. The plaintiff applied to the registrar specifically to obtain compensation for the housing destroyed as a result of hostilities; however, the lower courts did not pay any attention to this argument at all and did not investigate whether the apartment was indeed destroyed. Since establishing the fact of the destruction of the property is key to resolving the issue of terminating the pledge, and the court of cassation does not have the right to independently collect and evaluate evidence, the case must be reviewed anew. Thus, the courts had to ascertain whether the subject of the pledge itself exists physically, since its destruction automatically terminates any encumbrance.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “Oschadbank”, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish the fact of the possible destruction of the apartment.
Case No. 372/5738/24 of 21/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the defense counsel’s appeal against a court verdict by which a person liable for military service was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment for evading draft for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), requesting to impose a suspended sentence or a significantly lighter punishment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that intentional evasion of the defense of the Motherland under martial law has an increased public danger, and therefore the imposed punishment must be real and effective. The judges rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the accused’s sincere repentance, noting that his position was of a formal nature, as he had not taken any actual steps to remedy the consequences of the offense or to fulfill his constitutional duty. The panel of judges confirmed the impossibility of imposing a lighter punishment than prescribed by law, since only one mitigating circumstance was established in the case—active assistance in solving the crime, instead of the ne……at least two required. The court also recognized as justified the refusal to release the defendant from serving the sentence on probation, emphasizing that a suspended sentence for such a crime during wartime would create a dangerous sense of impunity in society and negatively affect the motivation of other military service members. Separately, the Supreme Court distinguished this case from other precedents where the defendants were given suspended sentences, explaining that the convicted person did not work at a critical infrastructure enterprise and no reservation procedure had been initiated in respect of him. Ultimately, the courts of lower instances had already taken full account of the positive character references of the individual and the presence of children, sentencing him to the minimum possible term of imprisonment within the limits of the article’s sanction.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, leaving the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal on sentencing to actual imprisonment for a term of 3 years unchanged.
Case No. 128/894/20 of 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Joint-Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank” against the borrower for the recovery of debt under a credit and pledge agreement concluded in 2008.
The court took into account that as early as 2012, the bank filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the pledged property, thereby unilaterally changing the term for performing the credit obligation and triggering the running of the statute of limitations. Since the financial institution filed a new lawsuit for the recovery of the remaining debt only in 2020, the general three-year statute of limitations for filing such claims was obviously missed. Furthermore, the court established that the defendant had not been properly notified of the proceedings in the court of first instance, as the bank had specified his outdated residential address, despite being reliably aware that the borrower had lost the right to use this dwelling back in 2004. The return of court summonses with postal marks indicating non-delivery cannot be considered proper notification of a party about the judicial process. Under such circumstances, the defendant was objectively deprived of the opportunity to plead the statute of limitations in the court of first instance, which gave him the full right to make such an application at the stage of appeal review. The Supreme Court confirmed that the consideration of the application regarding the statute of limitations by the court of appeal under such circumstances fully complies with the principles of fairness and procedural equality of the parties.
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal, leaving the resolution of the court of appeal to dismiss the lawsuit due to the expiration of the statute of limitations unchanged.
Case No. 757/35495/23-ts of 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a citizen against the state, represented by the State Treasury Service, for the recovery of one million hryvnias in moral damages, inflation losses, and lost profits, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, were caused to himdue to the return of the writ of execution by treasury officers without execution.
The Supreme Court concluded that the State Treasury Service acted completely lawfully, since after the court of cassation changed the operative part of the previous decision, the old writ of execution ceased to comply with the requirements of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The Court emphasized that for the compensation of damages at the expense of the state, a mandatory condition is the presence of unlawful conduct by its bodies, which was not established in the actions of the treasury in this case. In addition, the judges noted that the debtor under the original decision is the state of Ukraine, and not the Treasury as a separate legal entity, therefore the allegations of a conflict of interest are groundless. Regarding the claims for lost profits in the amount of 13% per annum, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence of a real possibility of obtaining such profit, but merely referred to an abstract probability. Finally, the panel of judges emphasized that the return of the enforcement document to bring it into compliance with the law does not deprive the creditor of the right to receive their money after the proper document is issued.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 344/432/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of child support from a father, who is currently performing military service, for the maintenance of his minor daughter, as well as the legality of the suspension of proceedings in this case by the court of appeal for the duration of his service.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the child’s constitutional right to maintenance is of an urgent nature and cannot be restricted even under martial law, as a delay in such protection virtually deprives the child of the means of subsistence. The judges noted that the mandatory suspension of proceedings due to the defendant’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not absolute and should be applied only in the presence of objective obstacles to the consideration of the case. In this particular case, the serviceman demonstrated active procedural behavior: he personally signed and mailed complaints and motions from Ivano-Frankivsk, which indicates a real opportunity to protect his rights without suspending the process. The panel of judges emphasized that the interests of the child are a priority, and the prolonged suspension of the consideration of the case for an indefinite period violates her right to an adequate standard of living and access to justice. In addition, the court clarified that the general conclusions of the Grand Chamber regarding the suspension of cases involving military personnel are not a template for family disputes and should not lead to the ignoring of the best interests of children.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the mother’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the court of appeal on the suspension of proceedings, and remanded the case to the court of appeal to continue the consideration.
Case No. dated 29/05/2026
The subThe subject of this judicial review is the motion of the convicted person for reinstatement of the missed time limit for cassation appeal against the verdict of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court, submitted directly to the Supreme Court in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960.
The Court was guided by the fact that the convicted person filed the cassation appeal after the expiration of the statutory three-month period from the date the judicial decisions entered into force. Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, the issue of restoring this time limit must be resolved exclusively by the court that rendered the challenged decision, and not by the court of cassation. Since the convicted person filed the respective motion directly with the Supreme Court, the court of cassation lacks the statutory authority to consider it on the merits. Therefore, the motion for reinstatement of the time limit shall be left without consideration as having been filed in violation of the established procedure. In addition, the procedural law explicitly prohibits requesting the materials of a criminal case if the cassation appeal was filed after the established time limit and this time limit was not restored by the competent court in the prescribed manner. Thus, in the absence of a decision by the court of first instance or the appellate court to reinstate the time limits, the Supreme Court had no legal grounds to request the case files and review them.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the motion of the convicted person for reinstatement of the time limit for cassation appeal without consideration and to refuse to request the criminal case files.
Case No. 915/527/24(915/921/25) dated 19/05/2026
The subject of this dispute is the claims of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for the recovery from a debtor enterprise undergoing bankruptcy proceedings of a penalty in the amount of 33,999 hryvnias, accrued for late payment of a fine for violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition.
The Supreme Court noted that the fine of the Antimonopoly Committee is an independent monetary obligation of a public-law nature, and the penalty accrued on it is a financial sanction of a derivative nature. As a general rule of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, during the moratorium, the accrual of forfeits and financial sanctions on the claims of concurrent creditors is prohibited. At the same time, according to the law, the effect of this moratorium does not in any way apply to the claims of current creditors, i.e., those whose claims against the debtor arose after the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court established that the bankruptcy proceedings of the defendant were opened in August 2024, whereas the obligation to pay the fine arose later — in October 2024, which automatically makes the Antimonopoly Committee a current creditor. The lower court instances failed to take into account this important status of the plaintiff and erroneously applied the restrictions of the moratorium, which apply exclusively to concurrent creditors. In addition, the courts of first and appellate instances…s unreasonably relied on the prior legal positions of the Supreme Court, which are not relevant to this case due to a significant difference in the factual circumstances and the time when the obligations arose.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, vacated the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Mykolaiv Oblast.
Case No. 761/347/22-ts dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the former deputy general director of a state enterprise to declare unlawful and set aside the order on his dismissal, for reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
The Court proceeded from the premise that, pursuant to paragraph 1 of part one of Article 41 of the Code of Labor Laws of Ukraine, an employment contract with a deputy head of an enterprise may be terminated in the event of a single gross violation of labor duties by him. In assessing the gravity of the misconduct, the courts took into account the nature of the plaintiff’s actions, who used the official vehicle of the state enterprise in his own private interests and without any official necessity. In addition, the official forced the driver to leave him the keys and documents for the vehicle after the end of the working day, which directly contradicted the procedure for the use of motor vehicles established at the enterprise, with which he had been familiarized against signature. The Court also noted that during the internal investigation, the plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to give explanations, but he refused to do so. The employer fully complied with the dismissal procedure, in particular, having obtained the mandatory prior approval from the governing body — the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine. In view of this, the panel of judges concluded that the fact of a gross violation of labor discipline was fully proven, and the applied disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal was lawful and justified.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and to leave the decisions of the lower courts on the dismissal of the claim unchanged.
Case No. 761/22509/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a local resident to compel a private owner company to restore to their original state the buildings of the former estate of the Kyiv District Zemstvo on Reitarska Street in Kyiv, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, have heritage protection status and were unlawfully dismantled.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence of the developer’s violation of heritage protection legislation, as the works were carried out on the basis of valid permits and approved design documentation. In addition, the Court emphasized that the effective order of the Ministry of Culture of 2011, which did not include the dismantled part of the building in the State Register of Immovable Monuments, had not been challenged in this case, and therefore is…valid. It is also of critical importance that the plaintiff did not prove any proprietary or personal connection to the real estate property. The court clarified that the status of a “bearer of national memory” or a “community resident” does not grant a natural person the legal right to demand the reconstruction of another’s private property. Finally, the panel of judges noted that the right to demand the restoration of a landmark by law belongs exclusively to its owner, the authorized body, or the lawful user, to which the plaintiff does not belong.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, leaving unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 642/886/24 dated 27/05/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the borrowers to declare the mortgage of a residential house terminated and to cancel the records of property encumbrances in connection with the full repayment of the loan debt.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that a mortgage is an accessory obligation and is automatically terminated in the event of full performance of the principal loan agreement. The judges emphasized that when the bank applied to the court for early recovery of the debt back in 2010, it thereby changed the period of performance of the agreement and fixed the amount of claims. Since the debt in the court decision was determined exclusively in hryvnias without a foreign currency equivalent, and the bank did not appeal it, the creditor agreed to precisely such amount and currency of the obligation. Consequently, when the borrowers fully paid the amount recovered by the court in hryvnias, their contractual obligations were terminated by proper performance. In conclusion, the court emphasized that the creditor’s right to accrue statutory compensations for delay does not affect the termination of the mortgage, as such non-contractual claims are not secured by the pledge of property.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the creditor’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the termination of the mortgage.
Case No. 335/8078/24 dated 27/05/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the mother to deprive the father of parental rights in respect of their two joint children due to alleged evasion of their upbringing and maintenance.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the deprivation of parental rights is a measure of last resort, which requires unquestionable evidence of precisely conscious and culpable evasion by a person from performing their duties. The Court took into account that the father’s stay in the temporarily occupied territory is an objective obstacle to full communication with the children, rather than evidence of his intentional self-exclusion from upbringing. In addition, the existence of past child support arrears is not an unconditional ground for such a step, especially since the father fully cleared the debt and made regular payments. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the father’s physical violence against the children were not confirmed by proper and admissible evidence. The Court also emphas…ed that personal misunderstandings and a prolonged conflict between the former spouses cannot serve as grounds for deprivation of parental rights, as the interests of the child must prevail over the parents’ grievances. Finally, the children’s opinion regarding their consent to deprive their father of his rights was assessed critically by the court, as it was formed under the influence of prolonged residence exclusively with their mother in a conflict environment.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of prior instances, which denied the mother’s claim to deprive the father of his parental rights.
Case No. 447/817/24 dated 29/05/2026
**Subject Matter of the Dispute**
The subject matter of this dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right of sole private ownership of a residential building and a land plot acquired during her cohabitation with the defendant, who has significant outstanding debt obligations to a creditor.
**Key Arguments of the Court**
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal that the division of joint property of spouses cannot be used by participants in civil transactions to evade debt repayment or the enforcement of a court decision. The judges took into account that at the time the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, enforcement proceedings had already been initiated against the defendant, and an arrest had been placed on the disputed house and land plot. Under such circumstances, the actions of the spouses aimed at changing the legal regime of the property were recognized as manifestly in bad faith and constituting an abuse of rights in relation to the creditor. The Court emphasized that the legal order cannot leave unaddressed actions which, although they do not violate specific mandatory rules, are clearly aimed at preventing enforcement against the debtor’s property. Since the plaintiff did not rebut the presumption of joint property with proper evidence in the context of good faith behavior, the court of appeal reasonably denied the claim. In addition, the panel of judges ruled as lawful the reduction of the amount of reimbursement for legal assistance costs for the financial company from UAH 56,500 to UAH 10,000, based on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
**Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the plaintiff’s representative and the financial company, and upheld the resolution and supplementary resolution of the Lviv Court of Appeal on the dismissal of the claim and the partial recovery of court costs.
Case No. 920/1061/23(920/656/25) dated 25/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of arrears for thermal energy supply services for common building needs and customer service from the owners of an apartment that was disconnected from the centralized heating system.
The Supreme Court noted that the absence of a signed written contract does not release consumers from the obligation to pay for services actually provided, as by virtue of law, a public adhesion contract is in effect between the parties. The Court emphasized that the disconnection of indiv
