Case No. 162/675/23 dated 05/20/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this Supreme Court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of insurance indemnity and compensation for non-pecuniary damage from a military unit and the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU) due to a person’s death in a traffic accident caused by a serviceman driving an official vehicle.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal possessor of a source of increased danger (a vehicle) — in this case, the military unit, and not the driver directly — bears liability for damage caused by it.
– The Court clarified that the fact of a disciplinary violation by a serviceman (unauthorized departure from the unit or using the vehicle without permission) does not automatically constitute “unlawful dispossession” of property that would exempt the unit from liability.
– It was emphasized that the materials of an internal investigation relate only to internal disciplinary liability but do not determine civil-law consequences for the victims.
– The Court pointed out that the military unit, as the possessor, bears liability for the actions of its employee, since access to the vehicle was provided precisely by virtue of his official position.
– The Supreme Court also noted that the court of appeal erred by re-evaluating evidence that had already been duly examined by the court of first instance.
– A significant conclusion is that placing liability on the military unit does not deprive it of the right to file a recourse claim against the negligent driver after paying compensation to the victims.
– Regarding the amount of non-pecuniary damage, the Court confirmed the discretionary powers of the court of first instance, noting that the determined amount must be fair and balanced, rather than mathematically calculated.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim against the military unit for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was partially satisfied.
Case No. 907/1035/25 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A participant of a limited liability company filed a lawsuit to compel the company to provide her access to and copies of a wide list of documents regarding economic activities, as the company had ignored her repeated requests.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court confirmed that a participant’s right to obtain information about a company’s activities is a fundamental corporate right necessary for exercising control over the activities of the executive body.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the list of documents defined by Article 43 of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” is not exhaustive, as economic activity requires flexible regulation.
– The Court…applied the principle of “broad interpretation” of a participant’s right, which allows for the inspection of any documents containing information about the company’s activities, provided that they fall into the categories defined by law.
– The defendant’s arguments regarding the absence of an obligation to retain documents for past periods were rejected, as the retention periods for accounting and reporting documents are clearly regulated by regulatory acts (in particular, the List of Standard Documents of the Ministry of Justice).
– The court noted that the presence of personal data of other persons in the documents is not grounds for a complete refusal to provide information, as the company may provide documents with depersonalization (redaction) of confidential data.
– The court also emphasized that the defendant’s reference to the public nature of court registers does not exempt the company from the obligation to provide information directly to the participant upon their request.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the participant’s claims for the provision of documents.
Case No. 278/3987/23 of 08/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the conviction of a driver for a traffic violation that caused moderate bodily injuries to the victim, due to the defense’s disagreement with the assessment of evidence and the established circumstances of the traffic accident.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, proceeded from the fact that the cassation instance is a court of law, not of fact, and therefore does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or re-establish the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the defense’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case and the incompleteness of the judicial investigation are not grounds for overturning decisions in cassation proceedings. The appellate court duly examined all arguments of the defense counsel, in particular regarding the point of collision and the presence of an additional traffic lane, and reasonably rejected them, relying on official data from the State Road Service and the results of investigative experiments. The Court also noted that the expert opinion provided by the defense was based on unreliable initial data, and therefore its rejection was lawful. Since the appellate court provided exhaustive answers to all arguments of the appeal and did not commit any material violations of procedural law, there are no grounds for overturning the challenged ruling.
The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 917/119/24(910/4963/24) of 26/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Naftogazvydobuvannya” in favor of LLC “Service Oil” of a penalty for delay in payment for completed well-drilling works in the amount of over 4.6 million UAH.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the reduction of the amount of the penalty is an exceptionby the discretion (right) of the court, which must assess the circumstances of the case in their entirety. In particular, the courts took into account the martial law and the status of the defendant as a strategic enterprise ensuring the energy security of the state, which objectively complicated the timely fulfillment of monetary obligations. The court also drew attention to the fact that the claimed amount of the penalty (almost 25% of the debt amount), in the absence of evidence of actual losses incurred by the plaintiff, is excessive and violates the balance of the parties’ interests. Another important factor was that the bankruptcy procedure should not lead to the unjustified enrichment of the creditor at the expense of the other party. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence if the courts of lower instances correctly applied the rules of law when assessing the exceptional nature of circumstances for reducing penalties. As a result, the court concluded that a 90% reduction of the penalty is a fair measure to maintain a balance between protecting the creditor’s rights and avoiding an excessive burden on the debtor.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was partially satisfied with a 90% reduction in the amount of the penalty.
Case No. 911/3010/25 dated 02/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of a cassation appeal filed by an individual against the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, which denied the initiation of insolvency proceedings for the debtor.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court emphasized that in order to initiate insolvency proceedings, the debtor is obliged to provide proper and admissible evidence confirming the fact of insolvency or the threat thereof.
* The Supreme Court confirmed the position of the lower instances that providing only a credit report (for example, from the Ukrainian Credit Bureau) is insufficient to confirm the amount and structure of the debt, as such a report does not replace primary accounting documents.
* The court noted that the applicant did not provide the legal instruments (loan agreements) based on which the obligations arose, which made it impossible to verify the actual amount of debt and the deadlines for its fulfillment.
* Regarding the argument about the threat of insolvency, the court found it unsubstantiated, as the debtor failed to prove a causal link between the circumstances (loss of job, child support) and the inability to fulfill obligations.
* The court drew attention to the “artificial” increase in the debt burden, as most of the loans were obtained by the debtor over a short period of time (within 3-5 months) without any explanation of their purpose.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that since other participants in the case are absent at the stage of initiating proceedings, the burden of proving in good faith the existence of grounds for bankruptcy using primary documents lies solely with the debtor.
* The court also noted that the refusal to initiate proceedings does not deprive the debtor of the right to applyto apply to the court again, provided that they properly prepare and document their claims.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal.
Case No. 922/2485/25 dated 02/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience in the field of commercial law, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a summary of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Verification of the legality of the initiation of insolvency proceedings for a natural person by a commercial court upon the application of the debtor.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the debtor provided a complete package of documents required by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP), in particular, a detailed list of creditors and a declaration of assets.
* It was established that there were grounds for opening proceedings, as the debtor proved the fact of cessation of payments in the amount of more than 50% of the total obligations for two months and the existence of signs of imminent insolvency.
* The court emphasized that a combination of all grounds defined by law is not necessary for opening proceedings; the existence of one or more of them is sufficient.
* Regarding the appellant’s arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, the court noted that the appellant is effectively attempting to seek a reassessment of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
* The courts of lower instances duly verified the authenticity of the origin of the creditors’ funds and the debtor’s financial status, without identifying any circumstances that would prevent the opening of proceedings (in particular, there is no data on unlawful actions of the debtor or imposition of liability).
* The Supreme Court emphasized that cassation review should be carried out to correct fundamental errors, not for a re-examination of the case on the merits.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 918/56/20(918/723/25) dated 26/05/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in an interview format:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the owner of a part of a building to invalidate the results of an auction for the sale of a land plot on which this building is located, and the contract of sale of this plot concluded within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
**2. Court’s arguments**
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided primarily by the principle of effective judicial protection and procedural economy. The court emphasized that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff—invalidating the auction and the contract—does not automatically lead to the acquisition of ownership of the land plot by the plaintiff, but merely returns it to the debtor’s liquidation estate. Since the plaintiff is the owner of only a part of the building, and not the entire object, automatic application ofthe principle of the unity of the legal status of a land plot and real estate is impossible without the prior subdivision of the plot. The court noted that granting the claim in such a form does not resolve the dispute on the merits, but merely creates grounds for new lawsuits, which contradicts the purpose of justice. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, the primary objective is the equitable distribution of assets among all creditors, rather than satisfying the interests of an individual outside the established procedure. Therefore, as the chosen method of protection is not effective for restoring the plaintiff’s rights, the claims are not subject to satisfaction.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied the claim in its entirety.
Case No. 725/8242/25 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted through the court to dissolve a marriage, determine the child’s place of residence with him, and establish the legal fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of the child, which was effectively aimed at obtaining grounds for a deferment from mobilization.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that persons who did not participate in the case have the right to file an appeal if the decision affects their interests; therefore, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCC and SP) had full authority to appeal the decision of the first instance, as it relates to the fulfillment of the public duty of mobilization.
– The Supreme Court stressed that private-law instruments (a claim to establish a fact) cannot be used to avoid fulfilling the constitutional duty to defend the state.
– The court noted that the mere fact of a child living with the father by mutual agreement is not automatic proof of “sole upbringing” within the meaning of the law, as parents have equal duties that cannot be alienated or transferred.
– To establish the fact of sole upbringing, it is necessary to prove that the other parent is evading their duties, which the plaintiff failed to do.
– The court of first instance made an error by failing to involve the guardianship and custody authority and by failing to properly examine the mother’s actual involvement in the child’s upbringing.
– The Supreme Court indicated that a court decision cannot be based on assumptions or artificially created circumstances intended solely to obtain preferences in public-law relations.
– The court’s conclusion is based on the established practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the abuse of procedural rights to avoid mobilization is inadmissible.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had denied the claim regarding the establishment of the fact of sole child upbringing.
Case No. 924/1083/25 dated 06/02/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experiencewith experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Below is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Recovery of 3% per annum and inflation losses from a distribution system operator (power supply company) accrued due to delay in payment for electricity transmission services stipulated by the contract.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the contractual relationship between the parties provides for mandatory payment for both planned and actual volumes of services, which are interconnected obligations. The Court stressed that the user does not have the option to choose between paying for the planned volume or the actual volume, as both payments are part of a monetary obligation. Accordingly, delay in the payment of planned installments established by the contract constitutes a breach of a monetary obligation, which entails liability under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The Appellate Court mistakenly believed that the accrual of 3% per annum on planned payments was groundless, as it ignored the terms of the contract and the established practice of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court confirmed that the creditor’s right to accrue inflation losses and 3% per annum arises regardless of whether the delay pertains to the planned or actual volume of services. Thus, the cassation appeal was granted because the appellate court had incorrectly applied the rules of substantive law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the refusal to recover 1,545.88 UAH of 3% per annum and rendered a new decision granting the claim in this part, while upholding the remainder of the decision.
**Case No. 761/26992/23 dated 06/11/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
**1. Subject Matter of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s property rights to an apartment in a new building and the prohibition for the defendant to disconnect utilities, which arose as a result of a conflict regarding the performance of a shared construction participation agreement.
**2. Court Arguments**
* The appellate court established that the first-instance court’s decision was rendered in violation of procedural norms, as it directly affects the rights and obligations of a person (PERSON_2) who was not involved in the case, although at the time of consideration, they were already the registered owner of the disputed apartment.
* The Appellate Court reasonably denied the claim, as the plaintiff filed claims against an improper defendant, which is an independent ground for dismissing the claims.
* Regarding the reimbursement of legal aid expenses, the court noted that the appellate appeal is the first statement on the merits of the case for a person who did not participate in the court of first instance; therefore, they were obliged to submit a preliminary calculation of legal expenses along with this appeal.
* The Supreme Court upheld the appellate position, emphasizing that the failure to submit such a calculation gives the court the right to refuse reimbursement of legal aid expenses, guided by the principles of dispositivity andproportionality of legal proceedings.
* The court of cassation instance also confirmed the legitimacy of reinstating the time limit for appellate review for PERSON_2, as she proved that she learned about the violation of her rights only after gaining access to the case materials.
* The Supreme Court stated that the arguments of the appellants boil down to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence already conducted by the court of appeal and do not contain grounds for overturning the contested decisions.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the resolution and ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 686/18588/25 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the prolonged inaction of a state authority in the form of non-enforcement of a court decision from 2011.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff had already exercised his right to receive compensation for a similar violation, having received relevant funds pursuant to a court decision in 2020. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of prolonged non-enforcement of a court decision is not an unconditional basis for the automatic recovery of non-pecuniary damage without proving the fact of its infliction during a specific period. The plaintiff failed to provide proper and admissible evidence confirming that he suffered moral distress during the claimed period (May–June 2025). The court also noted that non-pecuniary damage, by its legal nature, is compensated once, and the plaintiff’s attempts to recover funds for the same fact of violation for different periods are groundless. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and assessing evidence fall within the exclusive competence of the courts of first and appellate instances, in whose decisions no violations of substantive or procedural law were found.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances to deny the claim unchanged.
Case No. 644/852/20 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the question of whether a probation agency has the right to appeal a ruling of the court of first instance, which denied a motion to cancel the exemption of a convicted person from serving a sentence with a probationary period.
2. The court, in rendering its decision, was guided by the position established by the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court on June 1, 2026, which officially changed the previous practice. The Supreme Court noted that probation agencies are not included in the list of persons defined by Article 393 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine who have the right to appeal decisions made in the course of sentence execution. The court emphasized that only the convicted person, their defense attorney, legal representative, and the prosecutor have the right to such an appeal. Thus, the panel of judges departed from the conclusionposition set forth in the ruling of the First Judicial Chamber dated February 12, 2026, where the possibility of challenging such decisions by the probation authority was previously permitted. The Court emphasized that current legislation does not vest entities responsible for the execution of sentences with the authority to file appeals against judicial decisions rendered as a result of the consideration of their own motions. Therefore, the appellate court acted lawfully by returning the complaint to a person who lacks the procedural right to file it.
3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the cassation appeal of the probation authority.
Case No. 753/19378/21 dated 06/10/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the decision regarding the innocence of a person in committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules).
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative, verified the compliance of the appellate court with procedural law norms and the correctness of the application of criminal law norms. The Court proceeded from the fact that during the appellate review, no significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law were identified that would have prevented the court from rendering a lawful and substantiated decision. The panel of judges concluded that the arguments of the appellants did not contain compelling grounds for overturning the challenged ruling, as the appellate court had properly verified all circumstances of the case. The Court confirmed that the appellate findings regarding the lack of grounds for amending or overturning the acquittal are well-reasoned and consistent with the case files. Thus, the Supreme Court found no legal basis for interfering with the decision of the lower court, recognizing it as compliant with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 564/2967/23 dated 06/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the court of first instance’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding a violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of victims (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal of the victims, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court. The Court emphasized that the appellate court, during the review of the case, failed to provide a proper assessment of all arguments set forth in the victims’ appeal, which is mandatory to ensure the right to a fair trial. In particular, requirements regarding the completeness of the examination of the circumstances of the case and the justification of the imposed sentence were ignored. The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of a thorough verification of all arguments of the parties, as an incomplete review of an appeal deprives a judicial decision of the characteristics of legality aand reasoned nature of the decision. Consequently, in order to rectify the violations committed and ensure the correct application of the norms of substantive law, the cassation instance deemed it necessary to remit the case for a new trial. This decision is aimed at ensuring that the appellate court re-examines the case materials in a comprehensive manner, taking into account the observations expressed by the cassation court.
The Supreme Court ruled to set aside the ruling of the Rivne Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 680/520/24 dated 08/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
The subject matter of the dispute is an heir’s claim for a declaration of the non-existence of a company’s leasehold right to a land plot and the removal of obstacles in its use by returning the land to the owner, on the grounds that the lease agreement, in the plaintiff’s opinion, was not signed by the decedent.
**2. Court arguments**
The court was guided by the fundamental principle of good faith, noting that the conduct of participants in civil relations must be consistent. Although the expert examination confirmed that the signature on the lease agreement did not belong to the decedent, the court established that the agreement was, in fact, performed: the lessor had transferred all necessary title documents to the lessee and had also received rent (in monetary and in-kind forms). The court applied the doctrine of estoppel (prohibition of contradictory conduct – *venire contra factum proprium*), indicating that one cannot first facilitate the conclusion of an agreement and receive benefits, and subsequently deny its existence. The court also emphasized that the absence of a signature on a written document does not always mean that an agreement is unexecuted if the parties have effectively performed its terms. Since the plaintiff-heir did not inform the lessee about the change of ownership of the plot, the respondent did not have the opportunity to pay the rent in a timely manner, which excludes the fault of the lessee. In conclusion, the court reached the decision that recognizing the leasehold right as non-existent in such a situation would be an unfair and bad-faith step on the part of the plaintiff.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, by which the plaintiff was denied the satisfaction of the claims.
Case No. 910/25520/13 dated 28/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Determination of the secured creditor’s right to a decisive vote at the meeting or committee of creditors after the realization of the collateral and the transfer of the balance of outstanding claims to the fourth priority of satisfaction.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the right to vote at a meeting or committee of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings has a clearly defined staging, linked to the formation of the composition of competitive creditors at the initial stages of the proceedings. The court emphasized that bankruptcy legislation limits the possibility of changing the composition of votcreditors, as this affects the stability of the procedure and the quorum of the collective bodies of creditors. Although the court agreed with the bank that upon realization of the collateral, claims lose their status as secured and may be reclassified to the fourth priority, this does not imply the automatic acquisition of a decisive vote. The court emphasized that a decisive vote is granted only to those creditors who have filed their claims as non-secured (competitive) claims within the statutory time limit. An expansive interpretation of the rules that would allow a creditor to “buy” voting rights after the sale of collateral contradicts the principles of legal certainty and the objectives of bankruptcy. Thus, despite the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied the consequences of missing the deadline, the outcome — the denial of the right to a decisive vote — was deemed correct by the Supreme Court.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 916/5286/24(916/4103/25) dated 04/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of a partial refusal to a third party regarding the reimbursement of professional legal assistance expenses incurred during the proceedings on the recognition of an enforcement inscription as non-executable.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the reimbursement of legal costs is not automatic and must meet the criteria of reality, necessity, and reasonableness of the amount. The appellate court established that the third party initially supported the claim but later changed its position to the opposite; therefore, the costs for document preparation and participation in hearings incurred while supporting the claim cannot be imposed on the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court concluded that the claimed “success fee” is not recoverable, as the attorney did not effectively secure a successful result for the client in the context of the initial position. It was also established that there was no evidence of a link between the representation in specific court hearings and the legal assistance agreement, as the representation was carried out on the basis of a power of attorney. The Supreme Court supported these conclusions, emphasizing that the appellate court had the right to evaluate the evidence and determine the scope of services actually rendered. The cassation instance stressed that submitting proof of payment is not an unconditional basis for full reimbursement of costs if they do not meet the criteria of proportionality and justification.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 760/9401/13-ts dated 08/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of returning the bank’s appellate appeal due to the improper execution of the attorney’s warrant (order) representing the applicant’s interests.
In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The court emphasized that the right of access to a court is not absolute.and must be implemented in compliance with the procedural requirements established by law.
2. The key violation was that the warrant attached to the complaint did not contain the mandatory two-dimensional barcode (QR code) confirming the relevance of the attorney’s data in the Unified Register.
3. The court emphasized that such a QR code is a mandatory element in accordance with the Regulations on the Warrant, regardless of whether it was produced in paper or electronic form.
4. Since the attorney did not provide other documents confirming authority (for example, a power of attorney or an agreement), the appellate court rightfully recognized the complaint as signed by a person who does not have confirmed authority for this.
5. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments regarding “excessive formalism,” noting that these requirements are clear and aimed at preventing abuses in the judicial process.
6. The court also drew attention to the fact that the bank subsequently rectified the deficiencies, re-filed the complaint, and had already exercised its right to appellate review, which definitively refutes the arguments regarding restricted access to justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appellate complaint and dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 619/7773/25 dated 06/11/2026
The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, which resolved an issue in the criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_7.
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the arguments of the attorney’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court. The panel of judges established that the appellate court failed to ensure a proper consideration of the case, which led to the adoption of a premature or unsubstantiated decision. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural guarantees that ensure the right to a fair trial. Since the appellate court did not rectify the identified deficiencies, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to uphold the challenged ruling. Therefore, to ensure the legality and objectivity of the judicial process, the case must be remanded for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance. This decision is aimed at correcting procedural errors and ensuring full compliance with the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 504/1615/24 dated 06/03/2026
The subject of this dispute is the establishment of the fact of residing as one family with the testator for at least five years in order to obtain the right to inheritance as part of the fourth degree of succession.
The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that for the recognition of a person as a family member of the testator, the mere fact of providing assistance is insufficient, even if it was systematic. The court noted that the key indicators of family relationsthere is cohabitation, maintenance of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations arising from the family nature of the relationship. In this case, the plaintiff resided separately (in the neighborhood), and the evidence provided by her testified only to the care of an elderly person, and not to the creation of a joint household. The court emphasized that care, cooking, or household assistance are manifestations of humanity, but in themselves do not create legal consequences in the form of inheritance by law in the fourth degree of succession. The Supreme Court also pointed out that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence to which the appellate court gave a proper assessment, having established the absence of real family relations. Thus, the cassation appeal was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the set of factors that define a family within the meaning of the Family Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, denying the satisfaction of the claims.
Case No. 916/726/25 dated 15/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of the return of an appellate appeal by the appellate court due to the appellant’s failure to provide evidence of sending a copy of the appeal and its annexes to other participants in the case by registered mail with a description of the attachment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the procedural law (Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine) clearly establishes the obligation of the person filing an appellate appeal to send copies thereof to other participants in the case exclusively by registered mail with a description of the attachment.
* The appellate court rightfully left the appeal without movement, as the appellant provided only courier service waybills, which do not confirm the contents of the shipment and are not proper evidence of compliance with the requirements of the law.
* After being given the opportunity to remedy the defects, the appellant again failed to provide a description of the attachment, which made it impossible for the court to verify the fact of sending the complete package of documents to the other parties.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the receipts attached to the cassation appeal confirmed only the receipt of supplements, and not the appellate appeal itself, therefore the appellant’s arguments were rejected as groundless.
* The court noted that the return of an appeal does not deprive a person of the right to re-apply to the court after the proper preparation of documents, which complies with the principles of access to justice.
* The court’s conclusion is fully consistent with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the mandatory compliance with the procedure of sending documents by registered mail with a description of the attachment.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appellate appeal.
Case No. 920/731/25 dated 11/06/2026
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the contractor in favor of the local self-government body of funds in the amount of 2,693,279.96 UAH in connection with improper performance of contractualof their obligations.
The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, proceeded from the principle of the immutability of the legal position established by the courts of the lower instances, which had examined in detail the evidence of the performance of work. The Court confirmed that the defendant had failed to prove the proper performance of the terms of the contract, which became the basis for the application of pecuniary sanctions against it. The panel of judges concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances had correctly applied the provisions of substantive law governing contractual relations and liability for breach of obligations. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect assessment of evidence were rejected, as the Supreme Court does not have the authority to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case established by lower courts. Thus, the decision on the recovery of funds was recognized as lawful, well-founded, and compliant with the requirements of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the commercial court of appeal.
Case No. 755/16704/24 dated 05/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your review:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An employee filed a lawsuit for the recovery of compensation for unused days of additional social leave as a single mother, as well as compensation for the delay in final settlement upon dismissal and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to additional social leave for a single mother does not depend on the fact of receiving alimony, and the key criterion is the very fact of raising a child without the participation of the father. The Court noted that legislation does not contain an exhaustive list of documents to confirm the status of a single mother; therefore, the employer and the courts must evaluate any official evidence indicating the lack of the father’s participation in raising the child (for example, the search for a debtor, a decision on the deprivation of parental rights, etc.). The courts of previous instances erroneously ignored the evidence provided by the plaintiff, in particular, information about the father’s inclusion in the register of debtors and the absence of information about his whereabouts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal did not provide a proper assessment of these documents in their entirety, which led to a premature conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s lack of right to social leave. Since the issue of the existence of the right to leave is decisive for calculating compensation upon dismissal and non-pecuniary damage, the case must be reviewed taking into account all provided evidence. The court also pointed to the need to verify the defendant’s statement on the application of the statute of limitations, which had not been properly examined previously.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the resolution of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 308/13066/16-ц dated 05/29/2026
Greetings. AsA lawyer with many years of experience has analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the deceased’s statement on the revocation of a will and to cancel the corresponding notarial act, claiming that the signature on the statement was not made by the testator and that the notary had violated the authentication procedure due to the person’s state of health.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of dispositivity: since one of the plaintiffs did not file a cassation appeal, the decision remained unchanged regarding her claims.
– Regarding the request to invalidate the statement, the Court clarified that this is not an appropriate method of legal protection, because in the presence of a dispute over the nullity of a transaction, the court should only verify these arguments in the reasoning part of the decision, rather than satisfy a claim for “invalidation.”
– The Court emphasized that a void transaction does not automatically create legal consequences, and therefore a claim to have it declared invalid is essentially flawed.
– Regarding the request to cancel a notarial act, the Court concluded that such claims are not subject to review in civil proceedings at all, as challenging an individual notarial act is not an effective method of protecting rights.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts erred in considering these claims on their merits, instead of closing the proceedings regarding the notarial act and amending the reasoning regarding the statement on the revocation of the will.
– The Court also confirmed that the presumption of the lawfulness of a transaction remains in effect until it is refuted; however, the method of protection must be aimed at the actual restoration of the violated right.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it left unchanged the decision regarding the claims of one of the plaintiffs, amended the reasoning part regarding the invalidation of the statement, and, regarding the cancellation of the notarial act, overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case.
**Case No. 910/6207/22 of 06/11/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of legal costs for professional legal aid between the parties in a commercial case regarding the recovery of debt under the original and counterclaim.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of proportionality of the claimed legal costs to the volume of services provided and the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court analyzed the work actually performed by the attorneys and concluded that the claimed amounts do not fully meet the criteria of reasonableness and justification. Specifically, the Court took into account that the amount of expenses must be commensurate with the value of the claim and the importance of the case to the party. The panel of judges applied an approach of reducing the amount of reimbursement, as certain stages of legal aid were not properly supported by evidence of their necessity. The Court also took into account the results of the consideration of the cassation appeal, partially satisfying the requirements of both parties regarding the allocation of costs. In the endthe court recalculated the amounts subject to recovery, based on the actual expenditure of time and effort by the representatives to protect their clients’ interests.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, modifying the decisions of the lower courts regarding the allocation of costs for professional legal assistance and determining new amounts to be recovered in favor of each of the parties.
Case No. 644/852/20 dated 06/10/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of an appellate appeal to a representative of the probation authority who attempted to challenge a court decision in criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance verified the appellate court’s compliance with procedural norms when deciding the issue of initiating appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to appellate review must be exercised by an entity vested with the relevant powers in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In this case, the appellate court concluded that the appeal was filed by a person who lacked the procedural grounds to do so or failed to comply with the requirements for curing the defects of the appeal. The cassation court agreed that the return of the appeal was justified, as procedural law clearly defines the circle of persons who have the right to appellate review in specific types of proceedings. The court emphasized that non-compliance with the requirements regarding the subject matter composition or the form of the appeal is an absolute ground for its return without consideration on the merits. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds to overturn the decision of the appellate instance, as it complies with the requirements of legality and justification.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Head of the Juvenile Probation Sector.
Case No. 307/3270/20 dated 06/09/2026
The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a person was convicted of manslaughter (homicide by negligence) (Part 1, Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) with subsequent exemption from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the actual circumstances of the case, established by the lower courts, confirm the guilt of the convicted person in committing a negligent crime, rather than intentional grievous bodily harm resulting in death. The Supreme Court confirmed that the change in legal qualification to a more lenient one (Part 1, Article 119 of the Criminal Code) by the court of first instance does not constitute a violation of the scope of the judicial proceedings, but is a duty of the court to ensure justice. Regarding the arguments concerning the inadmissibility of expert reports due to the non-disclosure of medical documentation, the court noted that the defense did not exercise its right to review them during the trial, which does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible. The court also emphathat the period between the return of the indictment to the prosecutor and its re-submission to the court is not included in the pre-trial investigation period; therefore, no violations of time limits were established. Regarding the judge’s participation in the appellate review, the Court pointed out that since the previous decisions were not overturned by the Supreme Court, there were no grounds for the judge’s recusal. Ultimately, the Court concluded that all evidence was evaluated correctly and the convicted person’s rights to defense were not violated during the proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 349/1866/14-ts dated 06/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings on the claimant’s appeal against a ruling on the installment plan for the execution of a court decision due to the lapse of the one-year appeal period.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a fundamental principle of legal proceedings, and restrictions on access to court must be proportionate and foreseeable.
2. The appellate court mistakenly applied a mandatory prohibition on appeals after the lapse of one year, failing to take into account that the applicant claimed they were unaware of the case proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that sending procedural documents to a regular email address, which is not an official email address within the meaning of the Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (JITS), does not constitute proper notification of a participant in the case.
4. There was no evidence in the case file of the delivery of summonses or court decisions in the manner prescribed by procedural law (via the “Electronic Cabinet” or by registered mail).
5. Since the proper notification of the claimant was not confirmed, the appellate court was obliged to investigate the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline rather than formally refusing to initiate proceedings.
6. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court violated the requirements regarding the motivation of a judicial decision, as it failed to evaluate the appellant’s arguments regarding their non-receipt of court correspondence.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial to resolve the issue of initiating appellate proceedings.
Case No. 550/506/24 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determining an additional period for filing an application for acceptance of an inheritance by an heir under a will who missed the six-month period established by law.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the will in their favor, as they were not related to the decedent and did not reside with them.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that lack of awareness of a will is a valid reason for granting an extension.
