Case No. 521/1895/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of citizens to cancel the decisions of state registrars and to declare invalid a purchase and sale agreement of a parking lot, which was alienated by a public organization of motorists in favor of a private company.
The court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiffs had failed to provide proper evidence of their membership in the public organization at the time the agreement was concluded, since car storage agreements do not grant automatic membership, and the charter required the submission of a personal application and the adoption of a corresponding decision by the management. Since the plaintiffs had only contractual obligations regarding the storage of property and did not possess proprietary rights to the land plot or structures of the parking lot, the alienation of the property to another owner did not violate their subjective civil rights. The court took into account that the citizens continue to use their parking spaces without hindrance, and therefore their apprehensions regarding possible future restrictions are merely assumptions that cannot serve as a ground for canceling the agreement. According to the organization’s charter, its head had the authority to solely dispose of the property, and the purchase and sale agreement itself was subsequently officially approved by the supreme governing body — the extraordinary Conference of the organization. The new owner of the parking lot was recognized as a bona fide purchaser, since the law does not oblige a purchaser to investigate the entire history of prior registrations, provided there are no registered encumbrances. Since the plaintiffs did not prove that they held corporate or membership rights to manage the organization, the court rejected the arguments regarding the necessity to consider the case under the rules of commercial procedure.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to dismiss the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 466/2844/24 dated 13/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the judicial establishment of the legal fact of a minor child being dependent on their stepfather for the purpose of the latter obtaining a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilization.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the family obligations to support a child are inalienable, closely linked to the person of the biological father, and cannot be voluntarily transferred to another person. The judges noted that establishing the fact of a child being supported by a stepfather is possible only in the event of restriction or termination of the parental rights of the biological father, which did not occur in this case. Since the biological father of the child has not been deprived of parental rights and pays child support, there is an obvious dispute of law regarding the participation of parents in the financial support of the child. The panel of judges emphasized that such issues directly affect the interests of the child and cannot be established in an uncontested manner within separate proceedings. In the presence of such a dispute, the law requires considering the ca…ly exclusively in contentious proceedings with the mandatory involvement of the guardianship and care authority. Therefore, the courts of lower instances committed an error by examining the application on the merits and dismissing it, instead of leaving it without consideration.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and left the stepfather’s application without consideration, clarifying to him his right to apply to court by way of contentious proceedings.
Case No. 149/3142/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is an application of a serviceman for the establishment, under the procedure of special (non-contentious) judicial proceedings, of the legal fact of four children being dependent on him — two of his own and two of his wife’s children from a previous marriage — for the purpose of obtaining the right to discharge from military service.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of the fact of a stepfather supporting his wife’s children is directly related to the issue of performance or non-performance of parental duties by their biological father. Since such circumstances significantly affect the rights and interests of other persons, in this part of the claims there is a latent dispute over a right, which cannot be resolved under the simplified procedure of special proceedings, but requires full-fledged contentious proceedings. At the same time, the panel of judges drew attention to the error of the courts of lower instances regarding the other two children, who are the biological children of the applicant himself. The Court emphasized that the duty to support one’s own children is directly vested in parents under the Family Code of Ukraine. Therefore, additional judicial establishment of the fact of a father supporting his own children is legally impossible, since this duty already exists by virtue of law. Thus, the institution of special proceedings cannot be used for the artificial creation of prejudicial facts for the purpose of subsequent resolution of public law issues, in particular, discharge from military service.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the applicant, modifying the reasoning of the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the refusal to initiate proceedings with respect to his own children, and in the part of the refusal regarding the wife’s children, left the judicial decisions unchanged.
Case No. 538/4/24 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation of an adult daughter with her serviceman father until the moment of his mobilization, which is necessary for the plaintiff to receive his monetary allowance in connection with his going missing.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that to acquire the right to social protection in the form of payments for a missing serviceman, his adult child must prove not just a family relationship, but specifically the fact of cohabitation, sharing a household, and the existence of mutual rights and duties at the time of conscription. The judges noted that the certificates of inspection of living conditions provided by the plaintiff contained subst…substantial discrepancies and contradictions, which were subsequently refuted by other official verifications of the local council. The case files and witness testimonies confirmed that after the parents’ divorce in 2014, the servicemember actually resided together with his elderly parents in another village, rather than with his daughter. The panel of judges emphasized that civil proceedings are based on the adversarial principle, where each party must prove their claims with relevant and admissible evidence, and a court decision cannot be based on assumptions. The Court of Appeal erred, as it groundlessly vacated the lawful decision of the court of first instance and granted the claim in the absence of irrefutable evidence of cohabitation. The Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the findings of the local court, which critically and comprehensively assessed all conflicting evidence in the case and reasonably dismissed the claim.
The Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeals of the mother of the missing soldier and her representative, vacated the resolution of the court of appeal, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the daughter’s claim.
Case No. 991/12482/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the accusation against an attorney of offering an improper advantage in the amount of USD 200,000 to prosecutors of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office for making procedural decisions in the interests of his client — the former chairwoman of the board of a bank.
Analyzing the case files, the court concluded that the guilt of the accused was fully proven beyond a reasonable doubt owing to the totality of detailed audio and video recordings of covert investigative actions, as well as documented correspondence in messengers. The court rejected the defense’s version of entrapment by law enforcement officers, as the initiative to seek informal contacts, discuss specific bribe amounts, and draft a step-by-step action plan came exclusively from the attorney himself. The court also found groundless the allegations of violation of attorney-client privilege during the seizure and examination of the accused’s gadgets, since the investigative actions were conducted with the participation of representatives of the Bar Council, and the examined information did not contain confidential advice to the client. At the same time, the court excluded NABU detectives from the list of persons to whom the bribe was offered due to the lack of sufficient evidence, but noted that this in no way affects the qualification of the crime regarding the bribery of SAPO prosecutors. In addition, the court found justified the application of special confiscation to the USD 100,000 seized during the search, as they had been pre-packaged in packets of 10,000 and fully corresponded to the agreements regarding the first stage of the transfer of funds. In determining the measure of punishment, the court took into account the exceptional audacity of the deed, as the accused acted contrary to the attorney’s oath and sought to corruptly undermine the authority of the state’s key anti-corruption institutions.
The High Anti-Corruption Court found the attorney guilty ofcommitting a criminal offense provided for by Part 3 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to practice law for 3 years, and also applied special confiscation to 100 thousand US dollars.
Case No. 627/835/24 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the determination of the place of residence of two minor children after the dissolution of marriage between the parents, who are currently residing in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The court was primarily guided by the principle of ensuring the best interests of the children, which by their importance must prevail over the interests and rights of the parents. The court took into account the conclusions of the German social services and representatives of the local court of the city of Lehrte, who confirmed that the mother had created excellent, safe, and comfortable living conditions for the boys and was properly caring for their development and health. The children themselves, during communication with the German guardian-representative, clearly expressed their desire to remain living precisely with their mother. At the same time, the case materials lack any negative character references regarding the mother or evidence of improper performance of her duties. The court also emphasized that determining the children’s place of residence with the mother in no way restricts the rights of the father, who has the right and duty to communicate with his sons and participate in their upbringing. In addition, an agreement approved by the German authority is already in force between the parents, which regulates in detail the procedure for meetings and shared time of the father with the children.
The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the decisions of the lower courts on determining the children’s place of residence with the mother.
Case No. 490/3458/24 dated 08/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the prosecutor in the interests of the Mykolaiv City Council on the removal of obstacles to the use of a water fund land plot by obligating the defendant to demolish the illegally constructed residential building and outbuildings.
The court proceeded from the fact that the disputed land plot is located within the coastal protective strip of the Inhul River and belongs to the lands of the water fund, where the law explicitly prohibits any residential construction. The defendant’s conduct was recognized as acting in bad faith, as she commenced construction and registered the ownership right to the house, being fully aware of the legal dispute regarding the illegality of the allocation of this land and the arrest imposed on it. The court emphasized that the demolition of unauthorized construction in this case is the appropriate and only effective way to restore the community’s rights, as restoring the land plot to its original state by other means is impossible. Assessing the proportionality of the interference with the right to respect for home, the court established that the defendant and her family members own other residential premises, therefore the demolition of the house will not leadleads to a violation of their fundamental rights. The public interest, which consists in the protection of water resources, environmental preservation, and ensuring free access of citizens to the coastline, in this case unconditionally outweighs the private interest of the developer.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the decisions of the courts of lower instances ordering the demolition of the residential house and structures.
Case No. 405/7590/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the determination of the place of residence of minor children with one of the parents, and the direct procedural issue before the cassation court was the legality of the court of appeal’s refusal to review the ruling on the non-acceptance of the father’s application to amend the subject matter of his counterclaim.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is an important constitutional guarantee, and courts, when applying procedural rules, must avoid excessive formalism that restricts real access to justice. The panel of judges noted that although the ruling refusing to accept the application to amend the subject matter of the claim is not explicitly mentioned in the list of decisions that can be appealed separately, its actual and direct consequence is the return of this application to the applicant. At the same time, the procedural law clearly provides that the rulings of the court of first instance on returning the application to the plaintiff may be appealed in the appellate procedure separately from the main decision. Since the appeal was filed directly with the court of appeal through the “Electronic Court” system, it was this court that had the authority to decide on the commencement of proceedings, rather than returning the materials to the court of first instance. Thus, the court of appeal erred, violated the rules of procedural law, and groundlessly restricted the father’s right to a review of the judicial decision.
The Supreme Court granted the father’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to the court of appeal to continue the proceedings.
Case No. 538/1109/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality of applying interim measures to secure the claim in the form of seizure and prohibition of registration actions regarding a consolidated land plot with an area of 26 hectares in a case upon the prosecutor’s lawsuit for the recovery of its 12-hectare part.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts had not examined the issue of proportionality of the chosen interim measure to the asserted claims at all, since the seizure was imposed on the entire plot of 26 hectares, although the dispute concerns only 12 hectares. The judges noted that the consolidated plot includes land, the lawfulness of acquisition of which by the defendant is not disputed, and therefore such restriction unjustifiably violates her rights. In addition, the imposition of the seizure on the entire area practically blocks the execution of the decision in another case, where these same 12 hectares have already been ordered to be recovered in favor of the sta…state. The Supreme Court also established a procedural violation, as the courts had considered the prosecutor’s application without properly determining the scope of the claims and even in the absence of the statement of claim itself in the materials of the proceedings. At the same time, the court refuted the appellant’s arguments regarding the double encumbrance of the property, clarifying that the closure of criminal proceedings automatically lifts the attachment imposed within its framework by the investigator.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the respondent’s representative, vacated the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal on securing the claim, and remanded the case for a new trial.
Case No. 461/5419/22 dated 04/06/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the legality of holding a moped driver criminally liable for the intentional infliction of moderate bodily injury to a patrol police officer during the performance of his official duties.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, which established the guilt of the convict on the basis of a detailed analysis of the testimony of the victim, witnesses, video recordings, and forensic medical examination reports. The judges rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the lack of intent, noting that the driver was clearly aware of being pursued by the police, saw a makeshift barrier of bicycles, and purposefully continued moving toward the law enforcement officer without slowing down. The panel of judges emphasized that the intentional creation of a real danger to the health of a police officer in order to evade detention is fully covered by the elements of the crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Court found groundless the assertions regarding the contradictory nature of the medical conclusions, since the additional examination took into account all medical documents and the history of treatment, and confirmed a direct causal link between the collision and the victim’s knee injury. It was also established that the court of appeal legally refused to re-examine the evidence, as the defense did not provide the compelling grounds prescribed by law for doing so, while the court of first instance had examined them in full. Thus, the court of cassation did not find any material violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of substantive law.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal unchanged, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal—dismissed, upholding the sentence imposing a penalty of one year of restriction of liberty on the convict.
Case No. 324/258/17 dated 26/05/2026
The subject of the judicial review in this case is the legality and validity of the ruling of the court of appeal regarding three persons accused of committing robbery combined with trespass into a dwelling (Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which the prosecutor appealed in cassation.
Since only the operative part of the resolution has been published so far, and the full text with detailed motivati…will be pronounced later, we can outline the key procedural motives of the court based on the nature of the decision made. The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court, leaving the decision of the appellate court unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the conclusions of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal are lawful, substantiated, and rendered without substantial violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation review thoroughly examined the arguments of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal regarding possible errors in the application of the law on criminal liability and found no grounds for their satisfaction. Obviously, the court concluded that the evidence in the case had been evaluated by the court of appellate jurisdiction in full compliance with procedural standards, and the rights of the accused had not been violated. In addition, the Supreme Court confirmed that the court of appeal provided exhaustive and convincing answers to all key arguments of the prosecution, acting solely within the scope of its powers. Thus, the highest judicial instance established the absence of any legal grounds for reversing or amending the challenged judicial decision.
The Supreme Court rendered a final decision to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and to leave the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal regarding the three accused unchanged.
Case No. 320/18291/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of three tax assessment notices, by which the company’s monetary liability for value-added tax was increased, a fine was imposed for the late registration of tax invoices, and financial penalties were applied for the alleged wholesale trade in fuel without a license.
Regarding the additional assessment of VAT, the court noted that although the law restricts the submission of clarifying calculations directly during an audit, the tax authority, when making a final decision, is obliged to take into account errors independently corrected by the taxpayer and the amounts paid by them, if this occurred prior to the issuance of the tax assessment notice. Concerning the fine for fuel trade, the court agreed with the lower instances, as the enterprise had all the necessary licenses for the right to wholesale trade and storage of fuel, and the delivery of goods was carried out lawfully in accordance with the terms of the contracts and Incoterms rules. At the same time, when considering the issue of fines for the delay in registering tax invoices, the Supreme Court pointed out the erroneousness of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the unconditional release of the taxpayer from liability due to quarantine and martial law. The Court explained that from May 27, 2022, the operation of the quarantine moratorium on fines ceased, and the exemption from liability during the period of martial law directly depends on the confirmation of the possibility or impossibility of the taxpayer’s performance of their duties. Since the offense continues until the actual registration of the invoice, fines for invoices registered after the cancellation of the moratorium must be applied for the period when the benefits were no longer in effect. Since the courts of previo…courts of [previous] instances did not verify the correctness of the calculation of these fines at all due to an erroneous interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court concluded that these circumstances must be examined in detail by the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax service, upholding the decisions to cancel the fuel fines and additional VAT assessments, but overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the fine for late registration of tax invoices and remanded the case in this part for a new trial.
Case No. 640/18319/20 dated 09/06/2026
I cannot provide a full analysis of this court decision, as the provided text contains only the introductory and operative parts and does not contain the reasoning part, which makes it impossible to establish the arguments that guided the court in making the decision, as well as to verify whether there has been a departure from the previous legal positions of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 205/33/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of an heiress to declare invalid a mortgage agreement on a recreation center, which was concluded by her father in favor of a bank without the mandatory notarized consent of his wife (the plaintiff’s mother).
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the courts of previous instances that the disputed mortgage agreement was indeed concluded in violation of the law, as the bank had the opportunity to learn from the mortgagor’s passport about his marriage and the lack of his wife’s consent to dispose of the joint property. At the same time, the court emphasized that the violated right is subject to protection only within the statute of limitations, the running of which began back in 2008 from the moment of the conclusion of the agreement, of which the plaintiff, as the borrower under the main loan, was fully aware. The judges rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the extension of the periods due to quarantine and martial law, as the three-year limitation period had expired long before the introduction of these special regimes. In addition, the panel of judges found groundless the bank’s demands to dismiss the proceedings due to the alleged identity of the disputes, since the grounds of the lawsuit had changed in this case — the plaintiff now acts not merely as a debtor, but as a lawful co-owner of the property based on a court decision of 2021. Finally, the court recognized as reasonable and proportional the reduction by the courts of the bank’s legal assistance costs from over 180 thousand to 15 thousand hryvnias, taking into account the complexity of the case and the criterion of reasonableness.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of the plaintiff and the bank, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances dismissing the lawsuit due to the expiration of the statute of limitations unchanged.
Case No. 160/36950/25 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Joint-Stock Company “Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant” to cancel the decision of the state registrar on entering into the register information regardingprohibition of performing registration actions, which was imposed in execution of the ruling of the investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the seizure of property in criminal proceedings.
The Court proceeded from the premise that the seizure of property and the associated ban on registration actions are measures to secure criminal proceedings, which are regulated exclusively by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Since the disputed legal relations arose in connection with the execution of the ruling of the investigating judge, they are of a criminal procedural nature rather than a public law nature. During criminal proceedings, pre-trial investigation authorities and the court perform authoritative procedural functions rather than administrative and managerial ones; therefore, their actions cannot be challenged through administrative judicial proceedings. The owner of the property whose rights have been restricted in the criminal process has the right to file a petition to lift the seizure or related bans directly with the investigating judge within the framework of the criminal case. Administrative courts are not vested with the authority to interfere in criminal procedural measures, and therefore the proceedings in this case were subject to termination. Since the initial decision on the seizure was made by the High Anti-Corruption Court, the issue of lifting derivative restrictions also falls within the competence of the same court under the rules of criminal procedure.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the enterprise, confirming the legality of the termination of the administrative proceedings and clarifying that this dispute must be resolved by the High Anti-Corruption Court under the rules of criminal procedure.
Case No. 202/1743/22 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the conviction of a citizen to 11 years of imprisonment for facilitating the activities of the “DPR” terrorist organization by transmitting information about the defensive structures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and bomb shelters in the front-line city of Kramatorsk via the Telegram messenger.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the convicted person was clearly aware of the socially dangerous nature of his actions, as he transmitted detailed data on trenches, checkpoints, and anti-tank hedgehogs to a person who was in the occupied territory and fought on the side of the so-called “DPR.” The judges rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, since the accused voluntarily handed over and unlocked his mobile phone in the presence of a defense counsel, and also confirmed the fact of the correspondence during the court hearing. Allegations of the use of unlawful investigative methods were found groundless, as the convicted person made this claim only four months after the events without providing any specific facts or evidence. In addition, the panel of judges refuted the arguments regarding the violation of the right to a jury trial, explaining that during martial law, current legislation provides for the collegial consideration of such cases by three professional judges. Ultimately, the court concluded that the collected evidence is mutually consistent and fully proves the guilt of the person beyond a reasonable doubt.The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, by which the convict was sentenced to a punishment in the form of 11 years of imprisonment, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 160/111/23 dated 03/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the claims of the State Enterprise “Skhidnyi Mining and Processing Plant” for the recovery from the state budget of arrears in value-added tax refund in the amount of over 7.4 million hryvnias and accrued penalties.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine, in the presence of a tax debt of a taxpayer, the amount of the VAT budget refund must be reduced by the amount of such debt. The Court confirmed its consistent position that for the application of this restriction, the overall tax debt of the enterprise for all taxes and duties is taken into account, and not only for VAT. During the consideration of the case, it was established that the plaintiff had an outstanding debt to the budget, which significantly exceeded the amount requested for refund. Since the existing tax debt of the enterprise fully offsets the amount of the claimed VAT refund, there are no legal grounds for recovering these funds from the budget. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s procedural objections, noting that the court of appeal acted lawfully and within the principle of official clarification of circumstances by requesting and examining the integrated taxpayer cards. Thus, the panel of judges agreed that in the presence of outstanding tax obligations to the state, the taxpayer cannot claim direct recovery of funds from the budget.
The Supreme Court dismissed the enterprise’s cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the court of appeal dismissing the lawsuit.
Case No. 740/2465/22 dated 04/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of bringing a civilian to criminal liability for the illegal acquisition and possession of ammunition and explosive devices during martial law in a territory where active hostilities are no longer being conducted.
The Court proceeded from the fact that the accused acquired and kept combat grenades and dozens of rounds of ammunition at his home after the de-occupation of the Chernihiv region, without having the permit required by law. The panel of judges rejected the arguments regarding the possession of weapons for self-defense, since the motive is irrelevant for the characterization of this crime, and there was no real threat to the man’s life at that moment. The Court also found no signs of extreme necessity in the citizen’s actions, emphasizing that the uncontrolled handling of weapons in the rear cannot be justified by repelling the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the accused demonstrated these munitions during a domestic conflict with other citizens, which indicates the obvious public danger of his behavior. Finally, the judges explained that the special legislation on the participation of civilians in the defense of Ukrainand does not decriminalize the possession of weapons that were found or obtained contrary to the official procedure established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person and upheld the verdict of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal, by which the man was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 1 year.
Case No. 335/13679/17 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the criminal charge against a citizen for organizing abuse of official position, official forgery, and inciting military officials to inaction during the construction of platoon strongpoints in the Donetsk Oblast.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the court of appeal committed material violations of procedural law, as it failed to properly examine the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the admissibility of key evidence. In particular, the panel of judges did not agree with the conclusion of the appellate court that the findings of the construction-technical and economic expert examinations were inadmissible solely because they were obtained from another criminal proceeding. The Court emphasized that current legislation does not require investigators to gather evidence solely by obtaining temporary access to it, if the holder provided the documents voluntarily. Furthermore, according to the established case law of the Supreme Court, in the event of severance or consolidation of cases, no special procedure is prescribed for using already legally obtained evidence in related proceedings. At the same time, the panel of judges deemed other demands of the prosecutor, in particular regarding the re-examination of witnesses and the consolidation of proceedings, to be groundless, as the court of appeal had resolved them correctly. Thus, due to the premature and erroneous rejection of the expert conclusions, the decision of the court of appeal to uphold the acquittal cannot be considered lawful and justified.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal, and ordered a retrial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 280/755/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the migration service’s refusal to accept from a citizen of the Russian Federation, who acquired Ukrainian citizenship by territorial origin, a declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship instead of a document confirming its termination.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the law obligates a person who has acquired Ukrainian citizenship to take active independent measures within two years to renounce their previous citizenship and to submit the corresponding official document. Submitting a declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship is an exceptional step that is allowed only when a person, for reasons beyond their control, cannot obtain a document confirming the termination of citizenship. The Court emphasized that the current form of the declaration requires the mandatory indication and justification of the specific legislative ground which makes it imp…made such renunciation possible (for example, the absence of a renunciation procedure or its non-implementation by the authorized bodies). In this case, the plaintiff took a formal approach to preparing the documents, indicating only her personal data in the declaration and failing to state any of the independent reasons provided for by law. The mere inaction of a person during the two-year period cannot be considered a valid reason exempting them from the obligation to properly confirm the impossibility of renouncing citizenship. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with the established procedure, the migration service acted entirely lawfully in refusing to accept such a declaration.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, upholding the legality of the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 496/2814/25 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the state enforcement officer’s actions regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory enforcement of a court ruling on the imposition of an administrative penalty after the expiration of the general three-month period.
The Supreme Court noted that although the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the relevant Law establish a general three-month period for presenting such documents for enforcement, special rules apply during the period of martial law. According to the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, for the duration of martial law, the running of all enforcement periods is interrupted and resumes only after its termination. Since the provisions of the code refer to this law regarding enforcement periods, the aforementioned beneficial provision takes priority and applies to rulings in cases of administrative offenses. Consequently, the period for presenting the ruling for enforcement had not expired, and the enforcement officer’s actions regarding the initiation of the proceedings were entirely lawful. In addition, the court emphasized that the mere failure of a state body to submit a statement of defense does not exempt the courts from the obligation to independently and comprehensively verify the lawfulness of the disputed actions.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the State Enforcement Service, vacated the decisions of the lower courts, and rendered a new decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.
Case No. 362/1326/22 dated 20/05/2026
In this case, the subject matter of the dispute consists of the seller’s claims for the termination of the purchase and sale agreement for a residential building and a land plot, the obligation to return the title documents to the property, and the recovery of 3% per annum due to the buyer having paid for the purchased real estate only partially and late.
The court was guided by the fact that the buyer accepted the residential building and the land plot, moved in there with her family, and made a partial payment, which indicates her interest in performing the agreement and its actual performance by both parties. Under such circumstances, in accordance with Article 692 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a proper and effective remedy…remedy for protecting the seller’s rights is precisely the recovery of outstanding funds and accrued interest, rather than the termination of the contract. Special provisions of the law allow the seller to withdraw from the contract only when the buyer has completely refused both to accept and to pay for the goods, which was not the case in this matter. In addition, the termination of a contract that has already been partially performed does not correspond to the essence of the breach (which is purely monetary) and may lead to unfair consequences or unjust enrichment of the seller, for example, if the value of the property has increased. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff, by filing a claim for the termination of the contract instead of debt recovery, chose an improper remedy for protecting his rights. Consequently, choosing an ineffective remedy is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the statement of claim.
The Supreme Court dismissed the seller’s cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of appeal dismissing the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 990/509/25 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the challenge by a candidate for the position of a judge of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding his non-admission to the fourth stage of the qualification examination due to failing to achieve the passing score in cognitive ability testing, despite successfully clearing the minimum allowable threshold.
The Court noted that the relevant law clearly distinguishes between the concepts of “average allowable score,” which indicates the successful passing of a stage of the exam, and “passing score,” which determines admission to the next stage, taking into account the number of vacant positions. The Commission is vested with discretionary powers to set the passing score for cognitive testing at a level exceeding the minimum threshold, as this corresponds to the competitive nature of the selection process. A specialization-based approach in determining the passing score is entirely justified, as it ensures a balance between the actual needs of the judicial system and the number of candidates within specific jurisdictions. In addition, the plaintiff was aware in advance of the approved selection rules and quotas and did not challenge them before the start of the exams. The Court also dismissed the plaintiff’s procedural objections, pointing out that the publication of additional sample tasks three days before the testing was merely explanatory in nature and did not alter the evaluation methodology, and the Commission is under no obligation to disclose the technical specifications of the software.
The Supreme Court rendered a decision to fully dismiss the lawsuit of the candidate against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.
Case No. 307/2430/24 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of these judicial proceedings is the issue of the expediency and proportionality of securing the claim by prohibiting the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants on leased land plots within the scope of a dispute over declaring the lease agreements for these plots invalid and canceling the decisions of the settlement council.
The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that…, that the developer has a valid permit to perform construction works, which is not being challenged within this case, and no evidence of its cancellation or suspension has been provided by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court decision in the administrative case referred to by the court of appeal as confirmation of the illegality of the formation of the disputed land plots was overturned by the Supreme Court, and therefore, this fact is not proven. The Court emphasized that the measures for securing the claim must be proportionate to the declared claims, and a complete ban on construction in the presence of valid permitting documents is a disproportionate restriction on the rights of the land user. The panel of judges also noted that the potential satisfaction of the main claim regarding the invalidity of the lease agreements would in the future become an independent and lawful ground for the demolition of the constructed facilities at the developer’s expense; therefore, the failure to impose a ban will not prevent the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. Finally, the court emphasized the need to maintain a balance of interests of both parties, as the suspension of the developer’s business activity may lead to irreversible financial losses, which is disproportionate to the potential violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeals of the settlement council and the developer, overturned the resolution of the court of appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which had denied the securing of the claim.
Case No. 140/5864/23 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claim of a former police officer to declare the actions of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Volyn Oblast unlawful and to oblige it to credit the period of the plaintiff’s employment as a physics and mathematics teacher at a general education school to the length of service for calculating the years of service.
The Court proceeded from the premise that the current legislation, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police” and Procedure No. 393, clearly defines an exhaustive list of periods that may be credited to the length of service in the police. As a general rule, in the case of transfer to service in the National Police bodies, a person retains the right to be credited only with that prior service period which was acquired during employment in state bodies in civil service positions. Having analyzed the case materials, the panel of judges established that during the disputed period from February to June 1996, the plaintiff worked as a teacher at a general education school of I-II degrees. Since the position of a school teacher does not belong to civil service positions, and the educational institution itself is not a state body within the meaning of the law, this period of employment cannot be included in the length of service in the police. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff’s demands regarding the preferential calculation of the period of his participation in the ATO had already been examined by courts in another case, and therefore their re-examination is procedurally impossible. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the decisions of the courts of first and appeal instances, which are correct in essence.
The Supreme Court adoptedthe decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and to leave the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances dismissing the claim unchanged.
Case No. 640/7709/19 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the challenge by a citizen of the Republic of Belarus of the decision of the State Migration Service of Ukraine refusing to recognize her as a refugee or a person in need of complementary protection in Ukraine.
The Court was guided by the fact that the burden of proving the well-foundedness of the fear of persecution lies with the applicant themselves, who must provide the migration service and the court with truthful, consistent, and objective facts. In this case, the plaintiff’s allegations that her poet husband was killed by the Belarusian secret services for writing a political poem were refuted by open historical sources proving that this work was created back in the 19th century, and information about the husband’s death is absent from international human rights reports. The Court also found the woman’s testimony regarding the murder of her mother by “KGB agents” to be contradictory and confusing, as she provided radically different versions of this event during different interviews. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s participation in opposition rallies in Belarus did not have any documented negative consequences for her, such as administrative arrests or fines. Finally, the panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the woman had left Belarus back in 2007, and applied for refugee status in Ukraine only 12 years later, in 2019. According to the case law of the Supreme Court, such a long period of time between departure from the country of origin and applying for protection indicates the absence of real and well-founded fears of becoming a victim of persecution.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts dismissing the claim unchanged.
Case No. 183/933/19 dated 08/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the demands of one of the co-owners for the allotment in kind of his share, representing 13/100 of a two-apartment building with a health complex and a cafe-bar, into a separate real estate property, with the recognition of ownership rights thereto.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal concepts of “division” and “allotment” of property are not identical, as they have different legal nature, procedures, and consequences. For the allotment of his share in kind, the plaintiff had to provide the court with a technical report specifically on the possibility of the allotment of the share, and not on the possibility of the division of the entire real estate property. Furthermore, any part of real estate allotted in kind must necessarily be completely isolated, have a separate exit, and its own autonomous utility systems, which was not properly substantiated in this case. The Court also drew attention to the absence in the case files of any information on the legal status of the land plot on which the building is located. Finally, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a real dispute…and the violation of his rights, since he had not even approached the other co-owners with a proposal to resolve this matter amicably by entering into a notarized agreement.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, upholding the lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling on the dismissal of the claim.
Case No. 940/327/23 of 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claim of the deceased’s niece to declare invalid the marriage entered into between her late uncle and the woman who provided care for him, on the grounds of its fictitious nature and the absence of free consent due to the husband’s state of health.
The Supreme Court took into account the opinion of the forensic psychiatric expert appraisal, which completely refuted the plaintiff’s arguments and confirmed that the husband did not suffer from mental disorders at the time of the marriage registration, was aware of the significance of his actions, and was able to direct them. The Court also took into account that the apartment, which the plaintiff claimed there was an intention to misappropriate, was in municipal ownership at the time the marriage was entered into, had not been privatized, and therefore did not form part of the estate at all. In addition, witness testimonies confirmed that close relations existed between the spouses, they cohabited as a family, and the defendant genuinely cared for the husband and looked after him until his very death. The panel of judges emphasized that a marriage may be declared fictitious only on the condition that both parties acted knowingly without the intention of establishing a family; however, in this case, the plaintiff failed to provide any admissible evidence to substantiate her allegations. At the same time, the court dismissed the defendant’s procedural complaints regarding the failure of the court of appeal to notify her, as the case files prove that the court took all possible measures to summon her, in particular, by publishing an announcement on its official website. Thus, the Supreme Court established that the court of first instance had rendered a lawful decision, which the court of appeal had erroneously overturned.
The Supreme Court sustained the defendant’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the court of appeal, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had dismissed the claim to declare the marriage invalid.
Case No. 705/2159/19 of 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a complaint of a citizen against the unlawful failure to act of a state enforcement officer to ensure the immediate and full execution of a court decision on her reinstatement and the recovery of average earnings.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had approached the consideration of the complaint in an overly formal and narrow manner, focusing solely on the issue of restricting the travel of the debtor’s manager abroad and the timeframes for considering applications under the Law “On Citizens’ Appeals”. At the same time, the courts overlooked the core of the complaint—the prolonged actual non-enforcement of the decision on reinstatement, including the failure to provide a workplace and access to the enterprise. The court of cassation instance indicat… that the courts completely ignored crucial evidence, including the resolution of the head of the higher body of the State Enforcement Service, by which the actions of the enforcement officer had already been officially declared unlawful. In addition, the court of appeal violated procedural rules, as it failed to assess the new evidence submitted by the parties at all and did not state the grounds for its acceptance or rejection. Thus, due to the failure to examine the evidence collected in the case, the courts failed to establish the factual circumstances that are of decisive importance for the correct resolution of the dispute.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 727/1748/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of average earnings from the employer for the period of delay in settlement upon the employee’s dismissal.
The Court noted that the failure to pay severance pay on the day of dismissal is a direct violation of the employee’s labor rights, which imposes an obligation on the employer to pay compensation. At the same time, the Court was guided by the amendments to Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which entered into force in July 2022 and limited the maximum period for calculating such compensation to six months. The judges confirmed that after July 19, 2022, this six-month limitation applies specifically to continuing legal relations that commenced prior to the legislative changes. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of a six-month statutory limit does not revoke the court’s authority to reduce the amount to be recovered based on the principles of proportionality. In determining a fair amount of payment, courts must evaluate the size of the actual debt, the duration of the delay, the financial standing of the enterprise, and the conduct of the parties. Given the obvious disproportion between the claimed demands and the amount of the debt, the panel of judges recognized the recovery of UAH 100,000 as a fair and balanced decision that would not become an excessive burden on the critical infrastructure enterprise.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant and left the ruling of the court of appeal on the recovery of UAH 100,000 in favor of the dismissed employee unchanged.
Case No. 740/2465/22 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the legality and validity of the conviction of a citizen for unlawful handling of weapons, ammunition, or explosive substances under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Since the panel of judges has currently pronounced only the operative part of the decision, the detailed reasoning of the court will be set forth in the text of the ruling, which will be published in a few days. However, within the scope of the cassation review, the judges focused on verifying whether the court of appeal correctly applied the provisions of criminal law and whether it committed any significant violations of the procedural rights of the accused. Obviously, the panel of judges thoroughly……analyzed the appellant’s arguments regarding possible procedural errors or incorrect evaluation of evidence by the lower court. The Court concluded that the judgment of the court of appeal is lawful, substantiated, and fair, and the case hearing procedure did not contain any violations that would require setting aside the decision. Thus, the arguments of the convicted person regarding the unlawfulness of his sentence were found to be groundless and were fully dismissed by the court of cassation.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the judgment of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal unchanged and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 755/958/25 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the criminal liability of a driver for violating road traffic safety rules while under the influence of drugs, which resulted in a collision with an electric bicycle and caused moderate bodily injuries to the victim.
The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeal committed material violations of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the rendering of a lawful and substantiated decision. In particular, the materials of the case do not contain any proper confirmation that the accused and the victim were notified in a timely and proper manner of the date, time, and place of the case hearing on appeal. The mere presence in the case files of certificates regarding the sending of SMS messages, in the absence of delivery reports or relevant statements from the participants consenting to such a format, cannot be deemed proper notification. Holding the hearing in the absence of the accused deprived him of the right to defense, participation in closing arguments, and making a final statement. At the same time, the victim was deprived of his legal right to express his opinion directly in court regarding the severity of the imposed punishment. Since the fundamental principles of equality, adversarial proceedings, and the right to participate in the process were grossly violated, the panel of judges concluded that the decision of the appellate court could not be upheld.
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and remanded the criminal proceedings for a new hearing to the court of appeal.
Case No. 359/208/19 dated 04/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the accusation of a former state cadastral registrar of neglect of official duty, which allegedly led to the illegal registration of three land plots valued at over two million hryvnias and caused grave consequences to state interests.
The panel of judges of the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts regarding the innocence of the official, as the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court established that the actual registration of the disputed land plots did not take place, as the accused had only created applications in the system, and the plots themselves are completely absent from the National Cadastral System. Furthermore, the prosecutors did not provide the original registration files and p…relied on copies of documents that were obtained in an extraprocedural manner and were not disclosed to the defense. The Court also drew attention to the fact that the indictment did not specify the official duties allegedly breached by the registrar, and failed to prove the causal link with the consequences. Finally, the land valuation expert assessment was conducted by an unauthorized person without the permission of the investigating judge, and the unlawful ownership of the land arose due to a forged order of the district state administration, rather than the actions of the accused.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, completely dismissing the cassation appeal of the prosecutor.
Case No. 345/5000/24 of 05/26/2026
The subject of the court review in this case is the legality of the conviction of a person for hooliganism under Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as the lawfulness of the resolution of the victim’s civil claim for damages within the criminal proceedings.
Since only the operative part of the resolution has been published, and the full text will be pronounced later, the key reasoning of the court can be reconstructed through the prism of its procedural decision. The Supreme Court, apparently, identified material violations of the requirements of the procedural law committed by the lower courts specifically during the consideration of the victim’s civil claim. The judges concluded that the issue of compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage had not been properly examined, which prevented the rendering of a lawful and fair decision in this part. At the same time, the panel of judges found no grounds to doubt that the guilt of the convicted person in committing hooliganism had been proven; therefore, the sentence in terms of criminal punishment was upheld. Thus, the Supreme Court decided to separate the issue of criminal liability from the civil law consequences, remanding the civil claim for a new trial under the rules of civil procedure for a more detailed clarification of all the circumstances of the damage caused.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, vacating the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances in the part concerning the resolution of the civil claim and ordering a new trial in this part in the court of first instance under civil procedure, while upholding the remaining parts of the judicial decisions.
Case No. 638/19723/16-k of 06/02/2026
I cannot perform a detailed analysis of this judicial decision, as the provided text is only a brief operative part of the Supreme Court’s resolution, which by law does not contain a description of the circumstances of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the reasoning part justifying the court’s position.
Case No. 757/43162/23-ts of 06/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the recovery of two land plots in the city of Kyiv from another’s unlawful possession and the cancellat…ation of the decisions of the state registrar on the registration of the mortgage and encumbrances on this property.
The court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff had acquired ownership of the land plots on the basis of a valid purchase and sale agreement, which had not been declared invalid in judicial proceedings. At the same time, the company “Galfina Business LTD” registered ownership of the same land through unauthorized interference with the state register on behalf of a notary who, in fact, had not performed any registration actions, which was subsequently officially cancelled by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Since the seller had no legal rights to the property, the subsequent purchase and sale and mortgage agreements with LLC “Tsyfro-room” are void and do not produce legal effects. The court also established the bad faith of the actions of LLC “Tsyfro-room”, which knew or should have known about the doubtfulness of the prior registration of ownership by the seller. Furthermore, the transfer of the land plots to the defendant was gratuitous, which, pursuant to Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, gives the lawful owner an unconditional right to recover its property in any case. Finally, the cancellation of decisions on the registration of the mortgage and encumbrances was recognized by the court as the most effective remedy, which allows for the full restoration of the rights of the lawful possessor without the need to initiate new court proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Tsyfro-room” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to satisfy the claim and return the land to the lawful owner.
Case No. 324/258/17 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the legality and validity of the judicial decisions of the lower instances regarding the acquittal of two persons due to the failure to prove their participation in a robbery, and the conviction of a third individual under Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of a robbery by a group of persons upon prior conspiracy. The witnesses questioned in the case were not direct eyewitnesses to the crime, and their testimony was based solely on the words of the victim himself, who had died prior to the trial. The record of interrogation of the victim at the pre-trial investigation stage was entirely absent from the case file, and the prosecutor was unable to present it to the court for examination. The court recognized the record of the investigative experiment involving the deceased victim as inadmissible evidence, as the video-recorded answers to the investigator’s leading questions contradicted the defendants’ testimony regarding joint alcohol consumption. Due to the death of the victim and the impossibility of conducting his cross-examination in court, it proved impossible to resolve the resulting contradictions in the evidence. Guided by the principle of the presumption of innocence, the court interpreted all doubts regarding the guilt of the two acquitted persons in their favor due to the lack of other admissible evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court,…, by which the acquittal of two individuals and the conviction of the third defendant were upheld, — unchanged.
Case No. 534/2031/12 dated 09/06/2026
The subject of consideration in these proceedings is the scheduling for cassation review of the convict’s appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeals, which were rendered as far back as 2013 and 2014, respectively.
The judge took into account that the criminal case based on the convict’s cassation appeal had been requisitioned back in July 2014 by a ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases. Due to the large-scale judicial reform and the entry into force of amendments to the procedural legislation, the powers of the court of cassation were transferred to the newly established Supreme Court. Pursuant to the requirements of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”, the materials of this case were duly transferred to the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. The Court stated that at this stage, all necessary preparatory actions for the consideration of the convict’s appeal had been fully and successfully completed. Guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960 and the transitional provisions of the current Code, the judge established the existence of all legal grounds for scheduling the case for hearing. The Court also emphasized the need for mandatory notification of all interested participants in the proceedings of the date and time of the upcoming court hearing.
The judge ruled to schedule the cassation review of the criminal case for June 11, 2026, and to notify all participants in the proceedings specified by law.
Case No. 380/25163/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the unlawful, in the opinion of the plaintiffs (family members of the deceased border guard), omission of the bodies of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding the non-awarding and non-payment to them of a lump-sum monetary assistance in the amount of 15 million hryvnias in connection with the death of the serviceman during martial law.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to judicial protection is limited by procedural deadlines, which discipline the participants in the proceedings and ensure the principle of legal certainty. The Court noted that the plaintiffs learned of the refusal to pay the assistance as early as the end of 2023, when they received official letters from the Border Guard Detachment concluding that they had no right to the payment of 15 million hryvnias. The panel of judges rejected the findings of the court of appeals regarding the informative nature of these letters, pointing out that they contained a final resolution of the matter on the merits. The Court emphasized that the repeated application of the plaintiffs with identical statements in 2024 and the receipt of a new refusal does not interrupt and does not restart the running of the six-month period for applying to the court. Furthermore, the prolonged passive behavior of the plaintiffs for almost 11 months without valid and insurmountable reasons indicates that they have missed the procedural deadline, which constitutes grounds for leaving… lawsuit without consideration.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the defendants, vacated the resolution of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance leaving the lawsuit without consideration due to missing the deadline for applying to the court.
Case No. 520/32040/25 of 09/06/2026
1. The subject matter of this legal dispute is a procedural issue regarding the possibility of involving the wife of the deceased plaintiff as his legal successor in a case seeking to declare the actions of the Pension Fund unlawful and to oblige it to recalculate and pay the pension without applying reduction coefficients.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that procedural succession in administrative proceedings is possible only if legal succession in substantive legal relations has occurred. In accordance with civil legislation, the right to a pension is inextricably linked to the person of the decedent, and therefore it does not form part of the estate. Heirs may only claim specific pension amounts that had already been accrued during the pensioner’s lifetime but remained unreceived due to his death. Since the subject matter of this lawsuit was a claim to change the method of calculating the pension for the future, these legal relations are purely personal and terminated upon the death of the plaintiff. Since the challenged decision of the court of first instance to terminate the proceedings did not in any way determine the personal rights or obligations of the deceased’s wife, she had no procedural right to file an appeal against it. Thus, the appellate court acted entirely lawfully in terminating the proceedings on her appeal due to the lack of grounds for legal succession.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the deceased plaintiff’s wife and upheld the ruling of the appellate court to terminate the proceedings.
Case No. 145/146/17 of 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this judicial review is a citizen’s application for the review of judicial decisions on holding him administratively liable, in connection with the European Court of Human Rights establishing a violation of international obligations by Ukraine in the resolution of this case.
The Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the current legislation explicitly provides for the possibility of reviewing resolutions in cases on administrative offenses if an international judicial institution whose jurisdiction is recognized by Ukraine has established a violation by the state. Having examined the materials, the court established that the applicant had properly substantiated his claims by attaching a copy of the ECtHR judgment in the case of “Avramych v. Ukraine” in English to the application. At the same time, for a complete and objective consideration of the case by the national court, an official copy of this judgment, along with its authentic translation into Ukrainian, is required. The law imposes the duty to request such documents on the reporting judge, who must immediately apply to the body responsible for coordinating the enforcement of decisions of the interna…tional judicial institution. Since the submitted application fully complies with all procedural requirements of the law and there are no grounds for its return, the court concluded that it is necessary to take this procedural step. Such authorized body in Ukraine is the Ministry of Justice, to which the court sends the relevant request to obtain official documents.
The court ruled to request from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine a copy of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of “Avramych v. Ukraine” and its official translation for further consideration of the application.
Case No. 638/19723/16-k dated 02/06/2026
The subject of this legal dispute is the legality of the reclassification of the accused’s actions from attempted intentional homicide to compelling the fulfillment of civil law obligations, as well as the lawfulness of his subsequent release from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the inspection of a rented apartment without a ruling of an investigating judge or the consent of the actual tenants constitutes a violation of the right to the inviolability of the home, even if the permission for this was given by the direct owner of the premises. In addition, the judges confirmed the absence of evidence in the case file of direct intent of the accused to kill the victims, which makes the reclassification of their actions under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine entirely justified. The panel of judges noted that the court of appeals thoroughly examined and evaluated all admissible evidence, including witness testimonies, the results of covert investigative actions, and expert opinions. Regarding the prosecutor’s arguments about an excessively lenient punishment, the court pointed out that the individual was sentenced to the maximum term within the sanction of the article, taking into account his severe chronic illnesses and the absence of a prior criminal record. The prosecutor failed to provide convincing arguments proving the manifest injustice or disproportionality of such a measure of coercion. In view of this, the decision of the court of appeals to release the person from liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations is entirely lawful and procedurally justified.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and leave the ruling of the court of appeals unchanged.
Case No. 990/469/25 dated 04/06/2026
**Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of this dispute is the demands of candidates for the position of a judge to declare unlawful and annul the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in part of approving the results of their cognitive abilities testing, due to which they were not admitted to the next stage of the exam, and to oblige the Commission to reinstate their participation in the selection process.
**Main arguments on which the court relied:**
Firstly, the court noted that the law explicitly excludes cognitive abilities testing from the obligation of prior publication of the list of questions, and all necessary informati…ation on the structure and evaluation methodology had been published by the Commission in advance and in full. Secondly, the court found the plaintiffs’ allegations of improper operation of computer equipment and software freezing to be unproven, since the candidates did not address the authorized persons with technical complaints directly during the testing, as required by the rules. Thirdly, the panel of judges emphasized that the Commission had acted exclusively within its powers, ensuring the proper organization of the exam, as well as the development and testing of a reliable database of test questions with the involvement of a specialized developer. Fourthly, the court found lawful the refusal to provide the plaintiffs with the full texts of the questions with correct answers, as these materials constitute restricted access information, and their disclosure could prejudice the impartiality of future selection procedures. In addition, establishing a time limit of 30 minutes for 40 questions is within the sole discretion of the Commission, which is not obliged to set the same duration of tests for different competitions. Finally, the court emphasized that the candidates’ failure to achieve the passing score is an objective consequence of the competition, and granting the claim would place other participants in the selection at an unequal disadvantage.
**Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court rendered a decision to fully deny the claims of the candidates.
Case No. 174/768/23 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the fact of the plaintiff’s cohabitation as a single family with the decedent for not less than five years prior to the opening of the inheritance, which entitles him to claim the inheritance of real property in the fourth order of succession.
The Supreme Court was guided by the premise that the groundless reinstatement by the court of appellate jurisdiction of the period for appealing a decision that has already entered into legal force is a direct violation of the principle of legal certainty and the right to a fair trial. The judges emphasized that for a prosecutor acting in the interests of the city council, the running of the period for appeal begins from the moment the decision is received by this specific local self-government body, and not from the day the decision was discovered by the prosecutor in the court register. The appellate court failed to properly verify when exactly the city council had received a copy of the decision of the court of first instance, and failed to provide convincing and objectively insurmountable reasons for reinstating this period almost a year after the decision was rendered. Furthermore, the appellate court overlooked the fact that the city council itself had fully admitted the claims back in the court of first instance. Due to these procedural violations, the panel of judges concluded that the appellate proceedings had been opened erroneously and prematurely, without proper reasoning of the validity of the reasons for missing the period.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, set aside the ruling on the opening of appellate proceedings and the resolution of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a re-determination of the issue of the possibility of opening proceedings.Case No. 932/5808/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the debtor’s challenge of the failure of the State Enforcement Service to act regarding the non-removal of attachments on his property, which were imposed over ten years ago in enforcement proceedings that have now been destroyed, and the limitation periods for the presentation of enforcement documents have long since expired.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the seizure of property is exclusively a measure of securing the enforcement of a court decision; therefore, it cannot exist indefinitely and autonomously in the absence of pending enforcement proceedings or a real possibility of its execution. The judges noted that the long-term maintenance of restrictions on the debtor’s property (in this case, for more than 10 years) in the absence of any actions on the part of the creditor is a disproportionate interference with the person’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which directly violates the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The panel of judges also confirmed that it is the legal successor of the state enforcement service body that originally imposed the seizure that is obliged to resolve the issue of its lifting. In addition, the court clarified that the proper remedy for the debtor in such a case is precisely the filing of a complaint against the failure of the state enforcer to act within the framework of judicial control, rather than filing a separate civil action. Since the court of appeal failed to properly examine these circumstances and did not assess the lawfulness of the prolonged restriction on the owner’s rights, the Supreme Court concluded that a re-examination of the evidence is necessary.
The Supreme Court partially sustained the cassation appeal of the debtor’s representative, set aside the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 380/25163/24 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the actions and omissions of the bodies of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding the refusal to award and pay a lump-sum financial assistance in the amount of 15 million hryvnias to the family members of a deceased serviceman, as well as the plaintiffs’ compliance with the statutory six-month period for applying to the court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the six-month period for applying to the court is calculated from the day when the person learned or should have learned of the violation of their rights, which is an important tool for ensuring legal certainty and disciplining the participants in the proceedings. The Court established that the plaintiffs had received a clear and final refusal to pay the assistance back in October 2023, meaning that from that very moment they knew for certain of the violation of their rights and had a real opportunity to apply to the court. These initial reply letters of the border guard detachment were in the nature of resolving the issue on the merits, rather than being merely of an informative or administrative nature, as the court of appeal erroneously believed. The repeated application of the plaintiffs with identical requests in September 2024 and the receipt of a new, similar refusal cannot be considered as the startm of the running of the period for applying to court, as this would allow for the artificial and indefinite renewal of procedural time limits, negating the institution of the statute of limitations. The prolonged passive behavior of the plaintiffs for almost 11 months, in the absence of any objectively insurmountable circumstances, indicates that the reasons for missing the deadline were not excusable. The good-faith exercise of procedural rights obliges the parties to the case to act conscientiously and without undue delay; therefore, the court of first instance quite lawfully left the claim without consideration.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the border authorities, reversed the resolution of the court of appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the claim without consideration due to missing the period for applying to court.
Case No. 752/14827/25 of 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this judicial review is the submission of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to transfer the criminal proceedings charging an individual with fraud from one court to another, which are located within the jurisdiction of different courts of appeal.
Since only the operative part of the ruling was pronounced by the panel of judges, the detailed reasoning of the decision will be set out in the full text of the judicial act. However, based on the practice of considering similar matters under Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court assessed the existence of exceptional circumstances for changing the territorial venue. The judges analyzed whether the change of court would ensure the promptness and efficiency of the trial, in particular, taking into account the place of residence of the accused, the victims, and witnesses. Apparently, the panel of judges did not find convincing evidence that the consideration of the case in the court of origin is impossible or significantly impeded. The Court was guided by the general principle that criminal proceedings must be conducted by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed, unless there are extraordinary grounds for otherwise. Consequently, the arguments of the court of appeal regarding the necessity of transferring the case to another region were deemed insufficient to depart from the general rules of venue.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the submission of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, refusing to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court.
Case No. 990/372/24 of 02/06/2026
In this case, the subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions and decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, which declared Judge PERSON_1 of the Oktyabrskyi District Court of the City of Poltava as not corresponding to the position held, and recommended that the High Council of Justice dismiss her.
Firstly, the court concluded that in the presence of a negative opinion of the Public Integrity Council, the decision on the judge’s compliance with the position held had to be made exclusively by the plenary composition of the Commission, rather than its panel, which lacked the legal authority to do so. Secondly, the contested decision was declared unreasoned, since the Commission limit…was limited only to a general calculation of points and did not explain for which specific violations and to what extent they were deducted. Furthermore, the court established that the facts of rendering decisions during vacations or training were simple clerical errors in the dates of documents created by the assistant, whereas the judge affixed real electronic signatures on working days. Also, the Commission groundlessly ignored the critically high workload of the judge and the complete absence of complaints regarding her work from the participants in the proceedings throughout her entire career. Regarding the property, the court confirmed that the law does not oblige a judge to verify the sources of income of relatives who are not members of her family, and she corrected the error in the declaration regarding her husband’s apartment on her own as soon as she became aware of it. Finally, the accusations of academic dishonesty proved to be groundless, as the Commission does not have the authority to make such findings, and the judge’s scientific works were actually properly published in the academy’s electronic repository.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the claims, setting aside the Commission’s decision on the judge’s non-compliance with the position held and ordering a repeated interview with her in accordance with the legal procedure.
Case No. 161/7634/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the former wife, acting in her own interests and in the interests of two minor children, for the removal of obstacles to the use of the apartment and for moving into it on the grounds that they were included in the housing order for this residential premises and the lease agreement.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of a tenant’s family member to use the residential premises arises directly in connection with their inclusion in the housing order, and not from the moment of actual physical moving into the apartment. The judges pointed out that the plaintiff and her children were officially included in the housing order, registered their place of residence there, and were also explicitly specified as members of the tenant’s family in the current lease agreement. Furthermore, the panel of judges emphasized that declaring a person to have lost the right to use the housing is possible exclusively through judicial proceedings; however, there were no relevant counterclaims or court decisions in this case. The courts of lower instances erroneously ignored these circumstances and failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the lease agreement, where the plaintiff is specified as a user of the premises. The Supreme Court also noted that the issue of maintaining or losing the right to housing must be resolved while respecting the balance of interests of the parties and the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Due to the incomplete examination of these key pieces of evidence and circumstances, the findings of the lower courts to deny the move-in are premature and groundless.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, vacated the resolution of the Volyn Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 333/6690/18 dated 10/06/2026The subject matter of this legal dispute is the determination of the place of residence of the parties’ minor daughter with one of the parents (the mother or the father) and the recovery of child support for her maintenance.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in resolving such sensitive disputes, the key principle is ensuring the best interests of the child, which have absolute priority over the interests and rights of the parents themselves. The judges took into account that current legislation and international standards do not contain any presumption in favor of the mother, and both parents have absolutely equal rights and duties regarding the child’s upbringing. An important argument was the direct hearing of the opinion of the girl herself, who was almost 12 years old at the time of the review: she clearly, consistently, and consciously expressed her desire to reside precisely with her father. This position of the child was fully corroborated by the findings of psychologists and guardianship authorities, who recorded a deep psycho-emotional bond between the girl and her father and her certain alienation from her mother. Furthermore, the court drew attention to the fact that the child had already been residing for a long time in a stable and safe environment with her father, who fully provides for her development, education, and medical care; therefore, a change in her established lifestyle would not meet her interests.
The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the decisions of the courts of lower instances to determine the child’s place of residence with the father.
Case No. 568/1010/21 dated 08/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the division of the common joint property of the former spouses, namely: a residential building, a production facility (grain storage), and funds withdrawn from a bank account.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the statutory presumption of the community of marital property, according to which all property acquired during the marriage is deemed to be joint, and the burden of rebutting this rule rests on the spouse who disagrees with it. Since the disputed residential building was registered as newly created property in 2011 during the marriage, and no proper evidence of its construction solely prior to the marriage or with the husband’s personal funds was provided, the court recognized it as an object of joint ownership. Regarding the grain storage building, the courts established that the husband had acquired it during the marriage on account of a property share, and refuted the allegations that this building belonged to a farm enterprise, since the property had not been transferred to its charter capital. Pension payments in the amount of UAH 310,000, which the husband withdrew in cash shortly before the divorce, were also recognized by the court as joint property, since a pension received during marriage constitutes joint income. At the same time, the court rejected the arguments regarding the expenditure of these funds on the husband’s medical treatment, as there were no financial documents, receipts, or medical service agreements in the case files that would substantiate such expenses. Thus, due to the lack of evidence rebutting the presumption of community of property, the court concluded on the necessit…ts division in equal shares.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the husband’s legal successors and upheld the decisions of the lower courts on the division of property in equal shares and the recovery of 155,000 hryvnias in compensation in favor of the wife.
Case No. 300/1656/25 dated 09/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the appeal against the orders of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, which denied a private company’s request to amend a special subsoil use permit to expand the boundaries of the mining area.
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had rendered premature decisions, as they failed to properly examine all the factual circumstances of the case and the available evidence. In particular, the courts limited themselves only to the analysis of the minutes of the State Commission on Mineral Resources, but completely ignored the information report of “Geoinform of Ukraine” and the minutes of the Working Group, which directly served as the grounds for the refusal. In addition, the courts failed to consider the important arguments of the StateGeonadra that the expansion area is located within the protective zone of railway transport, which could potentially threaten traffic safety. The Court also emphasized that the colleagues from the lower courts had not verified whether the requirements of the Law “On Administrative Procedure” regarding the company’s right to participate in the consideration of its application prior to the adoption of an adverse decision had been complied with. Thus, the courts violated the procedural principle of the official investigation of the circumstances of the case, failing to establish what specific “inaccurate information” became the actual reason for the refusal to amend the permit.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the StateGeonadra, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new consideration to the Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court.
Case No. 300/3643/25 dated 03/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of a tax assessment notice, by which more than 30 million hryvnias in penalties were imposed on a Ukrainian enterprise for the alleged violation of the deadlines for settlements in the field of foreign economic activity.
The Court was guided by the fact that the termination of obligations by offsetting mutual homogeneous claims is an absolutely lawful method of settlement guaranteed by the civil and commercial legislation of Ukraine. The panel of judges emphasized that the restrictions of the National Bank of Ukraine regarding the prohibition of removing transactions from currency supervision are addressed exclusively to authorized banks, and not to business entities. Subordinate regulations of the NBU cannot limit the constitutional right of business to freedom of entrepreneurial activity and the free choice of the form of settlement, unless they are expressly prohibited by laws. The Court also took into account that the enterprise held a valid certificate of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which duly confirmed the force majeure circumstances caused by
