Case No. 420/6675/23 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a police colonel at his own request on the day of submission of his respective report, as well as his claims for reinstatement to the position of Deputy Dean of Odesa State University of Internal Affairs and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
The Supreme Court noted that dismissal at one’s own request is a unilateral expression of will; however, the parties have the right to agree on a specific date for the termination of service prior to the expiration of the statutory three-month notice period. In this case, the plaintiff personally indicated the desired date of dismissal in his reports—February 24, 2023—and the management approved this exact day. The Court observed that the submission of the report took place against the background of an official investigation concerning the plaintiff, and the dismissal at his own request allowed him to avoid disciplinary liability, which indicates the presence of valid reasons and a conscious choice of the officer. Since no applications for the withdrawal of the reports had been received at the time of the issuance of the dismissal orders, the employers acted strictly within the law. The plaintiff’s attempt to withdraw his reports almost a month after the actual dismissal has no legal effect, as the employment relationship had already been lawfully terminated by that time.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of Odesa State University of Internal Affairs and the National Police of Ukraine, reversed the decisions of the lower courts, and fully dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 810/4383/18 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the claims of the tax authority for the recovery of tax debt from an individual entrepreneur, and the counterclaims of the said entrepreneur to declare unlawful and set aside the tax assessment notices that formed the basis for the assessment of the said debt.
Since the provided text contains only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling, the detailed reasoning of the court is not set forth therein; however, the general logic of the decision is completely clear. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, which had satisfied the entrepreneur’s claim and canceled the contested tax assessment notices. Due to these decisions of the tax authority being declared unlawful, the very legal basis for the existence and subsequent recovery of the tax debt automatically ceased to exist. The court of cassation instance confirmed that the tax service failed to prove the lawfulness of its assessments during the consideration of the case. Furthermore, the panel of judges did not find any violations of the rules of substantive or procedural law in the decisions of the lower courts that would constitute grounds for their reversal. Thus, the court concluded that the claims of the controlling authority were completely groundless and that the position of the taxpayer was lawful.
The Sup[The Supreme] Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the tax service, and to leave the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances in favor of the entrepreneur unchanged.
Case No. 296/7350/16-k dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the criminal liability of a driver for a violation of road traffic safety rules that caused the death of a pedestrian, classified under part two of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court grossly violated the key principle of immediacy in the examination of evidence by vacating the acquittal without due process. In particular, the court of appellate instance failed to examine the accused and the witnesses of the road traffic accident, whose testimonies had previously formed the basis of the driver’s acquittal by the court of first instance. Instead, the appellate court confined itself to reviewing the written materials and video recordings, giving the oral testimonies of the witnesses an entirely different, opposite assessment without hearing them in person during the court session. In addition, the panel of judges pointed out that the appellate court had failed to verify or assess the significant arguments of the defense regarding the inadmissibility of the findings of forensic medical examinations, which were based on a document entirely missing from the case file. At the same time, the Supreme Court dismissed other procedural complaints of the defense counsel, recognizing the powers of investigators and prosecutors as lawful and confirming the absence of violations during the disclosure of the materials of the criminal proceedings. Thus, due to non-compliance with the requirements for a comprehensive and direct examination of evidence, the decision of the appellate court was found to be unlawful and unsubstantiated.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacated the guilty verdict of the Zhytomyr Appellate Court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 756/6907/22 dated 01/06/2026
The subject matter of the judicial review in this case is the legality and validity of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the verdict against a citizen convicted of open theft of another’s property (robbery) under part one of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since we are analyzing only the operative part of the ruling, the detailed reasoned part containing all the legal findings of the court will be published later, as is expressly provided by procedural law. At the same time, the panel of judges was guided by the basic principles of criminal procedure regarding the scope of cassation review, which restrict the court from re-evaluating the factual circumstances of the case and the evidence. The judges proceeded from the premise that the decision of the appellate instance was made in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law and without errors in the classification of the actions of the convicted person. Evaluating the arguments of the prosecutor, the Supreme Court found no compelling grounds to doubt the correctness of the conclusions of their colleagues from the appellate court. In addition, the court… exercised its right to postpone the drafting of the full text of the resolution due to the need for a detailed legal justification of its position. Thus, the judges established the absence of material violations that could serve as grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judicial decision.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and to leave the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 751/2051/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of a man to 5 years of imprisonment for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on his common-law wife (Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which the defense and the victim herself attempted to reclassify under a significantly milder article on the negligent infliction of injury (Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court pointed out that the nature, localization, and multiplicity of the injuries (at least eight punches with fists and a knife blow with a blade length of 15.5 cm to vital organs) completely refute the version of negligence or accidental wounding during a fall. The forensic medical examination clearly confirmed that during the blow, the handle of the knife was firmly gripped in the convict’s hand, and the resulting abdominal injuries with a ruptured spleen and a penetrating chest wound were life-threatening. The man’s behavior after the crime — cynical remarks directed at his injured cohabitant, captured on police body cameras, and the lack of any attempt to immediately call an ambulance — clearly demonstrate the presence of intent and are typical for perpetrators of domestic violence. The Court emphasized the requirements of the Istanbul Convention, noting that the state must ensure effective prosecution for domestic violence regardless of whether the victim subsequently attempts to protect the abuser, even if they registered their marriage after the incident. The panel of judges also rejected the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, recognizing the video recordings from the police body-worn cameras as continuous, of proper quality, and fully consistent with other materials in the case. The imposed punishment of 5 years of imprisonment is the minimum threshold of the article’s sanction and is absolutely fair, as the court took into account the convict’s alcohol addiction, his registration as a domestic abuser, and the presence of aggravating circumstances.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of the victim, the convict, and his defense counsel, and to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 908/1390/19 dated 25/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is an attempt by the former head and sole participant of the debtor enterprise to seek review, due to newly discovered circumstances, of seven-year-old judicial decisions on initiating bankruptcy proceedings and declaring the company bankrupt.
The cou[The Court] primarily pointed out that the bankruptcy proceedings in 2019 were initiated upon the debtor’s own initiative and application, signed by the very same director, rather than on the basis of the creditor’s claims, which were subsequently declared invalid. The judges emphasized that the court decisions rendered in 2025 on the invalidity of the contract with one of the creditors are merely new evidence rather than newly discovered circumstances, since they establish facts that existed at the time of the consideration of the case and should have been known to the applicant. Furthermore, the dismissal of the claims of this particular creditor in no way refutes the debtor’s general insolvency, which was the very ground for initiating the liquidation procedure. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the procedural law allows the court to refuse to initiate proceedings upon an application for review of a decision if the asserted circumstances are obviously not newly discovered within the meaning of the law. Finally, the court drew particular attention to the principle of legal certainty, noting that overturning the results of a lengthy seven-year liquidation process after so many years is unacceptable and would violate the rights of other creditors.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the former director, leaving the decisions of the lower courts to refuse to initiate proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances unchanged.
Case No. 944/3921/22 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of bringing a citizen to criminal liability for an attempt to illegally cross the state border of Ukraine under martial law with the purpose of causing harm to the interests of the state.
The Supreme Court emphasized that for the qualification of a crime under Article 332-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a mandatory element is the subjective side, namely a specific purpose—the desire or aspiration to cause harm to the national security, sovereignty, or defense capability of the country. At the same time, the lower courts and the prosecution failed to establish or prove at all which specific interests of the state the accused encroached upon, and what evidence confirms that he possessed such a destructive purpose. The panel of judges noted that the court of appeal groundlessly equated the concept of “damage” as a consequence of the crime with the concept of “purpose” as the internal motivation of the individual. In addition, the courts’ assertions that the man’s actions caused “reputational damage to the state” proved to exceed the scope of the charges brought, as the indictment did not contain such wording at all. Since the mandatory element of the crime—the purpose of causing harm to the interests of the state—was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal liability of the person under this Article is impossible.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, annulled the challenged court decisions in the part concerning the conviction for the attempted illegal crossing of the border, and dismissed the criminal proceedings in connection with the ababsence of the elements of this criminal offense in the act.
Case No. 759/9818/25 dated 28/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the legality and validity of imposing on a person convicted of illicit trafficking in psychotropic substances a milder punishment than that prescribed by law, namely the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by the courts of lower instances and the failure to impose the mandatory confiscation of property.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the imposition of a milder punishment on the basis of Article 69 of the Criminal Code is an exception and is possible only when mitigating circumstances so significantly reduce the public danger of the crime that even the minimum sanction of the article appears clearly unjust. The judges noted that such circumstances, by their nature and gravity, must be commensurate with those used by the legislator to create privileged elements of crimes. Although the courts of lower instances correctly recognized sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime as mitigating circumstances, the court of appeal did not in any way substantiate how exactly they significantly reduced the gravity of the specific act. The panel of judges noted that the fact that the convict possessed for the purpose of sale a significant amount of particularly dangerous psychotropic substances (MDMA and 4-MMC), the distribution of which through “dead drops” threatened the health of many people, was overlooked. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that criminal punishment aims not only at the correction of the offender but also at general prevention — that is, preventing the commission of similar crimes by other citizens, which was not taken into account by the court of appeal. In this regard, the ruling of the court of appeal was found not to comply with the legal requirements regarding proper reasoning and detailed refutation of the prosecutor’s arguments.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, vacated the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, remanded the case for a new appellate review, and selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 991/1231/19 dated 02/06/2026
**Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of this legal dispute is the accusation of the former head of the State Enterprise “Industrial Enterprises Administration of Ukrzaliznytsia” of misappropriation of state funds on an especially large scale in the amount of over UAH 13.6 million through abuse of official position during tenders for the procurement of wooden sleepers and beams at predetermined inflated prices.
**Key arguments of the court:**
Firstly, the court was satisfied that there were sufficient factual grounds to find the accused guilty, as his voluntary confession is fully consistent with other materials of the case and the examined evidence. Secondly, the panel of judges took into account the significant public interest in approving the agreement, as the accused undertook to provide…detailed exposing testimony against the organizer of the scheme in another trial. In addition, the court took into account a number of mitigating circumstances, in particular, the defendant’s sincere repentance, his advanced age (79 years old), combatant status, and Group II disability status. An important argument was also the fact that the victim, JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”, provided official written consent to the conclusion of this plea agreement. Finally, the court concluded that the punishment agreed upon by the parties in the form of a suspended sentence is fair, proportionate, and sufficient for the rehabilitation of the individual without their actual isolation from society.
**Court Decision:**
The High Anti-Corruption Court approved the plea agreement, found the former official guilty under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment, releasing him from serving the sentence with a probationary period of 1 year, disqualified him from holding certain positions for 3 years, and partially lifted the seizure of his property.
Case No. 953/2011/24 dated 27/05/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute concerns the claims of the prosecutor in the interests of the state for the return to state ownership of a forestry land plot with an area of 0.12 hectares, which, according to the plaintiff’s claim, was illegally withdrawn from the forest fund and transferred into the private ownership of citizens for horticulture.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that for the protection of the state’s rights to forest fund lands, the proper and effective remedy is specifically a vindication action (recovery of property from another’s possession), rather than a negatory action (removal of obstacles to use), which the prosecutor insisted on. At the same time, the court noted that although the principle of *iura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”) applies in civil proceedings, the courts of lower instances made an error by independently changing the legal characterization of the lawsuit from a negatory action to a vindication action. Such a change on the court’s own initiative violated the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial and the adversarial principle, as the prosecutor was deprived of the opportunity to present arguments and evidence regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the limitation period, which applies to vindication claims. The Court emphasized that defining the subject matter and grounds of the dispute is the exclusive right of the plaintiff, and the court cannot unrestrictedly assume these functions. Since the prosecutor deliberately chose an ineffective remedy and insisted precisely on it, the courts did not have the right to independently reformulate the claims only to subsequently dismiss them due to the expiration of the limitation periods. In view of this, the panel of judges concluded that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper remedy is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the lawsuit.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision, whereby it completely dismissed the prosecutor’s lawsuit due to his choice of an improper and ineffective remedy for protecting the rights of the state.
Case No. 918/1061/24(450/3082/24) dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the invalidation of a preliminary agreement on the sale and purchase of an apartment, concluded between two individuals regarding property that actually belongs to another participant in a joint construction activity.
The court proceeded from the premise that only the lawful owner has the right to dispose of the property, whereas one of the defendants, at the time of signing the disputed agreement, had no ownership rights to either the apartment itself or the property rights thereto. Under the terms of the joint activity agreement, this defendant had only a potential right to receive a share of the property in the future; however, intentionally and contrary to the partner’s interests, he concluded a preliminary agreement with a third party. Since the construction was not completed within the established time limit, all rights to the unfinished construction object, under the terms of the joint activity, transferred to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff is a legally interested party whose property rights were violated, and therefore had every right to demand that this agreement be declared invalid. In addition, the panel of judges dismissed the arguments regarding the violation of jurisdiction, emphasizing that this dispute directly affects the formation of the debtor’s assets in the bankruptcy case, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the commercial court. The court also emphasized that the expiration of the term for concluding the main contract does not prevent challenging the preliminary contract, since an invalid transaction is void from the moment of its execution.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances on declaring the preliminary agreement invalid unchanged.
Case No. 577/2775/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality of sentencing a citizen to ten years of imprisonment for the unlawful acquisition and possession with intent to sell of especially dangerous psychotropic substances in large and especially large quantities, whereas the defense insisted on reclassifying his actions as possession without intent to sell for personal consumption.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant’s intent to sell the psychotropic substances is unequivocally evidenced by their excessive volume, which exceeded the average daily consumption rate for one person by hundreds and thousands of times. The judges took into account the detailed analysis of the convicted person’s mobile phone, where correspondence in the Telegram messenger was discovered, containing photographs of “dead drops,” geolocation coordinates, and confirmations of cashless payments for the goods. The panel of judges rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of key evidence, as all investigative actions, including inspections and searches, were conducted in full compliance with the procedural law, and the defendant himself voluntarily surrendered the prohibited substances. The court also established that a clerical error in the suspect’s name within the text of the notice of suspicion did notis an unconditional ground for reversing the verdict, since the person’s rights to defense were not violated, and they clearly understood the substance of the accusation. Finally, the judges deemed the imposed punishment to be just, noting that the fact of the convict’s military service, in the presence of a negative character reference from the military unit, cannot be a ground for mitigating the sentence.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, leaving the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 314/1106/15-k dated 25/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality of the acquittal of a citizen accused of secret theft of a sunflower crop (larceny) and intentional non-compliance with a court ruling prohibiting any actions with this crop.
In making its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the prosecution did not prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by law. In particular, the court took into account that the accused did not harvest the crop secretly, but on the basis of an official contract with the State Executive Service, which completely rules out any motive of personal gain or intent to commit theft. Furthermore, the investigation did not conduct the necessary expert examinations of the sunflower variety and the soil; therefore, the ownership of the seized grain by the victim farm remained unproven. As for the accusation of ignoring the court ruling, the court established that this document did not contain any direct prohibitions for the accused, and there is no evidence in the case file that he was even aware of the existence of this ruling. In light of this, the court applied the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, according to which any doubts must be interpreted solely in favor of the accused.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which affirmed the acquittal of the court of first instance, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the victim’s representative.
Case No. 440/12319/24 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the refusal to maintain the monthly supplementary payment in the amount of 2,000 hryvnias and to conduct the indexation for 2024 during the recalculation of the pension in connection with the loss of the breadwinner based on an updated certificate of financial allowance.
Guided by current legislation and the case law of the Grand Chamber, the Supreme Court noted that an increase in the subsistence minimum is a lawful ground for increasing the base salaries of military personnel and the corresponding recalculation of pensions. At the same time, the court emphasized that the additional payment in the amount of 2,000 hryvnias under Resolution No. 713 is aimed at the gradual elimination of disparities in pensions and is not paid if, as a result of the recalculation, the person’s pension has already increased by an amount exceeding this supplementary payment. Similarly, under the rules of government resolutions, indexation is not accrued from the moment of recalculation…. pension associated with the increase in the monetary allowance of the respective categories of military personnel. In addition, the court confirmed the priority of the law on the state budget over government restrictions, pointing out that salaries must be calculated precisely from the current subsistence level, and not from the amount of 1,762 hryvnias fixed by the Cabinet of Ministers. Therefore, the recalculation of the pension in execution of a court decision based on new certificates constitutes a full pension increase, which excludes the right to simultaneous receipt of previous indexations and additional payments.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the female plaintiff, confirming the lawfulness of the decisions of the lower courts to refuse to preserve the additional payment and indexation after the pension recalculation was performed.
Case No. 911/465/25 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the transition from the procedure of restructuring a natural person’s debts to the debt repayment procedure (declaration of bankruptcy) under conditions where the sole creditor insisted on closing the case due to the non-approval of the restructuring plan within the statutory period and the alleged bad faith of the debtor.
The Court noted that the mere fact of non-approval of the debt restructuring plan within three months is not an automatic ground for closing the case, as the law grants the court discretionary powers to choose the most optimal option for the further course of the case. In evaluating the debtor’s conduct, the courts established the absence of signs of bad faith or concealment of assets, since information on two vehicles was properly reflected in the declarations, and the cars themselves have officially been wanted within enforcement proceedings for several years. Furthermore, the report of the restructuring manager did not reveal any inaccurate information in the debtor’s asset declarations, and this report had previously been acknowledged by the creditor without any objections. The Court emphasized that a systematic interpretation of bankruptcy legislation obliges courts to avoid formalism and to evaluate the reasons for the failure of the restructuring through the prism of judicial control and the good faith of the parties. Since the debtor’s assets are obviously insufficient to satisfy the bank’s claims, the transition to the debt repayment procedure is a lawful and logical step towards restoring the individual’s solvency. Thus, the panel of judges confirmed that closing the proceedings under such circumstances would contradict the very essence and purpose of the institution of consumer bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts declaring the natural person bankrupt and introducing the debt repayment procedure unchanged.
Case No. 927/84/16(758/13794/20) dated 12/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the alienation and registration of ownership rights to the basement premises of an apartment building, which the OSBB (co-owners association) sought to return to common… joint ownership of the residents, contesting the chain of investment and purchase-and-sale agreements.
In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that although the auxiliary premises of an apartment building are indeed the common property of the residents and cannot lawfully pass into the private ownership of third parties, the plaintiff chose an ineffective remedy to protect its rights. The judges explained that in cases where the disputed property has already been resold several times and is currently registered in the name of the ultimate purchaser, contesting previous agreements and registration entries is not an appropriate legal instrument. Instead, the only effective remedy for restoring the rights of the co-owners is to file a vindication action, i.e., the direct recovery of the property from the possession of the ultimate acquirer in favor of the residents. Since satisfying the claims to declare the agreements invalid and cancel the registration does not lead to the actual return of the property, such a lawsuit cannot be granted. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an inappropriate remedy is an independent and sufficient ground for a complete dismissal of the lawsuit, without the need to evaluate other details of the case.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the ultimate owner of the premises, vacated the decisions of the lower courts, and rendered a new decision, completely dismissing the OSBB’s lawsuit.
Case No. 650/3483/25 dated 28/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the issue of the fairness and legality of sentencing the convict to an actual punishment in the form of 3 years of imprisonment for the unlawful acquisition and possession of a significant quantity of ammunition and explosives, without release from serving the sentence on probation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the court of appeals, noting that the convict had committed a grave crime by unlawfully storing a colossal amount of deadly military-grade weapons at home for over 8 months, including more than four thousand rounds of ammunition, grenade launcher rounds, and warheads of aircraft missiles. The judges rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the intention to hand over the weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as the convict had a realistic opportunity to do so earlier, yet failed to take any action until the search was conducted by the police. The panel of judges also confirmed the absence of sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime in the actions of the offender, pointing out that his admission of guilt was of a purely formal nature under the pressure of the collected evidence. In addition, the court found the allegations regarding the change in the prosecutor’s procedural position to be groundless, emphasizing that the law does not restrict a higher-level prosecutor in the right to appeal the leniency of a sentence in the appellate court. Finally, the defense’s references to the deterioration of the convict’s health after the appellate court rendered its judgment do not refute the legality of the decision itself, since the issue of release from punishment due to illness must be resolved in a different procedural manner.
The SupremeThe Court upheld the sentence of the court of appeal, which imposed on the convict an actual punishment in the form of 3 of years imprisonment, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 304/854/24 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the plaintiff, who is a debtor in enforcement proceedings, to lift the arrest on her real property imposed by the State Enforcement Service back in 2012.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the current legislation clearly distinguishes the remedies for different participants in the proceedings. In particular, only a third party who considers themselves the owner of this property, and not the debtor themselves, has the right to apply to court with a lawsuit to lift the arrest on the property. For the debtor, the law provides for a special procedure of protection — appealing the actions or omission of the state bailiff by way of judicial control over the enforcement of judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that since the plaintiff is indeed the debtor, she cannot initiate a separate civil lawsuit to lift the arrest. In addition, the panel of judges referred to the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, according to which, in the event of an erroneous acceptance of such a lawsuit, the courts are obliged to terminate the proceedings in the case.
The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal on terminating the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 127/11546/25 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of characterising the actions of a woman, who picked up and misappropriated a wallet containing money found on the roadway, as the secret theft of another’s property (theft) under martial law.
The Supreme Court noted that in order to characterize an act as theft, the presence of direct intent is mandatory, meaning that the person must realize that the property belongs to a specific owner and has not actually left their possession. The judges emphasized that the wallet lay in an open, publicly accessible place — on the road, which gave the woman objective grounds to perceive it as found property that had already permanently left the owner’s possession. Unlike enclosed premises or institutions, where the presumption of a “forgotten item” applies, the finding of property on the roadway precludes any automatic understanding of who exactly its possessor is. The Court emphasized that the short period of time between the loss of the wallet and its finding does not in itself prove the accused’s awareness that the owner was searching for the item nearby. Furthermore, there were no documents or bank cards in the wallet itself that would allow for the prompt identification of the owner. Thus, the lower courts erred, as they evaluated only the external circumstances of the event, but failed to prove that the woman had the intent specifically to commit theft.
The Supreme Court set aside the sentence of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal and fully closed the criminal proceedings due to…the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in the woman’s actions.
Case No. 161/1641/25 of 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality and justification of sentencing a person convicted of illicit drug trafficking to a punishment more lenient than the minimum prescribed by law, as well as releasing him from serving this sentence on probation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts on the impossibility of confiscating the convict’s property, as no motive of personal gain was established in his actions. At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized that in order to impose a more lenient punishment than prescribed by law, the courts had to clearly substantiate how exactly the mitigating circumstances significantly reduced the degree of social danger of the crime. The Court pointed out that a mere listing of the positive character references of the person and their sincere repentance is not a sufficient ground for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Court of Appeal did not properly examine the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the excessive leniency of the sentence imposed and the groundless release of the convict from serving it on probation. Thus, the judicial decision of the appellate instance was found not to comply with the legal requirements regarding its reasoned and well-founded nature.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, vacated the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 120/6314/23 of 02/06/2026
I cannot perform a detailed analysis of this court decision, as the provided text contains only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s resolution. For a comprehensive analysis, in particular, for a detailed description of the arguments that guided the court in rendering the decision, the full text of the judicial decision, including its reasoning part, is required.
Case No. 581/871/23 of 25/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the criminal liability of a citizen for the unauthorized occupation of a municipally-owned land plot within the coastal protective strip of the Khorol River and the construction of a part of a shopping mall on it.
The Supreme Court emphasized that to recognize a construction as unauthorized, it is sufficient to establish the fact of its erection on a land plot that was not allocated for this purpose, even if there is an approved design. The judges noted that the registration of a declaration of readiness of the facility does not exclude the elements of a crime, since the key element is the encroachment on the land ownership rights of the territorial community. In addition, the panel of judges pointed out that the intent of the accused was fully proven, as she personally managed the construction and was aware of the boundaries of her land plot, having deliberately decided to depart from them to align the wall. The Court also confirmed the relevance and admissibility of the…clusions of the land-technical expert examination, which clearly recorded that the structure extended beyond the boundaries of private property into the water protection zone. Finally, the court noted that the motive of the act is not a mandatory element of the corpus delicti of this crime, and the defense’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court are irrelevant due to differing factual circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, and to leave the challenged judicial decisions, by which the woman was found guilty and exempted from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, unchanged.
Case No. 740/4456/22 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the accusation of a citizen of collaborative activity, namely the public denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as provided for in Part 1 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses proved to be contradictory and inaccurate. In particular, the courts established the existence of a long-standing domestic conflict between the accused and the key prosecution witness, which raised doubts about the impartiality of this testimony. At the same time, the defense witnesses denied the occurrence of any pro-Russian statements by the man, while he himself emphasized his patriotic stance and noted that his sons serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The decisive legal argument was that the article on collaborative activity entered into force only on March 15, 2022. Since the questioned prosecution witnesses were unable to clearly specify the date of the event, indicating only the general period of late February to early March, the courts concluded that it was impossible to hold the individual liable for actions committed prior to the official criminalization of this act. Thus, the failure to prove the exact time of the commission of the incriminated acts made it impossible to rebut the presumption of innocence of the person.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, which had affirmed the acquittal by the local court, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 420/6675/23 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a former employee against the Odesa State University of Internal Affairs and the National Police of Ukraine to declare unlawful and revoke the dismissal order, reinstate the employee in their position, and recover average earnings for the period of forced absence.
Since we are analyzing the introductory and operative parts of the resolution, the detailed reasoning is absent here; however, it is obvious that the Supreme Court was guided by the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine regarding the scope of cassation review and the correction of judicial errors. The Court concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were render…nor with the incorrect application of the rules of substantive law or a violation of procedural law in favor of the plaintiff. The panel of judges thoroughly assessed the lawfulness of the dismissal and recognized the actions of the university management and the National Police as complying with the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of the defendants’ cassation appeals, confirming that the procedure for the plaintiff’s dismissal took place without violations of the current legislation. Thus, the court established the absence of legal grounds for canceling the contested order and reinstating the individual in service. Accordingly, the claims for the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence were also recognized as groundless, since the dismissal itself was recognized as lawful.
The Supreme Court fully granted the cassation appeals of the Odesa State University of Internal Affairs and the National Police of Ukraine, reversed the decisions of the lower courts, and rendered a new decision, entirely dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 420/6675/23 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a police colonel at his own request directly on the day of submitting the relevant report, as well as his claims for the cancellation of the dismissal orders, reinstatement to the position of deputy dean of the university, and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
The Supreme Court emphasized that although special legislation provides for the obligation of a police officer to notify management of their dismissal at their own request three months in advance, the parties have the right to agree on dismissal within a shorter period. In this case, the plaintiff personally indicated a specific date in the reports — February 24, 2023, and the management approved it, which indicates that an undisputed agreement was reached between the parties. The Court noted that the submission of the report took place during an official investigation, and dismissal at his own request allowed the police officer to avoid disciplinary liability, which confirms the validity of the reasons for the urgent termination of service. Since at the time of issuing the contested orders, no objections or withdrawals of reports had been received from the plaintiff, the employers acted strictly within their powers. Attempts to withdraw the reports almost a month after the actual dismissal have no legal force, as the employment relations had already been terminated by that time. Thus, the panel of judges concluded that the lower courts applied the rules of substantive law incorrectly, mistakenly satisfying the claims.
The Supreme Court fully granted the cassation appeals of the Odesa State University of Internal Affairs and the National Police of Ukraine, reversed the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new resolution, entirely dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Case No. 160/13693/22 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a servicemember seconded to the state enterprise “Ukraerorukh” to declare unlawful the omission of the enterprise and to order it to accrue and pay an additional monetary reward in the amount of UAH 30,000 monthly in accordance with Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.
The Court was guided by the fact that the legal regulation of the monetary allowance of regular servicemembers and those seconded to civilian state enterprises or institutions is carried out by different normative legal acts. The payment of monetary allowance to seconded military personnel is regulated by a special Resolution of the CMU No. 104, which provides for payments at the expense of the host institution, based on the official salaries of civilian employees of this institution, rather than military standards. The additional reward provided for by Resolution of the CMU No. 168 is a temporary incentive measure exclusively for those military personnel who directly defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and its application does not extend to persons seconded to civilian enterprises. In addition, the state enterprise “Ukraerorukh” is not a military authority or an administrator of budget funds for such defense payments, and its management does not have the legal authority to issue orders for the payment of the military additional reward. ****: The Supreme Court, as part of a panel of judges, upheld the conclusion of the Judicial Chamber, which officially departed from its previous legal positions in similar cases where the right to receive such payment had previously been recognized for seconded servicemembers.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of “Ukraerorukh”, vacated the decision of the court of appeals, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had fully dismissed the servicemember’s claim.
Case No. 946/1898/23 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of holding a woman criminally liable for evading the serving of a sentence in the form of community service after the law under which she was originally convicted changed, and she herself was released from the initial punishment due to the decriminalization of the act.
The Supreme Court emphasized that evasion of serving a sentence is an independent crime with a formal corpus delicti, which is deemed completed from the moment the convicted person begins the intentional non-performance of their duties. The judges noted that the subsequent decriminalization of the initial offense (petty fraud) and the release of the person from community service do not negate the binding nature of the judicial decision that was in force at the time she committed the new crime. At the same time, the panel of judges drew attention to a material error of the court of appeals in imposing the final sentence under the totality of sentences. The Court clarified that for the application of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a mandatory condition is the presence of an unserved portion of the sentence forunder the previous sentence precisely at the time of the rendering of the new judgment. Since at the time of the consideration of the case on appeal, the woman had already been officially released by the court from the primary punishment, she physically did not have an unserved part of community service to be accumulated. Thus, the court of appeal groundlessly applied the mechanism of cumulation of sentences, which led to the incorrect application of the criminal law.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, modifying the judgment of the court of appeal by excluding the decision on sentencing under the totality of sentences and determining the final punishment in the form of 1 year of restriction of liberty solely for evading the serving of the sentence.
Case No. 455/906/22 of May 28, 2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the criminal liability of a person for inflicting intentional bodily injury of medium severity and the lawfulness of the rendered judgment of conviction, in view of the evidence collection procedure.
The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the key evidence of the prosecution — the forensic medical expert’s opinion — was based on medical documentation that the expert had obtained independently in an extra-procedural manner. The Court emphasized that according to the criminal procedure law and the legislation on forensic expertise, an expert is strictly forbidden to collect materials for conducting an examination on their own initiative. During the trial, the expert himself confirmed that he personally retrieved the victim’s medical history from the hospital because the investigator or the victim had not provided it to him. The courts of lower instances erroneously ignored this violation, calling it “superfluous formalism,” even though the law explicitly prohibits the use of inadmissible evidence in decision-making. Since the forensic medical examination is decisive for establishing the severity of bodily injuries, the use of such inadmissible evidence casts doubt on the lawfulness of the entire judgment. The Supreme Court stated that the courts of first instance and appeal had committed material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the rendering of a lawful and reasoned decision.
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 court of appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 650/1199/25 of May 25, 2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of appeal’s return of the appeal filed by the attorney of a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings, but whose name and involvement in the commission of the crime were explicitly stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, rendered on the basis of a plea agreement with another defendant.
The Supreme Court emphasized that every person is guaranteed the right to appeal a judicial decision if it directly affects their rights, freedoms, or legitimate interessat. The judges drew attention to the binding legal opinion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, according to which a third party has the right to appeal a judgment based on an agreement if its text contains data that allows for the clear identification of this person as an accomplice to the crime. In this case, the local court, in the judgment concerning PERSON_9, explicitly indicated the full personal details of PERSON_7 as a person who acted by prior conspiracy with the accused, which in fact established his guilt without a trial concerning him and violated the presumption of innocence. The appellate court unreasonably ignored these circumstances and returned the advocate’s appeal, erroneously citing outdated judicial practice that existed prior to the formulation of the unified position of the Supreme Court. Thus, the court of appellate jurisdiction committed a material violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law and deprived the person of the right to judicial protection. In view of this, the ruling of the appellate court cannot be considered lawful, reasonable, and motivated.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the advocate, vacated the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal on returning the appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate jurisdiction.
Case No. 731/405/23 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of bringing to criminal liability the former head of a utility enterprise for the illegal extraction of underground drinking water of national significance without obtaining a special permit for subsoil use.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the courts of prior instances regarding the proof of the accused’s guilt and the admissibility of the collected evidence, rejecting the defense’s arguments regarding their acquisition by unauthorized investigators. The court also found groundless the allegations of violation of the secrecy of the deliberation room, clarifying that the untimely application of electronic digital signatures to a judicial decision does not indicate its unlawfulness if the paper original was signed by the judges in a timely manner. At the same time, the panel of judges found well-founded the defense’s arguments concerning the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability by the court of appellate jurisdiction. The Court noted that at the time of the appellate review of the case, the five-year statute of limitations prescribed by law for bringing a person to liability for this crime had already expired. Since the appellate court did not explain to the accused his right to be released from liability and did not apply the relevant provisions of the law, the Supreme Court decided to correct this error on its own and render the decision most favorable to the person.
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, released the accused from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and dismissed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 615/2266/24 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from the state budget in favor of a citizen of compensation for moral damage and expenses for legal assistance caused to him as a result of prolonged and unlawful prosecution on criminal charges, which concluded with an acquittal.
The court proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and a special law, a citizen has an unconditional right to compensation for moral damage in the event of an acquittal being rendered in respect of him. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of such compensation for the period of being under investigation or trial cannot be less than one minimum wage for each month of prosecution. The judges rejected the arguments of the prosecutor’s office regarding the necessity of applying a calculation unit in the amount of UAH 1,600, which is established by the law on the state budget for calculating payments under court decisions. The panel of judges noted that the special law on compensation for damage takes priority, and no amendments had been made to it regarding the reduction of the calculation base. Therefore, the calculation must be based precisely on the actual amount of the minimum wage established at the time of the consideration of the case, which at that time amounted to UAH 8,000. Since the plaintiff had been unjustifiably under investigation and trial for 99 months, the courts of previous instances absolutely correctly determined the minimum amount of compensation in the sum of UAH 792,000. In addition, the court confirmed that such a legal position is settled and has already been repeatedly expressed by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recovery in favor of the plaintiff of UAH 792,000 in moral damage and over 53 thousand hryvnias in attorney’s fees unchanged.
Case No. 352/2060/24 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this court dispute is a mother’s lawsuit to deprive the father of his parental rights in respect of their common minor son due to the latter’s evasion of the child’s upbringing.
The court proceeded from the premise that the deprivation of parental rights is an extreme and exceptional measure, which is applied only in the case of a conscious and intentional neglect of duties by the father, when it is no longer possible to change his behavior for the better. The judges took into account that the father systematically pays alimony for the maintenance of his son, which is deducted from his financial allowance at the place of his military service. In addition, the defendant actively opposed the lawsuit in court and applied to the guardianship and trusteeship authority with an application to determine a visitation schedule with the child, which indicates his interest in his son and his desire to communicate with him. The court also took into account the official conclusion of the guardianship and trusteeship authority, which recognized the deprivation of parental rights as inexpedient and premature. It was also taken into account that the prolonged absence of contactbetween the father and the son is partially caused by the conflict-ridden relationship between the parents themselves, and not only by the father’s intentional evasion. In view of this, the appellate court was fully justified in applying a preventive measure, ordering the father to change his attitude towards the child’s upbringing under the supervision of the relevant services.
The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts to deny the deprivation of parental rights with a warning to the father of the need to change his attitude towards the upbringing of his son unaltered.
Case No. 686/6465/24 dated 27/05/2026
**Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of this dispute is the claims of a citizen to recover moral damages from the state, represented by the migration service, in the amount of four hundred trillion hryvnias, caused by the prolonged non-enforcement of a 2011 court decision regarding the pasting of a photograph into his passport.
**Key arguments of the court:**
The court first of all pointed out that the claims for damages for the period from 2012 to October 2023 cannot be reconsidered, as this identical dispute had already been resolved by courts previously, and the plaintiff’s increase of the claim amount does not change its essence. In addition, the panel of judges emphasized that the law does not allow for multiple recoveries of compensation for the same violation, whereas the plaintiff had already received a payment for the non-enforcement of this court decision in another case. The court also pointed out that the citizen’s rights were actually restored back in 2012 through the issuance of a new passport to replace his lost old one. For the recovery of funds for the new period — from October 2023 to March 2024 — the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of actually suffering moral distress or the existence of a causal link. Finally, the Supreme Court established the absence of grounds for transferring the case to the Grand Chamber for consideration, as a well-established and consistent judicial practice has already been formed in this category of disputes.
**Court decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the challenged court decisions denying the claim and partially terminating the proceedings unaltered.
Case No. 991/3539/26 dated 28/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the legality and validity of imposing a seizure on the property of close persons of a deceased official as an interim measure to secure a future claim to declare assets unjustified and to recover them into the state revenue.
The court took into account that the prosecutor had provided sufficient evidence indicating an obvious discrepancy between the value of the assets acquired by the defendants and their official legal income. The panel of judges agreed that there was a real risk of property concealment, as after search operations were conducted in the criminal proceedings, the individuals involved had already been actively selling other expensive cars and apartments. The judges emphasized that the existence of a seizure of the same property in a criminal case in no…way does not prevent the application of interim measures in civil proceedings, as they have completely different legal grounds and purposes. The imposition of a seizure on other property of the defendants, which is not directly the subject of the dispute, was recognized as lawful, since a part of the original questionable assets had already been alienated, and the law allows the seizure of alternative property of equivalent value. At the same time, the court recognized the applied measures as proportionate, as the seizure limits only the right to dispose of the property, but does not prevent the defendants and their families from using it without hindrance. The court also confirmed the correctness of the refusal to seize bank accounts due to the risk of their excessive blocking, as well as an unregistered unfinished house, which demonstrates a thorough analysis of the proportionality of the restrictions.
The Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal of the defendants’ representative and to leave the ruling of the court of first instance on the partial securing of the claim by imposing a seizure on the assets unchanged.
Case No. 991/8859/25 dated 18/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a lawsuit filed by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office against two individuals to declare their assets unsubstantiated and to forfeit these assets to the state revenue within the civil forfeiture procedure.
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoning will be set out in the full text of the decision; however, the general judicial practice in such cases allows outlining the key arguments of the court. The court of appellate jurisdiction proceeded from the premise that the findings of the court of first instance regarding the unsubstantiated nature of the defendants’ assets are lawful and fully supported by the materials of the case. The prosecutors provided sufficient and convincing evidence of a significant financial imbalance between the official income of the defendants and the value of the property acquired by them. At the same time, the defense failed to provide the court with relevant and admissible evidence that would refute the prosecutor’s arguments and confirm the legality of the origin of funds used to purchase these assets. Applying the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, the court concluded that the prosecution’s version is significantly more convincing than the arguments of the defendants. Therefore, the court of appeal found no procedural or substantive grounds for reversing or amending the previous judicial decision.
The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court decided to dismiss the appeal of the defendant’s representative and to leave the decision of the court of first instance on the forfeiture of assets to the state revenue unchanged.
Case No. 920/639/24(920/294/25) dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to recover a penalty from the “Vabri-S” company for non-payment of an antimonopoly fine, which was accrued after the initiation of a case on ban…ruptcy.
The Court emphasized that from the moment of initiation of the bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is placed under a special legal regime, which fundamentally changes the entire complex of its legal relations. In accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, the introduction of a moratorium explicitly prohibits the accrual of any liquidated damages, fines, or penalties for the non-performance of the debtor’s obligations. Although the fine of the Antimonopoly Committee itself is an independent public-law monetary obligation, the penalty accrued on it is a classic financial sanction of an accessory (derivative) nature. The Supreme Court stressed that the Antimonopoly Committee acts as an ordinary creditor without any privileges in the bankruptcy procedure; therefore, the general restrictions of the moratorium fully apply to its claims. The special Law on the Protection of Economic Competition does not take precedence over the provisions of bankruptcy legislation, which establish a universal procedure for satisfying the claims of all creditors. The Court also noted that the current judicial practice is consistent and clear, and therefore there are no legal grounds to depart from the previously established conclusions in similar legal relations.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, leaving the decisions of the lower courts to refuse the collection of the penalty for the period after the initiation of the bankruptcy case unchanged.
Case No. 320/8740/25 dated 27/05/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of tax assessment decisions by which the UNIBUILD company was additionally assessed tens of millions of hryvnias in corporate income tax and VAT, as well as subjected to penalties for allegedly non-genuine business transactions and late payment of taxes during the period of martial law.
In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court primarily pointed out that the write-off of construction materials destroyed as a result of shelling in Chernihiv was documented by the enterprise in an absolutely proper manner under the inventory procedure, and the tax authorities’ requirement to provide an individual certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry is groundless in light of the official clarifications of the Ministry of Finance and the State Tax Service themselves. In addition, the court recognized the company’s expenses for the construction of temporary concrete structures to protect construction sites from destruction during hostilities as economically justified and fully supported by evidence. The judges also emphasized that tax information regarding the lack of sufficient labor or material resources of counterparties or the existence of criminal proceedings against subcontractors does not automatically prove the non-genuine nature of transactions, provided that the movement of assets is confirmed by properly executed primary documents. Lastly, the panel of judges emphasized that the law exempts taxpayers from liability for the late payment of personal income tax and military tax at the beginning of the full-scale invasion, as the company fully fulfilled its obligation immediately after the restoration of such an opportuni
