Case No. 308/15385/22 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the finding of the person’s guilt and the recovery of expert examination costs from them after the termination of the criminal proceedings on charges of document forgery.
Since only the operative part of the resolution has been released, the detailed reasoning will become available somewhat later; however, it is obvious from the rendered decision that the Supreme Court was guided by the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. The judges proceeded from the premise that in the event of the termination of criminal proceedings, a court decision, in principle, cannot contain assertions directly or indirectly indicating the guilt of the person. Any findings of the court regarding the proof of guilt and the correctness of the qualification of actions are absolutely inadmissible if the case is closed without rendering a judgment of conviction. In addition, the panel of judges drew attention to a gross error in the allocation of procedural costs in a terminated case. Under the law, if the proceedings are terminated, the costs of engaging experts cannot be imposed on the person, but must be borne exclusively by the State. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the arguments of both the defense and the prosecution in this part to be fully substantiated.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor and partially satisfied the appeal of the defense counsel, modifying the ruling of the appellate court by excluding any indications of the person’s guilt from it and shifting over 33 thousand hryvnias of expert examination costs to the State.
Case No. 678/1545/23 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this judicial review is the lawfulness and validity of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a citizen was convicted of violating road safety rules while intoxicated, resulting in grave consequences, and of leaving a victim in danger.
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the decision, the detailed reasoning will be set forth in the full text of the resolution; however, general judicial practice and the nature of the adopted decision allow for outlining the key positions of the court. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the decisions of the lower courts are lawful, substantiated, and rendered without material violations of criminal procedural law. The panel of judges thoroughly reviewed the arguments of the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel regarding the potential inconsistency of the courts’ findings with the factual circumstances of the case, and found them groundless. The court confirmed the correctness of the qualification of the offender’s actions for leaving a person in danger and causing a road accident while intoxicated, which indicates the fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed. In addition, the judges did not establish any procedural violations that could serve as grounds for setting aside or modifying the previous court decisions. Thus, the Supreme Court stated that the rights of the convicted person during the trial in p…in the previous instances were not violated, and the rendered decisions fully comply with the requirements of the law.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel without satisfaction, and the sentence of the Letychiv District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal—unchanged.
Case No. 183/2868/21 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s title to an apartment by way of inheritance by law after the death of his father, who during his lifetime had initiated the privatization of this housing but did not manage to properly execute the title documents.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the court of appeal that the claim could not be satisfied due to the improper composition of the parties to the dispute. The judges pointed out that identifying the defendants is the duty of the plaintiff; however, the court is obliged to verify whether all persons whose rights and obligations are affected by this dispute have been joined. In this case, even before the lawsuit was filed, another woman, along with her minor children, had been lawfully moved into the disputed service apartment on the basis of an occupancy permit. Since the court decision on the recognition of ownership rights directly affects the housing rights of this family, she necessarily had to be joined to participate in the case as a co-defendant. However, at the stage of the appeal proceedings, it is already procedurally impossible to join a new defendant, which in itself became an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
Consequently, the Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the resolution of the court of appeal dismissing the claim—unchanged.
Case No. 285/5832/24 dated 29/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the owner of a residential building to oblige his neighbor to eliminate obstacles to the use of his property by dismantling a video surveillance camera and a lantern, and by installing a drainage system to prevent the flooding of the land plot.
The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not provide any relevant and admissible evidence confirming the fact of the flooding of his territory specifically due to the actions of the neighbor, nor did he file a motion to conduct a relevant forensic examination. At the same time, the case files prove that the defendant voluntarily complied with the recommendations of the municipal improvement inspection and eliminated all potential drainage issues. As for the video camera, the court concluded that it was installed solely to ensure the security of the defendant’s household, and the plaintiff failed to prove the fact of recording his private life or territory. The court emphasized that civil proceedings are based on the adversarial principle; therefore, each party must prove its claims, and any assumptions cannot serve as the basis for a judicial decision. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the re-evaluation of evidence already examined by the courts falls outside the scope of its powers as a court of cassation. Finally, the court rejected the references to the previous legal positions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstancesand of those cases significantly differed from this situation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, upholding the legality of the decisions of the lower courts to fully dismiss the claim.
Case No. 501/1388/22 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this judicial review is the legality and validity of the conviction of a person for committing intentional homicide under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as the compliance of the decision of the court of appeal with the requirements of the law.
Since the provided document is only the operative part of the resolution of the Supreme Court, the detailed reasoning and arguments of the panel of judges will be set forth in the full text of the decision, the pronouncement of which was scheduled for the day after the hearing. However, based on the nature of the decision rendered, the court was guided by the fact that the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the guilt of the person are lawful, well-founded, and properly reasoned. The panel of judges did not find any such material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of the law on criminal liability that could serve as a ground for setting aside the judicial decision. The judges reviewed the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and found them incapable of refuting the conclusions of the lower court. The court also proceeded from the fact that the imposed punishment and the qualification of the actions of the convicted person fully correspond to the gravity of the committed criminal offense against human life. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the appellate review procedure and the fairness of the rendered decision.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and to leave the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding the convicted person unchanged.
Case No. 461/5419/22 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of the judicial review in this case is the criminal liability of a citizen for the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon a law enforcement officer in connection with the performance of his official duties.
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will be set forth in the full text of the decision; however, the general legal logic of such a verdict is obvious. Upholding the decision of the court of appeal, the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the convicted person are lawful, well-founded, and supported by proper evidence. The judges of the cassation court did not find any material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that would provide grounds for setting aside or amending the challenged judicial decision. The panel of judges agreed with the correctness of the qualification of the defendant’s actions under Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and recognized the punishment imposed on him as fair and proportionate. Thus, the arguments of the defense counsel set forth in the cassation appeal were not substantiated and were pocompletely refuted by the materials of the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and to leave the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 521/17738/25 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s return of the advocate’s appeal against the ruling on the seizure of the enterprise’s property because the defense counsel attached only an advocate’s warrant to the appeal, but did not enclose a copy of their certificate of the right to practice law.
The Supreme Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and the right to appellate review is an important guarantee of a fair trial. The judges noted that the criminal procedural law indeed requires confirmation of an advocate’s authority by both a certificate and an advocate’s warrant or an agreement. However, by returning the appeal solely due to the lack of a copy of the certificate, the court of appeal displayed excessive formalism. The panel of judges emphasized that this advocate had already represented the interests of the enterprise in the court of first instance, and this was known to the court. The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeal had the opportunity to verify the authority of the defense counsel directly during the court hearing, rather than depriving the business of the right to appeal the seizure of property at the stage of accepting the appeal.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the advocate, vacated the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 922/1993/25 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from the developer in favor of the city council of unjustifiably retained funds of share participation in the development of the city’s infrastructure, as well as inflation losses and three percent per annum accrued on this amount in connection with the commissioning of an apartment building without payment of the corresponding contribution.
The court was guided by the fact that the law imposed a clear obligation on the defendant to apply to the local self-government body with an application for determining the amount of the share participation and to pay it in full prior to the moment of acceptance of the construction object into operation. Since the developer failed to perform this duty and commissioned the building without paying the contribution, the city council acquired the legal right to demand the return of these funds as unjustly retained property pursuant to Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The panel of judges found correct the calculation of the amount of the share participation, performed on the basis of the indicators of the average cost of housing construction in effect precisely at the moment of the building’s commissioning. The court also confirmed the lawfulness of the accrual of inflation losses and 3% per annum, determining the start of the default to be the date of issuance of the certificate of readiness of the facility. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legally established rate of 3% per annum is minimum and is not subject to reduction by the court, and inflation losses by their legal nature are not at all… constitute penalties, therefore they also cannot be reduced. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant’s reference to the prior share participation agreements, as they concerned previous construction phases and did not exempt from the obligation to pay for the disputed fourth phase.
The Supreme Court dismissed the developer’s cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of appeal on the recovery of UAH 6,248,018.13 from the cooperative in favor of the city council unchanged.
Case No. 643/7557/21 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the cassation review of the verdict and the ruling of the lower courts finding a person guilty of the rape of a minor child, i.e., of committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 4 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoned part with the full statement of arguments will be published later; however, the key legal positions of the court are already clear. The Supreme Court concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are lawful, substantiated, and rendered in compliance with all rules of substantive and procedural law. The judges did not identify any such material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law as would constitute grounds for reversing or amending the prior court decisions. Apparently, the panel of judges agreed with the correctness of the characterization of the convict’s actions and the fairness of the sentence imposed on him for committing this especially grave crime. The Court fully rejected the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, finding them insufficient to refute the findings of the lower courts. Thus, the cassation instance confirmed the relevance and admissibility of the evidence collected in the case, on the basis of which the person was held liable.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and to leave the verdict of the Oktiabrskyi District Court of Poltava and the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 461/7271/20 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, which denied the citizen the initiation of proceedings on his application for the review of a judicial decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
The Supreme Court stated that the court of appeal committed material violations of the criminal procedural law and failed to ensure the lawfulness and substantiation of its decision. The judges noted that the refusal to initiate proceedings directly contradicts the conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding a person’s right to such a review. Furthermore, the panel of judges pointed out that the appellate instance had virtually ignored the binding instructions of the Supreme Court, which had already been provided previously in this very case. According to the law, instructions of the court of cassation are unconditionally bin…binding on lower courts upon a retrial, and failure to comply with them constitutes a gross violation. Thus, disregarding the legal positions of the higher judicial instance and the Constitutional Court prevented the court of appeal from rendering a fair and lawful decision.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the applicant, set aside the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and ordered a retrial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 511/1762/20 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality and validity of the conviction of a person for violating road traffic safety rules that caused moderate bodily injury to the victim (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which was challenged by the convicted person in cassation proceedings.
Since the panel of judges pronounced only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will be set forth in the full text of the decision; however, the general guidance of the court is entirely clear. Guided by Articles 433 and 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of cassation instance verified the correctness of the application of the rules of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances. The judges assessed whether there had been any substantial violations of the requirements of the law that could have affected the fairness of the trial in the road traffic accident case. The panel also analyzed the appellant’s arguments regarding possible errors in the characterization of his actions and the compliance of the imposed sentence with the gravity of the offense. Based on the results of this analysis, the court concluded that the decisions of the lower courts are lawful, well-founded, and reasoned. Consequently, the panel of judges found no legal grounds to satisfy the claims of the convicted person and to set aside the previous judicial decisions.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the convicted person without satisfaction, and the verdict of the Rozdilna District Court of Odesa Oblast and the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 495/10979/17 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the prosecutor’s claims to declare unlawful the decision of the Zatoka Settlement Council and to invalidate a citizen’s certificate of ownership for a recreational land plot with an area of 0.0919 hectares in the urban-type settlement of Zatoka.
The court established that the disputed land plot belongs to recreational land, and the change of its use from servicing a hotel complex to individual dacha construction occurred within the same category. Since the category of land did not change, the current legislation did not require the development and approval of a special land management project regarding the allocation of the land plot. The Zatoka Settlement Council, as the land owner, had every right to independently determine the specific type of its use within the recreational category after the division of the land plot and its return from the previous lease. The prosecutor failed to provide proper and admissible evidence that the transthe transfer of land into the private ownership of a female citizen occurred in violation of urban planning or land legislation. The Supreme Court also noted that the court of appeal had erroneously dismissed the lawsuit due to an allegedly “ineffective remedy”, since such a ground is applied only when the violation of the plaintiff’s right itself has already been proven. Thus, the findings of the court of first instance regarding the complete groundlessness of the prosecutor’s claims are lawful and supported by the case materials.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office, vacating the resolution of the court of appeal and upholding the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the lawsuit due to its groundlessness.
Case No. 354/435/20 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of two drivers for committing a road traffic accident, as a result of which a minor female pedestrian sustained severe bodily injuries resulting in the amputation of her leg, as well as the justification of releasing the perpetrators from serving their actual sentence on probation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the accident occurred as a result of interrelated traffic violations by both drivers, where one failed to yield the right-of-way when entering the main road, and the other significantly exceeded the speed limit. The Court rejected the defense’s version regarding a sudden failure of the braking system of one of the vehicles, as expert examinations clearly proved that the rupture of the brake hose occurred directly at the moment of the collision. The panel of judges recognized as lawful the release of driver PERSON_8 from serving the sentence with a probationary period, taking into account his exemplary post-crime conduct, active assistance to the victim, and voluntary compensation for material damages. At the same time, the court concluded that applying a similar release from punishment to the other driver constituted an incorrect application of the law, since he, being a fellow villager of the victim, showed no interest in her health and took no measures to compensate for the damage. The court also dismissed procedural complaints regarding the consideration of the case without the participation of one of the victims, since she had been properly notified of the proceedings, her testimony was thoroughly evaluated, and she did not file any civil claims at all. Thus, the court clearly distinguished the behavior of the co-perpetrators of the traffic accident after the crash, pointing out the impossibility of an identical mitigation of punishment in the face of completely different attitudes towards the consequences of the tragedy.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim, vacating the ruling of the court of appeal in the part concerning the release of driver PERSON_10 from serving the sentence on probation, and remanding the case against him for a new appellate review, while leaving the rest of the judicial decision unchanged.
Case No. 487/2537/23 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of the judicial review in this case is the lawfulness and justification of the verdict of the Zavodsk…of the District Court of the City of Mykolaiv and the ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal, by which the female citizen was convicted of committing a criminal offense.
Since we have only the operative part of the resolution of the Supreme Court, the detailed reasoning and legal arguments of the panel of judges are not provided in this document. The panel of judges exercised its statutory right to postpone the drafting of the full text of the decision, limiting itself to the pronouncement of its final part due to the significant time required to prepare the reasoning section. It is clear from the available text that the court of cassation reviewed the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal regarding potential violations of law by lower courts. Based on the results of this analysis, the Supreme Court did not find any such violations of substantive or procedural law that would require the reversal or modification of the previous court decisions. The judges found the conclusions of the courts of first and appeal instances to be lawful, and the filed cassation appeal to be groundless. The full text containing detailed legal reasoning and analysis of evidence will be published by the court later, in accordance with the requirements of procedural legislation.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and to leave the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 925/1240/21(925/268/25) dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of a double penalty from the arbitration manager for the untimely formalization of the auction results and the transfer of the purchased right of claim, as well as compensation for damages in the form of court costs incurred by the buyer in other court proceedings.
The Supreme Court concluded that the simultaneous recovery of a penalty for the untimely signing of the auction certificate and for the failure to transfer the right of claim for one and the same period constitutes double liability for a single violation, which directly contradicts Article 61 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The judges explained that although these obligations are formally separated in the law, the liquidator’s omission in this case actually constituted a single, continuous state of violation. At the same time, the court confirmed that a statutory penalty is by its nature a forfeit, and therefore the general provisions of civil legislation, which allow the court to reduce its amount, apply to it. The 50% reduction of the penalty by the lower courts was found to be a balanced decision, made within their judicial discretion, taking into account the personal circumstances of the defendant and the duration of the delay. Regarding the claim for compensation for damages, the court emphasized that the costs of paying the court fee in other court proceedings are solely procedural costs. Such costs must be allocated according to the rules of the procedural code in the respective cases and under no circumstances can they be recovered as material damages through a new civil lawsuit.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the arbitration manager, reversing the decisions of the lower instances in the part of recovering the penalty for the failure to transfer the right of claim and recovering damages, and completely de…[dismissed] these claims, upholding only the penalty reduced by 50% for the untimely signing of the certificate.
Case No. 537/2092/24 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of bringing a citizen to criminal liability for evading military service draft during mobilization under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, provided that the decision of the military medical commission on his fitness for service was subsequently cancelled through judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the subject of this crime can only be a citizen who is officially recognized as fit for military service due to their health condition. The judges took into account that the decision of the administrative court, which has entered into force, cancelled the resolution of the military medical commission on the fitness of the accused for service due to gross violations of the medical examination procedure. In accordance with the rules of procedural law, such a decision of the administrative court has prejudicial value, meaning it must be taken into account and does not require re-proving. Since the conclusion on the man’s fitness for service was declared invalid, he was not subject to mobilization during that period under the law. Thus, there is no subject of the crime in the actions of the accused, which completely rules out the elements of the criminal offense. The Court of Appeal committed a material error when it ignored these circumstances and upheld the conviction.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, cancelled the decisions of the lower courts, closed the criminal proceedings due to the absence of the elements of a crime in the person’s actions, and ordered the immediate release of the man from places of deprivation of liberty.
Case No. 756/12204/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness and fairness of the court of appeal’s cancellation of the convict’s release from serving the sentence on probation for the illegal acquisition, possession, and sale of a psychotropic substance.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the lawful purpose of punishment is not only retribution but also the rehabilitation of the convict, which consists in positive changes in their personality. The judges noted that the court of appeal did not properly examine the existence of mitigating circumstances and did not provide convincing reasons why the rehabilitation of the man is impossible without isolation from society. The panel of judges took into account that a significant amount of time had passed since the commission of the crime, during which the convict remained at liberty, did not commit new offenses, and demonstrated a readiness for law-abiding behavior. Furthermore, the accused fully admitted his guilt, sincerely repented, registered as an individual entrepreneur, works, and supports his family, including a minor child and a mother with a disability. The Court also agreed with the decision to return the funds seized during the search to the convict, since the prosecutor did not prove their origin from the sale of drugs. All of these factors in combination allowed the pan…panel of judges grounds for concluding that the rehabilitation of the man is entirely possible without actual serving of the sentence in prison.
The Supreme Court sustained the cassation appeal of the defense, modified the sentence of the court of appeal, and released the convict from serving the imposed sentence on probation, establishing a probationary period of three years.
Case No. 756/12204/24 dated 28/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the cassation review of the sentence of the court of appeal, by which a citizen was sentenced to actual punishment for illicit production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, or sending for the purpose of sale, or sale of narcotic drugs (Part 1 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will be set forth in the full text of the decision, which will appear a bit later. At the same time, based on the rendered decision, the court agreed with the arguments of the defense regarding the possibility of rehabilitation of the convict without isolation from society. The judges took into account that the accused had no prior criminal record, which is a significant factor for the application of more humane measures of a criminal-law nature. Apparently, the panel of judges took into account the personality of the offender, his social ties, and other circumstances that allow concluding that his rehabilitation is possible without actually serving the sentence. Applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court concluded that imposing on the convict the duties prescribed by Article 76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine would be entirely sufficient for the probation authorities to monitor his behavior. Thus, the court prioritized the principle of individualization of punishment and the possibility of the person’s rehabilitation under the conditions of a probationary period.
The Supreme Court sustained the cassation appeal of the defense, modified the sentence of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and released the convict from serving the sentence on probation, establishing a probationary period of three years.
Case No. 758/12629/15-ts dated 27/05/2026
1. The subject of this dispute is the invalidation of a purchase and sale agreement of an apartment, which the creditor sold out of court to a third party to satisfy the debt under a loan agreement, and the cancellation of the decisions of the state registrar on the registration of ownership rights to this property.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the possibility of out-of-court foreclosure on the subject of mortgage directly depends on the creditor’s compliance with the procedure for properly sending a written demand to remedy violations to the debtor. The sending of such a notice to the address explicitly specified in the mortgage agreement, or additionally agreed upon by the parties, is considered proper. If the mortgagee has not properly sent the demand, they do not acquire the right to sell the mortgaged property out of court at all. In this case, it turned out that the mail dispatch containing the warning was sent to a completely different address, which did not coincide with the addr…ress of the mortgagor, and the debtor never received it. Because of this, the court concluded that the creditor had no right to alienate the apartment, and the buyer did not acquire ownership of it in a lawful manner. In addition, the court emphasized that before purchasing the property, the buyer should have verified whether the seller actually had the legal right to dispose of this property belonging to another.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the apartment buyer’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the ruling of the court of appeal on satisfying the debtors’ counterclaim and declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid.
Case No. 932/1157/24 of 01/06/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the issue of releasing the convicted person from punishment for inflicting minor bodily harm due to the expiration of the limitation periods for criminal liability.
The court emphasized that the application of the statute of limitations is an imperative duty of the court, since with the passage of time, the social danger of the offense and of the person who committed it significantly decreases. In accordance with the law, the limitation period for criminal misdemeanors, for which the prescribed punishment is less severe than restriction of liberty, is two years from the day the act was committed. The panel of judges established that the crime incriminated against the convicted person under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was committed on October 1, 2023, and falls specifically under the category of misdemeanors. At the time the court of appeal rendered its ruling on October 20, 2025, this two-year period had already fully expired. However, the court of appellate instance ignored this important legal circumstance and did not release the person from punishment. Since the defense did not object to the arguments of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that all legal grounds were present to correct this error.
The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, modified the decisions of the lower courts, and released the convicted person from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 671/1319/20 of 01/06/2026
The subject of this judicial review is the legality and validity of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for committing extortion on an especially large scale or as part of an organized group (Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the ruling, the detailed reasoning will be set forth in the full text of the decision; however, from a procedural point of view, the key guidelines of the court are already clear. Firstly, the Supreme Court found no material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that could serve as an unconditional ground for reversing or modifying the challenged judicial decisions. Secondly, the judges concluded that the classification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and fully corresponds to the established factual circumsta…guilt in the case. Thirdly, the panel of judges deemed the sentence imposed on the convict to be fair, proportionate to the gravity of the committed criminal offense and the personality of the offender. Furthermore, the court dismissed the key arguments of the defense counsels’ cassation appeals, finding the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to be lawful, legally substantiated, and sufficiently reasoned. Lastly, guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court exercised its statutory right to postpone the drafting of the full text of the ruling due to the complexity of the case and the need for significant time for the detailed formulation of the reasoning part.
The Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense counsels and to leave the verdict of the Khmelnytskyi City-District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court regarding the convict unchanged.
Case No. 753/10860/25 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the deadline for appealing the verdict and the return of the appeal to the convict’s defense counsel.
The Supreme Court noted that in the event a verdict is rendered in simplified proceedings without summoning the person, the time limit for its appeal shall be calculated solely from the date of receipt of a copy of the judicial decision. The judges established that the convict had actually received a copy of the verdict on the day of its pronouncement—May 30, 2025, which is clearly confirmed by his personal receipt in the case files. In view of this, the last day for filing an appeal was June 30, 2025, whereas the attorney filed the appeal only on July 3, 2025. The panel of judges emphasized that in order to reinstate the procedural deadline, the defense was required to prove the existence of objective and insurmountable circumstances that prevented timely application to the court. Since the defense counsel did not provide any valid reasons beyond his control for missing this deadline, the court of appellate instance had no legal grounds for its reinstatement. Thus, the decision of the appellate court to return the appeal was found to be fully lawful, substantiated, and rendered without violations of the criminal procedure law.
The Supreme Court resolved to leave the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 914/2450/22(914/2957/24) dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from the buyer of a debt amounting to almost 5.9 million hryvnias under a diesel fuel supply contract, which arose due to the allegedly incomplete payment for the delivered goods.
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court rendered a premature decision, as it failed to fully establish all the factual circumstances of the execution of the supplementary agreement. In particular, the court of appellate instance limited itself to examining the deliveries only for a short period of February 2022 and regarding a portion of the fuel volume, even though the terms of the contract provided for the shipment of the entire batch by the end of January. The judges noted that left unaddressed was a detai…analysis of the total volume of actually delivered goods, invoices, payment instructions, and exact delivery dates from the moment of concluding the agreement. In addition, the appellate court’s reference to the findings in another related case between the same parties proved to be erroneous, as that case examined only tax credit issues rather than actual delivery volumes. Since the establishment and evaluation of such primary evidence falls outside the scope of the powers of the court of cassation, the Supreme Court established a violation of procedural rules by the lower court. Thus, the incompleteness of the examination of evidence by the appellate court made it impossible to establish the truth regarding the existence or absence of the debt.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of BNK-Ukraine LLC, vacated the resolution of the court of appeals, and remanded the case for a new appellate consideration.
Case No. 456/5520/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject of this dispute is the judicial establishment of the fact of paternity of a deceased servicemember in respect of a young child in order to receive a lump-sum monetary assistance, to which the mother of the deceased soldier objects.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that establishing the fact of paternity in this case directly affects the property rights of another person — the mother of the deceased servicemember, who is already receiving the state payment. Since the mother of the deceased expressed categorical objections, an obvious dispute arose between the parties regarding the right to receive the monetary assistance. Under the law, civil proceedings by way of special (non-adversarial) proceedings are possible only under the condition of the absolute absence of a dispute over a right. If, however, a conflict of interest is revealed during the consideration of the case, the court cannot establish a legal fact in a simplified manner and is obliged to leave the application without consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a dispute must be resolved exclusively under the rules of action proceedings (adversarial proceedings), where the parties will have equal procedural opportunities to prove their position. At the same time, leaving the application without consideration in special proceedings does not deprive the child’s mother of the right to apply to court with a full-fledged lawsuit on general grounds.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the child’s mother and left the resolution of the court of appeals leaving her application without consideration unchanged.
Case No. 545/4453/22 dated 26/05/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenge by the debtor-father of the actions of the state enforcement officer, who refused to credit his voluntary monetary transfers to the children’s personal bank cards against the payment of child support and to recalculate the debt.
The court primarily proceeded from the fact that at the time the payments were made, the children were 7 and 11 years old, and therefore, under the law, they are young children (under 14), and not minors (from 14 to 18). Since young children have only partial civil capacity, they cannot independently receive and dispose of child support, unlike adolescents over 14 years of age. Under such circumstances, the debtor was oblig……obligated to transfer funds to the account of the mother, who is the recoverer under the court decision and must use them in the interests of the children. Furthermore, in the payment purpose for the transfers to the children’s cards, the father did not specify that these funds were being transferred as alimony in execution of a specific court decision. The court also emphasized that the enforcement officer does not have the authority to unilaterally release the debtor from the payment of arrears due to the children residing with him, as this matter must be resolved exclusively by a court in separate adversarial proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, recognizing the actions of the state enforcement officer as lawful and the decisions of the lower courts as correct.
Case No. 362/3847/21 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the local council’s decisions regarding the inventory and allocation of land, the cancellation of the registration of rights to land plots, as well as the invalidation of purchase and sale agreements and lease agreements for these plots and the real estate located thereon.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the court of appeal that the court of first instance had erroneously terminated the proceedings, considering this dispute to be purely commercial due to the participation of legal entities and the settlement council. The judges took into account that a portion of the disputed land plots and the non-residential premises located thereon (a hangar, a warehouse, a sawmill) belong by right of ownership precisely to individuals. Guided by the binding legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the panel of judges noted that disputes directly affecting the rights and obligations of individuals who are property owners must be considered under the rules of civil procedure. Since the court of first instance did not properly examine who exactly the owners of the disputed properties were, its conclusion regarding the termination of the case was premature and unlawful. Regarding the setting aside of the ruling to leave the application for court costs without consideration, the court explained that such a decision is an integral part of the main court decision; therefore, in the event that the ruling on the termination of the case is set aside, the ruling on costs is automatically set aside as well. Accordingly, the allocation of legal aid costs must be carried out by the court that renders the final decision based on the results of the retrial of the case on its merits. The panel of judges also rejected the procedural arguments of the appellants, confirming that the plaintiff had properly registered an electronic user account, and the defendants were timely and fully familiarized with the appeal.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants’ cassation appeal and left the resolution of the court of appeal to refer the case to the court of first instance for the continuation of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 639/3749/22 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a mother against her son to remove obstacles in the use and disposal of a residential house by evicting him along with his family.
The court proceeded from the fact that the son had moved into the disputed house back in 2005…se with the consent of relatives and resided there for a long period of time, which formed a stable connection for him with these premises as his sole home. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a person’s long-term residence in a dwelling guarantees them the right to respect for it, and eviction is the most radical interference with this right. The Court emphasized the need to maintain a strict balance between the protection of the mother’s property rights and the protection of her son’s right to housing. Although the son owns a tiny share in another apartment, its area is only 7 square meters, which makes it impossible for his family of four to reside there. The forced eviction of the defendant under such conditions would in fact render him homeless, which is a disproportionate measure and would place an excessive burden on him. At the same time, the plaintiff failed to prove that her rights as a co-owner of the house are violated so critically as to require such an extreme measure as the eviction of her own family members.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the court of appeal to refuse the eviction of the son.
Case No. 362/121/19 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of an electricity supply company against the owner of a land plot to eliminate obstacles in the operation of the protection zone of a power transmission line by demolishing a residential house constructed directly under the wires of a high-voltage line.
The Court was guided by the fact that the disputed 10 kV power transmission line was constructed and commissioned back in 1970; therefore, when purchasing the land plot in 2008, the defendant was fully aware of the existence of this facility. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of information regarding restrictions in the State Land Cadastre does not negate the existence of the protection zone itself, as such restrictions apply directly by virtue of law and the special Rules for the Protection of Electrical Grids. The current legislation categorically prohibits the construction of residential buildings within protection zones, as this poses a real and ongoing danger to human life and health from the effects of electric current. Furthermore, the location of private development under the wires makes it impossible to perform proper technical maintenance of the line, which supplies electricity to a significant part of the city of Vasylkiv and adjacent settlements. The Court also dismissed references to the provisions on unauthorized construction, as the claims of the energy company were based on safety protection and special legislation on energy lands, rather than on the violation of building codes as such. Finally, the fact that the house is located directly in the danger zone under the wires was fully confirmed by proper evidence, in particular, cartographic materials and photo tables.
The Supreme Court dismissed the house owner’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which ordered her to demolish the disputed structure.
Case No. 456/4275/18 ddated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the charges against former heads of the “Stryi” customs post for repeated extortion and receipt of an undue benefit by prior conspiracy by a group of persons (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeal reviewed the case pro forma and failed to properly examine the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the groundless recognition of key prosecution evidence as inadmissible by the court of first instance. In particular, the panel of judges emphasized that the absence of defense counsel directly during the detention of a person and their personal search does not constitute a violation of the law, since these procedural actions are urgent and the law permits them to be conducted without the participation of defense counsel. The Court also pointed out that in order to assess the admissibility of evidence seized during a search, it was necessary to establish whether the identified violations of fundamental rights actually affected the reliability of the results obtained, rather than limiting itself to formal conclusions alone. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the court of appeal ignored the established practice regarding the declassification of materials of covert investigative (detective) actions (CIDA), according to which evidence cannot be automatically deemed inadmissible if the prosecutor has taken all measures within their power to disclose them to the defense. The higher court also stated that the court of appeal groundlessly and without giving reasons denied the prosecutor’s request for a re-examination of evidence, although it should have created all the conditions for a comprehensive review of the case. Finally, the court emphasized that witness testimony and written protocols of examination and transfer of money, which confirmed the participation of the applicant in the investigative actions, were unreasonably rejected by the lower courts as allegedly falsified.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, vacated the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and ordered a retrial of the case in the court of appeal.
Case No. 607/6416/23 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the criminal liability of a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation for encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine, which led to the loss of human life and other grave consequences, due to his participation in the vote for the recognition of the independence of the so-called “LPR” and “DPR”.
The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic evidence obtained from open Internet sources (specifically, screenshots and video recordings of the vote from the official website of the State Duma of the Russian Federation) is fully relevant and admissible, since obtaining their originals under the conditions of armed aggression through standard procedures is impossible. The judges emphasized that information on the roll-call vote of Russian deputies is publicly available, and therefore its reliability is beyond doubt. The court also noted that the assessment of evidence and establishment of the factual circumstances of the case is the prerogative of the courts of prior instances, whereas the court of cassation checks exclusively the correctness of the application of the law. Regarding the fact that the court of appeal ignored the motion…of the defense for the re-examination of evidence, the panel deemed this violation immaterial, since the defense counsel himself stated during the hearing that there were no motions and failed to provide the grounds prescribed by law for a re-examination. Finally, the court noted that conducting the trial *in absentia* does not violate the rights of the convicted person, as he retains the right to appeal the verdict after detention, provided he proves that there were valid reasons for his absence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, and left the ruling of the court of appeal, which upheld the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property against the Russian deputy, unchanged.
Case No. 642/1281/23 dated 02/06/2026
The subject of the judicial review is the legality and validity of the judicial decisions of the lower courts concerning the conviction of a citizen for high treason committed under martial law (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since the panel of judges announced only the operative part of the ruling, the detailed reasoning of the Supreme Court will be set forth in the full text of the decision; however, key procedural guidelines are already obvious. The setting aside of the appellate court’s ruling and the ordering of a retrial indicate that the court of cassation established material violations of the criminal procedural law, which prevented the appellate court from drawing proper and lawful conclusions. By partially granting the appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel, the court confirmed the need for an additional and more thorough verification of the parties’ arguments at the appeal stage. At the same time, given the exceptional gravity of the charged crime — high treason under martial law, the judges could not leave the accused at liberty. For this reason, the Supreme Court independently resolved the issue of a preventive measure, ordering detention for a term of 60 days to prevent the risk of absconding from justice. This step is aimed at ensuring the continuity of the judicial process and protecting national security during the retrial of the case.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel, vacated the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, ordered a retrial of the case in the court of appeal, and ordered a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days for the accused.
Case No. 463/11546/20 dated 03/06/2026
1. The subject of this dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of common shared property, namely a part of the attic, basement premises, and the adjacent territory of a residential building, access to which was blocked by another co-owner.
2. The Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of a 1/2 share of the house by way of inheritance, to whom the right to use specific premises has passed. Crucial for the case was a court decision dating back to 1984, which clearly established the procedure for the use of the house between the previous co-owners, and this procedis binding upon the current owners, as it is recorded in their title documents. The courts established the actual fact of infringement of the plaintiff’s rights, given that the defendant arbitrarily locked the doors to the attic and the basement, and also installed a gate that blocked the passage around the building. Pursuant to Article 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an owner has the full right to demand the removal of any obstacles to the exercise of their right to use and dispose of their property. The defendant’s arguments that the old court decision does not apply to the new owners were rejected, as the right to use specific parts of the property was transferred to the parties in the course of the change of ownership and is reflected in the inventory file. Furthermore, the court found the allegations of abuse of procedural rights by the plaintiff to be groundless, confirming that his claims are aimed solely at restoring the infringed property right.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the defendant’s cassation appeal, and to leave the decisions of the lower courts ordering the dismantling of the locks and the gate unchanged, while resuming their enforcement.
Case No. 873/160/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the issuance by a commercial court of a writ of execution for the enforcement of a decision of a permanent arbitral tribunal on the recovery of debt under a supply contract in an amount exceeding 1.6 million hryvnias.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties in the form of an arbitration clause in the supply contract, which had not been declared invalid in court. The judges established that the composition of the arbitral tribunal fully complied with the agreed terms, since the case was considered by the very sole arbitrator whose candidacy the parties had approved in advance in the contract. The appellant failed to provide any evidence of a violation of the procedure for forming the composition of the arbitral tribunal or other statutory grounds for refusing to issue the enforcement document. In addition, the decision of the arbitral tribunal was not set aside by a competent court, and the time limit for applying for a writ of execution had not expired. The Supreme Court also emphasized that when considering such applications, the state court does not assess the legality and validity of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the merits, but only verifies the absence of an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing its enforcement.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the farming enterprise and left the ruling of the court of first instance on the issuance of the writ for the enforcement of the arbitral tribunal’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 920/1061/23(920/92/25) dated 25/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from an entrepreneur of arrears for heating of common areas in an apartment building where she owns non-residential premises, and her counterclaims to declare these charges unlawful due to the disconnection of her premises from the cent…ralized heat supply.
The Supreme Court emphasized that although disconnecting premises from the centralized heating system does not release the owner from the obligation to pay for the heating of common areas, the actual provision of these services and their quality are subject to mandatory proof. The Court noted that the courts of lower instances had not properly verified whether such services were indeed provided to the defendant and whether they met the established quality standards. Furthermore, the courts overlooked the arguments of the entrepreneur regarding the impossibility of arithmetically verifying the calculations provided by the heat supplier due to the lack of detailed data on consumption volumes. The judges also pointed out that the courts failed to ascertain whether the plaintiff had sent payment invoices, which directly affects the determination of the period of default and the accrual of penalties. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the key circumstances of the case were not comprehensively examined based on the standard of probability of evidence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the entrepreneur, vacated the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Sumy Oblast.
Case No. 904/5028/20 (203/1014/19) dated 15/05/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the plaintiff’s application for review, based on newly discovered circumstances, of the resolution of the court of appeal, which denied the plaintiff’s claim to declare contracts invalid, cancel decisions of the cooperative, and cancel registration entries within the scope of a bankruptcy case.
The Supreme Court was guided by the premise that to qualify circumstances as newly discovered, three conditions must exist simultaneously: their existence at the time of the consideration of the case, the objective impossibility of knowing about them earlier, and their materiality to the outcome of the dispute. The judges emphasized that new evidence discovered or created after the adoption of the final decision, as well as a new substantiation of the claims, do not constitute a statutory basis for such a review. The panel of judges noted that the disputed agreement dated February 15, 2012, and the acts thereto had already been examined in detail by the courts, and the plaintiff had the procedural opportunity to assert its non-conclusion and to initiate a signature examination during the initial consideration of the case. Submitting a forensic expert opinion only after losing in the courts indicates an attempt to provide new evidence, which directly contradicts the fundamental principle of legal certainty. The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances cannot serve as a disguised appeal or as a means of correcting the errors of a party that failed to exercise its procedural rights in a timely manner. Furthermore, the courts established that the failure to obtain the expert opinion earlier depended solely on the subjective will and discretion of the plaintiff himself.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal denying the review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 904/2576/22 (904/6130/23) dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a private company to invalidate the 1994 State Deeds on the Right of Permanent Use of Land with an area of over 4.9 thousand hectares, allocated to a state enterprise, and to recognize this company’s ownership of 31 land plots with a total area of 62 hectares.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the appellate court, noting that the absence of a violated right of the plaintiff constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the lawsuit. The Court pointed out that the contested State Deeds of 1994 could in no way have violated the rights of the company, since its ownership right to the land arose much later — only in 2021. In addition, the state enterprise did not commit any actions that would challenge or fail to recognize the registered ownership right of the plaintiff, and therefore, there is no real dispute between them regarding the possession of these plots. The judges also emphasized that the inability to freely dispose of property due to its seizure in criminal proceedings must be resolved exclusively through the instruments of criminal procedure, and not by artificially initiating a commercial dispute. Additionally, the improper composition of defendants was noted, as the plaintiff had failed to involve the local self-government body, which had directly issued the disputed land deeds, as a party to the case. Finally, the court confirmed the legality of the procedural status of the prosecutor, who had reasonably entered the case to protect the interests of the state due to the passive stance of the relevant state authority.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the plaintiff and the third party, leaving the resolution of the appellate court on the complete dismissal of the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 911/427/26 dated 12/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the “Inter Way Capital” company and the determination of the proper territorial jurisdiction of this case, under circumstances where the unlawful change of the debtor’s legal address was canceled by the Ministry of Justice on the day the creditor filed the application with the court.
The Court was guided by the fact that although, as a general rule, jurisdiction is determined based on the data of the Unified State Register at the time of filing the application, in this case, the change of the debtor’s address from Dnipro to the Kyiv Oblast was officially recognized as unlawful and canceled by an order of the Ministry of Justice. Since the decision to cancel the unlawful registration actions was made on the very day the creditor applied to the court, the city of Dnipro remained the lawful location of the debtor at the time of initiating the bankruptcy. The panel of judges emphasized that the debtor’s actions to promptly appeal the corporate raid and restore its actual address testify to its good faith, rather than artificial manipulation of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished the circumstances of this case from the previous legal conclusions in case No. 904/2154/22, pointing out that they are not similar due to the absence of…ity of abuse on the part of the debtor. The court also clarified that the transfer of a case under jurisdiction to another court does not deprive the initiating creditor of their procedural status, which is based on the principle of calendar priority of filing the application. In addition, it was confirmed that the bankruptcy petition that was calendar-first sent to the court is subject to priority consideration, regardless of the method of its delivery or registration by the chancery.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties and upheld the resolution of the court of appeal on the transfer of the case under jurisdiction to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Case No. 686/13590/16-k dated 03/06/2026
The subject of the court review is the cassation appeal of the victim’s representative against the ruling of the court of appeal in criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of two persons of exceeding official authority and inflicting severe bodily injury that caused the death of the victim.
Since only the operative part of the ruling has been published, the panel of judges did not disclose detailed motives; however, the very fact of transferring the case indicates a serious conflict of law. The court was guided by the procedural necessity to resolve an issue of fundamental importance for the formation of uniform judicial practice in the country. Such a transfer for consideration by the Joint Chamber is carried out when the panel of judges deems it necessary to depart from the previously established legal position of another panel or chamber of the Supreme Court. The judges applied the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allow ensuring legal certainty and uniform application of the law on criminal liability. In view of the complexity of the case and the need for detailed legal reasoning, the panel exercised its right to postpone the drafting of the full text of the ruling for several days in order to carefully formulate its arguments.
The Supreme Court decided to refer the criminal proceedings under the cassation appeal of the victim’s representative to the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court for consideration.
Case No. 522/23276/17 dated 02/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is a conflict over the ownership of a two-room apartment in Odesa, where the plaintiff sought to recover the housing and cancel the results of the forced electronic auction, while the new buyer demanded to be recognized as its lawful owner.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of its colleagues that the original claim for recognition of ownership rights and invalidation of contracts cannot be satisfied due to improper composition of the parties, since the plaintiff did not join the original owner of the apartment to the case. At the same time, the courts established that the new owner acquired the property absolutely lawfully and in good faith at the state electronic auction “SETAM” within the framework of the enforcement of a court decision. The plaintiff did not provide any evidence of violation of the procedure for conducting this auction, therefore there are no grounds for cancelling their results is absent. The Court separately emphasized that the existence of a court-ordered arrest on the apartment does not prevent the registration of the right of ownership in the name of the purchaser if the property was acquired in the course of its forced sale. Depriving a bona fide purchaser of an apartment under such circumstances would violate European standards for the protection of property rights and would impose an excessive individual burden on the person. In addition, the court recalled that state registrars and notaries are improper defendants in disputes over property ownership.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the original claim and to recognize the right of ownership of the bona fide female purchaser of the apartment.
Case No. 142/748/20 of 28/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the legality of the conviction of a citizen for inflicting minor bodily injuries with a firearm, the correctness of his exemption from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, as well as the lawfulness of the recovery of the costs of conducting expert examinations from him.
The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the court of appeal is obliged to analyze in detail all arguments of the appeals and provide exhaustive answers to them in its decision. However, contrary to the requirements of the procedural law, the contested ruling of the court of appeal did not contain at all a brief summary of the demands of the appeals and the summarized arguments of the parties. Such a serious violation deprived the court of cassation of the opportunity to properly verify the legality and validity of the rendered decision. In addition, the Supreme Court found that the court of appeal did not consider the appeal of the accused himself at all, which was even absent from the materials of the proceedings at the time of review. The judges also emphasized that during the retrial, the panel must clearly clarify the issue regarding the filing of this appeal and resolve the issue of applying the statute of limitations for bringing to liability, taking into account the current practice of the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacated the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 127/11763/24 of 28/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of sentencing a person to life imprisonment for intentional murder in the context of a possible violation of his right to have the case heard by a jury trial under martial law.
The Court established that the prosecutor had properly explained to the accused his right to a jury trial as early as at the stage of pre-trial investigation, which is confirmed by a written document bearing the personal signature of the convicted person. Regarding the actions of the court of first instance, the panel of judges noted that during the period of martial law, the specific features of judicial proceedings are regulated by special rules of the criminal procedural law. In particular, pursuant to Part 10 of Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, during the period of martial law, criminal proceedings regarding crimes withthreat of a life sentence shall be heard by a panel of three professional judges, rather than by a jury trial. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the impossibility of applying this provision in the Vinnytsia region due to the absence of active hostilities there, as martial law is in effect throughout the entire territory of Ukraine without any territorial exceptions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court deemed the judicial practice of previous years referred to by the defense counsel irrelevant, as those decisions had been rendered prior to the introduction of martial law and the corresponding legislative amendments. Thus, the panel of judges established that the consideration of the case by a panel of three judges was absolutely lawful and the defendant’s right to defense had not been violated.
The Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, and to leave the verdict sentencing the person to life imprisonment and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 285/4025/24 of 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claims to declare invalid the deeds of gift and sale and purchase agreements of two land plots, as well as to cancel the records of ownership title thereto registered in the name of the ultimate purchaser, since these plots had previously been acquired by her, but were subsequently alienated by other persons on the basis of a court decision which was later overturned by the court of appeal.
In rendering this decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective method of protecting her violated rights, since the declaration of the agreements as invalid in itself, without a claim for the return of the property, would not lead to the actual restoration of her possession of the land plots. The judges emphasized that since the disputed land is already registered in the name of the ultimate purchaser, the appropriate legal instrument in this situation is a vindication action, i.e., a claim for the recovery of property from another’s unlawful possession. Pursuant to the law, an owner may recover their property from the person who is its ultimate acquirer, regardless of how many times it was alienated prior to that, if it left the owner’s possession against their will. In addition, the panel of judges noted that only within the framework of an action for the recovery of property does the court have the opportunity to thoroughly assess the good faith of the ultimate purchaser and verify the lawfulness of the interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s references to other resolutions of the Supreme Court, pointing out that the findings in those cases were formulated under entirely different factual circumstances and cannot be applied here. In view of this, the courts of lower instances were fully justified in dismissing the claim due to the incorrect method of protection chosen by the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 761/34551/18 of 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a former husband to declare invalid a loan agreement in the amount of USD 300,000 concluded by hi…by his former wife with her son-in-law in the form of a receipt, which the plaintiff considered fictitious and created solely to conceal the actual source of origin of the funds for the acquisition of joint real property.
The court was guided by the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction, according to which any concluded agreement is deemed valid until proven otherwise in court. To declare the contract fictitious, the plaintiff had to prove the complete absence of intent on the part of both parties to create legal consequences at the time of signing the receipt, which was not established by proper evidence in this case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to perform or improper performance of the terms of a loan agreement in itself cannot constitute an independent ground for declaring such a transaction invalid. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the impossibility of examining the receipt due to its late submission by the defendant, noting that the plaintiff had a procedural right to timely file a motion for a forensic examination but failed to exercise it. Since civil proceedings are based on the adversarial principle, the burden of proving the fictitious nature of the transaction rested solely on the plaintiff, and court decisions cannot be based on assumptions. Finally, the panel of judges emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence and the establishment of new circumstances of the case fall outside the scope of authority of the court of cassation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to refuse to declare the loan agreement invalid unchanged.
Case No. 205/6358/13-ts dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the bank’s claims for the issuance of a duplicate of a lost writ of execution for the compulsory recovery of credit debt, which was opposed by the debtor, citing the financial institution’s failure to meet the deadlines for presenting the document for execution.
The court emphasized that the execution of a court decision is an integral component of the right to a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The panel of judges noted that the mandatory conditions for issuing a duplicate of a writ of execution are the confirmation of the fact of its loss and the filing of a corresponding application within the time limit for presenting the document for execution. The court found the fact of the loss of the original writ to be proven, as it is absent both from the bank and from the bodies of the state enforcement service, which destroyed the materials of the completed proceedings and the mailing lists due to the expiration of the three-year retention period. Regarding the time limits for application, the court clarified that the three-year period for the re-presentation of the document, which began in June 2019, was not missed. This is due to the fact that, following the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, the legislator temporarily suspended the running of all enforcement periods until its termination or cancellation. Thus, the bank’s application filed in March 2024 for the issuance of a duplicate of the writ of execution falls entirely within the limits of the current legal framework.
The SupremeThe Court dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal, and left unchanged the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal on the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution to the bank.
Case No. 501/1388/22 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality of the conviction of a person to 10 years of imprisonment for intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which the defense sought to reclassify as intentional grievous bodily harm, citing the absence of intent to deprive of life and the complex nature of the occurrence of the victim’s death.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the convicted person’s direct intent to commit murder was evidenced by the very nature of his actions, namely, the deliberate delivery of a knife blow to a vital organ — the neck, which resulted in the transection of the jugular vein and massive hemorrhage. The judges also took into account the conduct of the assailant after the crime, who, instead of attempting to help the injured person or call an ambulance, simply fled the scene. The defense’s arguments regarding the lack of causation between the injury and death were refuted by forensic medical examinations, which clearly linked the victim’s death to the incised wound of the neck and a concomitant traumatic brain injury sustained as a result of a fall after the blow. The testimony of the sole eyewitness of the event — a market security guard — was deemed by the court to be consistent, logical, and fully corroborated by other evidence, in particular, the results of the investigative experiment. Furthermore, the panel of judges ruled lawful the appellate court’s refusal to order an additional comprehensive forensic examination, since the expert opinions available in the case file and their examinations in court had already provided exhaustive answers to all questions. Finally, the court found no signs of judicial bias or material violations of procedural law that would raise doubts about the fairness of the trial.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled to leave the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding the convicted person unchanged and to dismiss the cassation appeal of his defense counsel.
Case No. 636/2995/23 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of the judicial review is the legality and validity of the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal regarding a citizen accused of committing theft under martial law under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since the provided document contains only the operative part of the resolution, the detailed reasoned part with the full arguments of the panel of judges will be published later. However, based on the procedural norms cited by the panel of judges, the Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the presence of material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law or the misapplication of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability by the court of appellate instance. The Court concluded that the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal did not meet the criteria of legality, substan……[substan]tiation and motivation, which is mandatory for judicial decisions. Guided by Articles 436 and 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of cassation stated that the revealed violations constitute an absolute ground for vacating the judicial decision. The Supreme Court deemed it necessary to remand the case to the stage of appellate review to correct procedural errors and ensure the right to a fair trial. The panel of judges undertook to pronounce the full text with detailed legal reasoning in a few days, as provided for by the rules of criminal procedure.
The Supreme Court sustained the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, vacated the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeals regarding the accused, and ordered a new consideration of the case in the court of appellate jurisdiction.
Case No. 740/4992/25 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the defense’s appeal against the severity of the imposed sentence of one year of restriction of liberty for the convict’s evasion of serving the sentence in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.
The Supreme Court noted that the courts of lower instances fully took into account the gravity of the committed criminal misdemeanor and the specific circumstances of the case. In particular, the judges drew attention to the fact that the convict got behind the wheel of a car just a few days after the court’s previous sentence depriving him of his driver’s license entered into force. The panel of judges agreed that sincere repentance and the absence of aggravating circumstances allowed the court of first instance to impose the minimum possible term of punishment in the form of restriction of liberty. At the same time, the court emphasized that such positive factors as official employment, the presence of dependents, and positive character references do not constitute an unconditional ground for replacing the restriction of liberty with probation supervision. It was also recognized as lawful and correct to add the unserved part of the additional punishment under the cumulative sentences on the basis of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Thus, the cassation instance concluded that the imposed punishment is fair, proportionate, and fully complies with the requirements of the law and the personality of the convict.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the sentence of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 922/3103/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrnafta” in favor of the Kharkiv City Council of over 2.8 million hryvnias of unjustly retained funds for the actual use of a municipal land plot under a gas station without a valid lease agreement.
The court proceeded from the premise that after the expiration of the lease agreement in 2010, the parties did not conclude any supplementary agreements or a new agreement, and therefore, the company used the land without proper legal grounds. Guided by the principle of the unity of the legal fate of a land plot and the building located thereon, the court stat
