Case No. 278/1726/24 dated 06/10/2026
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. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate gift agreements for a residential house and a land plot concluded with her daughter, claiming that she mistakenly believed them to be life maintenance agreements.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for a transaction to be declared invalid due to mistake (Art. 229 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), the court must establish whether the plaintiff actually misunderstood the nature of the agreement, which affected her expression of will. The court noted that material circumstances in such cases include the plaintiff’s advanced age, state of health, need for care, and whether the alienated property is the only place of residence. In this case, the defendant, in her statement of defense, effectively acknowledged the existence of an arrangement for parental care in exchange for the real estate; however, the courts of lower instances ignored this admission. Furthermore, the appellate court failed to properly assess witness testimony and the fact that the plaintiff continued to reside in the house after the “gift” was formalized. The Supreme Court stressed that without a comprehensive analysis of these circumstances, any conclusion regarding the legality of the transaction is premature. Since the appellate court did not establish these key facts, the case requires a retrial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for a new consideration.
Case No. 333/11111/24 dated 06/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit by an individual for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, and for compensation for moral damages due to the defendant’s dissemination of information in the “Viber” messenger, which the plaintiff considered inaccurate and containing accusations of criminal offenses.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, protects not only facts but also value judgments, which are not subject to refutation or proof of their truthfulness. The court established that the disputed post in “Viber” did not contain specific factual data that could be verified, but was an expression of the author’s subjective opinion, as confirmed by the use of the phrase “this is what I think.” Since the statements did not contain individualized assertions of fact but were in the nature of assumptions, they cannot be recognized as defamation. The court also emphasized that the use of hyperbole or satire in value judgments is permissible in a democratic society. Therefore, as the disseminated information constitutes value judgments rather than factual assertions, the grounds for granting the claimin the defamation claim are absent. Accordingly, the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was also dismissed as derivative from the main claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim.
Case No. 201/5246/22 dated 05/20/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns declaring the decisions of a state registrar regarding the registration of ownership rights to non-residential premises unlawful, recognizing ownership rights to them, and vindicating them from someone else’s unlawful possession.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court focused on gross violations of the procedural rights of the defendant, who claimed that she was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the court proceedings in the first instance. The Court emphasized that the defendant did not receive copies of the statements of claim, court summonses, or the decision itself, which made it impossible for her to defend herself, submit a response to the claim, or file a motion on the application of the statute of limitations. The appellate court, ignoring these arguments, did not fulfill its duty to verify compliance with the principle of equality of parties and the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the reasoned nature of a decision is a guarantee of the right to a fair trial, and the appellate court did not provide answers to the key arguments of the appellant. Since the appellate court did not verify the circumstances regarding proper notification of the party, its conclusions were recognized as premature. Therefore, to ensure the right to defense, the case must be reconsidered in compliance with all procedural guarantees.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 362/4082/24 dated 06/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is declaring a notary’s enforcement inscription as not subject to execution due to a violation of the procedure for its issuance during the foreclosure on the mortgagor’s real estate.
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided exclusively by issues of compliance with the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, since the dispute arose from legal relations derived from a credit agreement between legal entities. The Court noted that according to the current procedural legislation and established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, disputes regarding transactions concluded to secure the performance of a primary economic obligation are subject to consideration exclusively under the procedure of commercial litigation. Since the credit agreement was concluded between a bank and a company, the mortgage agreement, even though it was concluded[…], concluded with a natural person, is inextricably linked to this commercial obligation. The courts of the previous instances erroneously considered the case under civil procedure, which constitutes a material violation of the rules of procedural law. In accordance with the requirements of Article 414 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction is an absolute ground for the reversal of judicial decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the objectives of commercial proceedings prevail over other considerations, and therefore the consideration of the case by a civil court was unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to a commercial court.
Case No. 518/201/14-ts dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerned declaring illegal the decisions of local self-government bodies regarding the privatization of a land plot and the registration of ownership rights to a residential building, as well as recognizing the right of ownership to shares in inherited property and counterclaims for declaring a will invalid.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The Court departed from its previous practice, noting that the absence in the case file of a decision by the executive committee to grant the village council head the authority to perform notarial acts is not a sufficient ground for declaring a will invalid, as this violates the principle of freedom of testamentary disposition.
* The Court emphasized that the right to make a will is a fundamental principle of inheritance law; therefore, formal defects in documents that do not concern the free expression of the testator’s will should not lead to the invalidity of the will.
* Regarding inheritance, the Court established that since the heir (the grandson) had effectively taken over the management of the property, he had accepted the inheritance after his grandfather, which is confirmed by the case materials and witness testimony.
* The Court found the conclusion of the lower courts that a notary’s decree refusing to issue a certificate of the right to inheritance is a mandatory requirement for filing a lawsuit to recognize the right of ownership to inherited property to be erroneous.
* Since there is a genuine dispute over rights between the parties that cannot be resolved out of court, protection of the right of ownership through the court is an appropriate method of legal protection.
* The Court also took into account the principle of prohibition of reformatio in peius (prohibition of turning to the worse), upholding the decisions in the part where the plaintiffs’ rights were protected by the lower courts.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, reversed the decisions of the courts of the previous instances in the part concerning the satisfaction of the counterclaim (declaring the will valid) and in the part regarding the refusal to recognize the right of ownership, and rendered a new decision recognizing the plaintiffs’ right of ownership to shares in the residential building.Case No. 461/260/17 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to cancel the state registration of the municipal property right of the Lviv City Council to non-residential premises and to recover them in favor of LLC JV “Pizza-Pronto,” claiming that the city’s acquisition of ownership of this property was unlawful.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the right of municipal ownership to the disputed premises had already been subject to consideration in other cases, where the legality of the City Council’s actions and the lack of the plaintiff’s ownership rights to these objects were confirmed.
* A key factor was that LLC JV “Pizza-Pronto” used the premises exclusively on the basis of lease agreements, and not as an owner, which refutes the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the company’s ownership rights.
* The court emphasized the principle of finality of court decisions, noting that the plaintiff’s attempts to revise previously established facts are inadmissible.
* Arguments regarding violations during the registration of the ownership right were dismissed, as the courts of lower instances had provided a proper assessment of all documents, and the registration procedure complied with the requirements of the law.
* Regarding the recusals of judges, the Supreme Court found no evidence of their bias or conflict of interest that could have influenced the objectivity of the case proceedings.
* The court also emphasized that the plaintiff, being a beneficiary of the company, had every opportunity to protect the interests of the company in previous judicial proceedings; therefore, her current claims have no legal basis.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courts to deny the lawsuit remained unchanged.
Case No. 331/3872/20 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of a motion by a private enforcement officer for permission to carry out the forced sale of the debtor’s real estate (an apartment) in which a minor child is registered, in the absence of the consent of the guardianship and custody authority.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the mandatory nature of the execution of a court decision is a fundamental principle of justice, and the impossibility of selling property due to the refusal of the guardianship authority should not become an indefinite obstacle for the creditor.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that in the event of a refusal by the guardianship and custody authority, the enforcement officer has the right to apply to the court, which is obliged to evaluate the balance of interests of the parties and the best interests of the child.
– The courts established that the debtor is only the child’s grandmother, not the parent, and therefore does not bear the primary duty of providing the grandchild with housing, as this is the primary duty of the parents.
– An important factit was noted that the debtor has an alternative place of residence, and the apartment itself is not the only shelter for the child, which confirms the absence of a violation of her housing rights.
– The court took into account the debtor’s prolonged failure to comply with the court decision (more than three years) and the absence of other property belonging to her against which execution could be levied to repay the debt.
– It was also taken into account that the debtor herself had previously requested a deferral of the decision’s enforcement, yet even after its expiration, the debt was not repaid, which indicates a lack of good-faith conduct on her part.
– The court emphasized that the formal registration of a child cannot be an instrument for avoiding the fulfillment of legal financial obligations if this violates the rights of a creditor.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which granted the private enforcement officer permission to sell the debtor’s apartment.
Case No. 161/16767/23 dated 06/10/2026
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. **Subject of the dispute:** A claim to recognize a person as having lost the right to use residential premises due to prolonged non-residence.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to recognize a person as having lost the right to housing, the plaintiff must prove the fact of the defendant’s absence for longer than the period established by law, specifically without valid reasons.
– The Court of Appeal established that the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the defendant’s absence during the disputed period (2019–2022), as there was a long-standing conflict between the parties that hindered the use of the housing.
– A key factor was the defendant’s mobilization into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2022, which is a valid reason for absence that excludes the possibility of deprivation of the right to housing under Articles 71 and 72 of the Housing Code of Ukraine.
– The court emphasized that the deprivation of the right to housing is an extreme measure that must comply with the principle of “necessity in a democratic society” according to Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate instance correctly evaluated the evidence, and the appellant’s arguments amount to an attempt to re-evaluate factual circumstances, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
– The court also noted that previous decisions regarding the eviction/entry of the defendant into the premises indicate that he had no voluntary intention to renounce his right to use the apartment.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Court of Appeal unchanged, confirming the defendant’s right to use the housing.
Case No. 922/2185/19 dated 06/03/2026
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:** The prosecutorattempted to invalidate the lease and sublease agreements for a state-owned land plot, as well as to return said plot to the state due to a violation of the procedure for its allocation (outside of competitive bidding).
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court established that the claim for the return of the land plot is, in its essence, restitutory (the return of property following the invalidation of a transaction) rather than a negatory claim; therefore, statutes of limitation apply to it.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a prosecutor cannot arbitrarily change the legal nature of a claim in appellate or cassation proceedings in an attempt to avoid the application of the statute of limitations through the reclassification of claims.
– The court stressed that the information in the State Register of Proprietary Rights is public; therefore, the prosecutor had the opportunity to learn about the violation of the state’s rights back in 2016, when the lease agreement was registered.
– Since the lawsuit was filed in 2019, the three-year statute of limitations had already expired at the time of the filing, which serves as an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
– The court also noted that the contradictory procedural conduct of the prosecutor (changing their position regarding the nature of the claim) is not in good faith and is not subject to protection.
– Ultimately, the court concluded that since the prosecutor failed to prove the existence of valid reasons for missing the deadline, the claims are not subject to satisfaction.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/9390/25 dated 06/11/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenging of a decision by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, initiated by PJSC “AK ‘Kyivvodokanal'” with the aim of invalidating said decision.
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal of the AMCU, conducted a thorough analysis of the lawfulness of the appellate court’s findings regarding the application of substantive and procedural law. The Court concluded that the reasoning part of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court’s ruling required clarification and correction to ensure the correct interpretation of legal norms in the context of antitrust legislation. The panel of judges considered the appellant’s arguments regarding the incompleteness or inaccuracy of the argumentation provided by the appellate court, yet found no grounds to fully overturn the result of the case review. Thus, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the final conclusion of the appeal but provided it with clearer and legally precise justification. This served to eliminate the legal uncertainty that had arisen during the proceedings in the court of second instance. Such an approach ensures uniformity of judicial practice and proper protection of the parties’ rights in disputes with state authorities.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling and leaving [the operative part] unchanged.its operative part unchanged.
Case No. 911/2727/24 dated 05/27/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of specific clauses of supply contracts regarding the inclusion of VAT in the price of goods and the recovery of unjustifiably received funds (VAT) from the supplier, as well as inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances invalidated the contract terms regarding VAT, as they contradicted tax legislation and CMU Resolution No. 178, which provided for a zero VAT rate during the period of martial law. Accordingly, the court ordered the recovery of the principal amount of unjustifiably paid VAT, but denied the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the case, pointed out that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the rules of law regarding liability for delay in a monetary obligation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to return unjustifiably acquired funds arises from the moment they are received, not from the moment the court decision is rendered. Accordingly, the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum is a legal method of protecting the creditor’s rights, regardless of the debtor’s fault. The lower courts did not take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 625 and 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the cassation instance concluded that the refusal to recover these sums was unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the part concerning the refusal to recover inflationary losses and 3% per annum, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/14168/23 dated 06/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise legal analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** LLC “Socar Energy Ukraine” attempted to judicially invalidate the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on imposing a fine for failure to provide information upon the official request of a state commissioner.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that the AMC had provided sufficient evidence (in particular, data from “Ukrposhta” and copies of postal documents) confirming the fact that the request had been sent to the official address of the company and received by the plaintiff’s authorized person. The court emphasized the presumption of good-faith performance of duties by postal employees, which the plaintiff failed to refute with proper evidence. It was also taken into account that the company had previously received other correspondence from the AMC through the same authorized representative, which negates the argument regarding the impossibility of receiving mail due to the suspension of an employment contract. The court emphasized that a business entity bears the responsibilityresponsibility for the organization of its own document management and ensuring the receipt of correspondence at its legal address. Since the plaintiff did not prove the fact of unlawful actions by postal employees or the lack of authority of the person who signed for the letter, there are no grounds for canceling the AMC decision. The court also noted that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, as the courts of lower instances have already established all factual circumstances of the case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Socar Energy Ukraine” unsatisfied, and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 924/502/25 dated 06/02/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The legality of approving a debt restructuring plan for an individual, which included penalties and interest for non-payment of the single social contribution (SSC).
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that the procedure for developing and approving the restructuring plan complies with the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP).
* A key point was the distinction between the legal nature of “arrears” in SSC and “penalties” (interest, fines) for their non-payment.
* The court noted that although SSC arrears are not subject to restructuring under Article 125 of the CUBP, this limitation does not apply to fines and interest, which are financial liability for late payment.
* Since penalties are not the insurance contribution itself, they may be included in the register of creditors’ claims and are subject to restructuring in the general order.
* The restructuring plan was recognized as aimed at the actual restoration of the debtor’s solvency and does not violate the rights of creditors.
* The court also emphasized that since the ruling on the recognition of the tax authority’s monetary claims regarding fines and interest was not challenged earlier, it has entered into legal force and is subject to execution within the bankruptcy procedure.
* Consequently, there were no grounds for refusing to approve the plan as provided for by Article 126 of the CUBP.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, by which the debtor’s debt restructuring plan was approved.
Case No. 320/13320/23 dated 06/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of tax notifications-decisions, by which the taxpayer was assessed additional VAT liabilities and denied budget reimbursement due to the classification of received funds as payment for goods rather than repayable financial aid, as well as due to issues of confirmationtax credit.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court established that systematic receipts of funds from counterparties with the payment purpose stated as “payment for corn” cannot be considered an error, and letters regarding the change of payment purpose to “repayable financial aid” do not constitute primary documents confirming the substance of the transaction.
* The taxpayer failed to provide proper accounting documents (trial balances, journal-orders) for the audit that would confirm the accounting of received loans and their actual repayment, which, pursuant to the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine, is equivalent to the absence of such documents.
* Regarding the tax credit, the Court upheld the position that inclusion of VAT amounts from tax invoices registered in violation of deadlines into the tax credit is possible only in the period of their actual registration, and not in the period of issuance.
* The Court recognized the budget reimbursement of VAT for transactions involving prepayment for services as lawful, since the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine link the right to such reimbursement precisely to the payment of VAT as part of the price, rather than to the fact of receiving services before the end of the reporting period.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence, and the parties’ arguments regarding the failure to consider certain documents amount to an attempt to re-evaluate established circumstances, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
* The Court also noted that the tax authority lawfully relied on the taxpayer’s accounting data, in which the disputed transactions were not reflected as financial aid at the time of the audit.
3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the taxpayer’s claims (revoked the tax adjustment notices in the part concerning the refusal of budget reimbursement of 616,611 UAH) and denied the remaining part of the claims.
Case No. 380/11180/23 dated 06/11/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** An employee challenged her dismissal from the Social Insurance Fund in connection with its reorganization and merger with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, demanding reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court established that the reorganization of the Social Insurance Fund through merger with the Pension Fund did not provide for the automatic transfer of employees to civil service positions.
– Since the plaintiff was not a civil servant, the guarantees regarding mandatory employment inherent to civil service did not apply to her.
– The Court emphasized that appointment to positions in the Pension Fund of Ukraine is possible only through the general procedure or under the simplified procedure of martial law, which requires the submission of an appropriate application and documents, which the plaintiff did not do.force.
– It was also established that the plaintiff was actually offered a vacant position during an interview, which she declined, choosing another place of employment, which refutes the arguments regarding the disregard of her rights by the employer.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal status of employees of the Social Insurance Fund and civil servants is different; therefore, labor legislation did not oblige the Pension Fund to automatically employ the entire staff of the liquidated institution.
– The court found the plaintiff’s references to the Supreme Court’s practice in other cases to be irrelevant, as the circumstances of those cases were not identical to this situation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the employee’s dismissal.
Case No. 640/18916/22 dated 06/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of a tax notice-decision by which the bank’s negative value of the corporate income tax object was reduced due to identified discrepancies in tax reporting.
2. The court concluded that a tax return is an imperative reporting document, not a civil law transaction; therefore, the provisions of the Law “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” regarding the nullity of transactions performed by unauthorized persons do not apply to it. The court established that at the time the returns were filed, the person who signed them was the incumbent head according to the data of the Unified State Register, which makes the reporting legitimate. The court also emphasized that tax liability is unconditional, and in the event of errors in reporting, the taxpayer is obligated to independently submit clarifying calculations, which the bank did not do. The court found the plaintiff’s references to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the nullity of transactions in insolvent banks to be irrelevant, as tax reporting has a different legal nature. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the controlling authority had full authority to use the filed returns to conduct an audit and accrue liabilities.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 240/15791/25 dated 06/11/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return by the first instance and appellate courts of a serviceman’s statement of claim regarding the recovery of indexation of monetary allowance due to an alleged failure to observe the time limit for applying to the court.
2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the lower instances erroneously applied the three-month time limit for applying to the court, linking its commencement[extract] with the date of the plaintiff’s removal from the personnel lists and receipt of the monetary certificate. ****: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the position of the Judicial Chamber, which departed from the previous conclusions of other panels of the Administrative Cassation Court, noting that the amendments to Art. 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (regarding the limitation of the term for filing a lawsuit to 3 months) do not have retroactive effect in time for legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that a monetary certificate does not contain detailed information about the components of monetary support for past periods; therefore, the mere fact of its receipt does not mean that the serviceman became aware of the violation of their right to indexation. The Court stressed that in order to calculate the term for filing a lawsuit, it is necessary to establish the moment when the person received reliable information about the volume and nature of the sums paid to them. Since the courts of lower instances did not take these circumstances into account and misapplied the provisions of substantive law, their decisions were recognized as unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the trial on the merits.
Case No. 753/20638/24 dated 06/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of returning the appellate complaint to the applicant due to the alleged failure to comply with court requirements regarding the remedying of defects (non-payment of the court fee).
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the procedural term for remedying the defects of an appellate complaint is not considered to have been met if documents were handed over not to a postal operator, but to a courier service that does not have the corresponding status. The Court established that the applicant used the services of the private courier service “GrandEX,” which, according to the state register, is not a postal operator and, therefore, does not fall under the scope of Part 6 of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Since a copy of the ruling was delivered to the representative’s electronic cabinet on September 24, and the 5-day term expired on September 29, the court concluded that the defects had not been remedied in time. The Supreme Court emphasized that a waybill of a private courier service is not proper evidence of timely performance of procedural actions. Consequently, the appellate court rightfully deemed the complaint as not filed and returned it to the applicant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/806/26 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the attachment of the defendant’s funds as a measure to secure a claim for the collection of debt.of shared participation in infrastructure development.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the securing of a claim is an instrument for preventing bad-faith actions by the defendant that could make the execution of a future court decision impossible. The attachment of funds within the limits of the claim amount was deemed an adequate and proportionate measure, as it does not fully block business operations, but merely restricts the disposal of the sum that is the subject of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application for the securing of a claim, the court does not decide the case on its merits; therefore, issues regarding the prosecutor’s authority or the standing of the plaintiff must be considered in a different procedure. The court also noted that since money is a means of payment, an attachment on accounts is an effective way to guarantee the enforcement of a judgment. The courts of previous instances correctly established the existence of a risk of complications in enforcing the decision should such measures not be taken. Ultimately, the defendant did not provide evidence that the attachment critically hinders its operations, which served as the grounds for refusing to cancel the security measure.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, deeming them lawful and well-founded.
Case No. 420/15749/24 dated 06/11/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging tax notification-decisions regarding the lawfulness of forming a VAT tax credit based on the reimbursement of the cost of consumed electricity by the lessee (plaintiff) to the lessor.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the relationship between the lessee and the lessor regarding electricity consumption is governed exclusively by the lease agreement, as the lessee is neither a primary consumer nor a sub-consumer within the meaning of the Retail Electricity Market Rules.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that since no direct contract was concluded with an energy supply organization, the reimbursement of the cost of electricity based on the terms of the lease agreement and corresponding invoices is a completely lawful business transaction.
* The court rejected the tax authority’s arguments regarding the lack of regulatory approval for the calculation formula for consumed energy, noting that the parties have the right to independently determine the mechanism for expense reimbursement in the contract.
* Primary documents (invoices and acts of rendered services) confirming the actual consumption and the business purpose of the transaction are sufficient for the formation of a tax credit.
* The appellate court erroneously equated the reimbursement of expenses under a lease agreement with the need to comply with procedures inherent to direct electricity supply contracts.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the lawfulness of tax notification-decisions lies with the controlling authority, which in this casedid not refute the reality of the business transactions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the decision of the appellate court, and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, by which the claims of the Company were satisfied.
Case No. 360/773/14-ts (360/773/13-ts) dated 06/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is a prosecutor’s claim to invalidate state acts on the right of ownership of a land plot and its reclamation in favor of the state.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the application for a review of the case based on exceptional circumstances, concluded that the previous court decisions did not meet the requirements of legality and validity. The Court established that during the initial consideration of the case, significant violations of procedural law were committed, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the necessity for a proper assessment of evidence relating to the lawfulness of the acquisition of land ownership by the defendants was ignored. The Grand Chamber emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty, yet stressed that exceptional circumstances are grounds for reviewing a case in order to correct fundamental judicial errors. Since the courts of previous instances did not examine all key aspects of the case, the Supreme Court found it impossible to render a new decision without a re-trial in the court of first instance. Thus, the setting aside of the decisions became a necessary measure to ensure the right to a fair trial and to protect the interests of the state.
The Court decided to grant the application in part, set aside all previous court decisions in the case, and remit it for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 990SСGС/54/25 dated 06/09/2026
The subject of the dispute is the challenge of a ruling by the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on leaving without consideration and returning a judge’s complaint against a decision of the Disciplinary Chamber to hold him disciplinarily liable.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the procedure for appealing decisions of the disciplinary bodies of the HCJ has clearly defined procedural boundaries under the law and requirements for the drafting of complaints. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court verified the HCJ’s compliance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice” when returning the complaint. The Court established that the applicant failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements necessary to initiate proceedings on his complaint, which made it impossible to consider it on the merits. The HCJ acted within its authority, as the return of the complaint without consideration was due to procedural violations on the part of the judge’s representative. The Grand Chamber found no grounds to recognize the actions of the HCJ as unlawful, since the right to appeal is not absolute and must be realizedto be exercised in compliance with the procedure established by law. Thus, the court confirmed the legality of the High Council of Justice’s decision, noting that procedural discipline is mandatory for all participants in the judicial process, including judges.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the judge’s appeal and uphold the decision of the High Council of Justice.
Case No. 991/516/26 dated 11/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Approval of a plea agreement between a SAPO prosecutor and the former director of the Capital Construction Department in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, who is accused of embezzlement of budget funds (Part 5, Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and official forgery (Part 1, Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the agreement was concluded voluntarily, with the participation of a defense attorney, and approved by the Head of SAPO, which complies with the requirements of Article 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
– The accused fully admitted guilt and committed to providing incriminating testimony against other accomplices, which is critically important for the investigation of corruption-related crimes.
– The court emphasized the existence of public interest, which consists of procedural economy and facilitating the swifter completion of proceedings regarding the organizers of the criminal group.
– Regarding prejudice, the court clearly stated that this verdict does not establish the guilt of other persons involved in other proceedings and cannot be used as evidence of their involvement, citing ECHR practice.
– The court verified the observance of limitation periods, taking into account the fact that the limitation period was interrupted due to the accused committing another crime in 2023.
– The agreed-upon punishment was deemed commensurate, and the release from actual service of the sentence with probation was found to comply with the requirements of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for corruption crimes, provided the agreement is approved.
3. **Court’s decision:** The court approved the plea agreement, sentenced the accused to a final penalty of 7 years of imprisonment with a 3-year probation period, and imposed obligations on him regarding the reimbursement of damages and a charitable contribution to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Case No. 824/131/25 dated 11/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition and granting of permission for the compulsory enforcement on the territory of Ukraine of an award rendered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery of debt from JSC “NNEGC Energoatom” under a supply contract.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the procedure for recognizing an arbitral award is clearly regulated, and the grounds for refusal are defined by Art.[pursuant to] Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine are absent in this case. The Supreme Court emphasized that when considering such applications, the court has no authority to review the merits of an arbitration award, but merely verifies compliance with procedural rules. The debtor’s arguments regarding a violation of public policy due to martial law and the existence of a moratorium on the performance of obligations were rejected, as the decision concerns commercial relations that arose before the start of the full-scale war, and no link between the claimant and the aggressor state was proven. The court emphasized that Ukraine’s international obligations regarding the recognition of arbitration awards take precedence over domestic restrictions, and that a refusal to enforce an award without legal grounds constitutes a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. Regarding legal fees, the court found them reasonable and proportionate, noting that their reduction is possible only on the basis of a reasoned motion, which was taken into account by the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance granting permission for the enforcement of the arbitration award.
Case No. 910/13486/24 dated 05/20/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court resolution. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought through the court to recognize its leasehold interest in a land plot and to cancel the decisions of the Kyiv City Council, by which a portion of this land was transferred to the permanent use of the Commercial Court of Kyiv City.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff had selected an improper composition of defendants, as the claims directly affect the property rights of the Commercial Court of Kyiv City, which was not involved as a defendant.
– The court emphasized that involving a person only as a “third party” is insufficient if the court decision may deprive such person of their proprietary rights to property.
– It was specifically highlighted that the plaintiff’s right of permanent use had terminated automatically by operation of law back in 2012, when it alienated the real estate for the maintenance of which this land had been granted.
– The plaintiff failed to prove that it held a valid leasehold right, and in fact, was merely attempting to protect its “interest” in obtaining the plot, which is not equivalent to the protection of an infringed proprietary right.
– The court noted that since the plaintiff did not exercise its right to join the Commercial Court of Kyiv City as a co-defendant, this constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim.
– The Supreme Court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, indicating that hearing a case without involving a person whose rights are affected violates the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning parts of the decisions of the lower courtsstances (setting them forth in its own wording), but left their operative parts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.
Case No. 446/1842/18 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of matrimonial property (a residential house) acquired during marriage, by way of recognizing the wife’s ownership right to 1/2 of its share.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court of first instance proceeded from the presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, and therefore lawfully recognized the wife’s 1/2 share of the house.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the fact that property is mortgaged does not deprive the spouses of the right to divide it, as such division does not constitute a disposal of the property and does not terminate the mortgage.
* According to the law, a person to whom the ownership right to the mortgaged object passes (in this case, the wife as a co-owner), automatically acquires the status of a mortgagor with all corresponding obligations.
* The court noted that the appellate instance erroneously equated the division of property with the evasion of debt obligations, failing to take into account that the mortgage continues to encumber the property regardless of any change or distribution of ownership rights.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court had groundlessly overturned the lawful decision of the court of first instance, as the rights of the mortgagee (creditor) in this situation remain protected by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages.”
* **Note:** In this resolution, the court departed from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of October 16, 2019, in case No. 752/21064/15, regarding the possibility of appealing court decisions by persons who did not participate in the case, relying on the more recent practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the resolution of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding the satisfaction of the claim.
Case No. 369/8873/20 dated 06/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request.
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the division of a residential house in kind between two co-owners (1/2 share each) and the determination of the procedure for the use of the land plot on which this residential property is located.
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The court proceeded from the fact that every co-owner has a legal right to demand the partition of their share in kind if it is technically feasible, which is confirmed by the conclusion of the forensic construction and technical expert examination.
* In the event that an ideal division of property is impossible without minor deviations from the shares, the law allows for such a division to be carried out with the payment of monetary compensation to the co-owner whose share has decreased, which was applied by the court.
* Regarding the land plot,The court noted that in the absence of a procedure for use agreed upon by the parties, it is obligated to establish such a procedure that ensures each co-owner’s free use of their share of the property, relying on expert conclusions.
* The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding improper notification of the case hearing, as the case materials confirm the party’s awareness of the proceedings, and the representative’s failure to appear without valid reasons does not constitute an obstacle to the consideration of the case, which had been ongoing for over 6 years.
* Regarding the motion to stay the proceedings in connection with another judicial process, the court indicated that the circumstances in the other case do not create an “objective impossibility” for resolving this dispute, and the lawsuit in the other case itself was filed by the defendant only after the decision by the court of first instance had been rendered.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances provided exhaustive answers to all arguments of the parties, and the establishment of factual circumstances and the assessment of evidence belong to the exclusive competence of the courts of first and appellate instances.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the house partition and the established procedure for using the land plot.
Case No. 758/5240/24 dated 06/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of leaving the statement of claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s alleged repeated failure to appear at the court hearing, for which they were notified via the “Viber” messenger.
2. The court of cassation established that the lower courts committed a significant violation of procedural law, as they failed to ensure proper notification of the plaintiff regarding the date of the court hearing. The Supreme Court emphasized that notifying participants in a case via messengers (specifically “Viber”) is permitted only if there is a corresponding written application from the participant consenting to this method of communication, which was absent from the case materials. Since the plaintiff did not provide consent to receive summonses in electronic form, and the court did not send them via other methods provided by law (by mail or through the “Electronic Court” system), the notification cannot be considered proper. Accordingly, there are no legal grounds to conclude that the plaintiff failed to appear repeatedly, which is a mandatory condition for leaving a claim without consideration. The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial requires the court to strictly observe the procedure for summoning parties, and disregarding this duty violates the principles of openness and equality of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration on the merits.
Case No. 910/13737/25 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the defendant’s failure to meet the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that the right to appeal is not absolute and must be exercised in compliance with procedural deadlines. The court noted that the return of the initial appeal due to improper formatting (lack of proof of the signatory’s authority) is solely the result of the appellant’s own subjective actions, rather than an objective force majeure circumstance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the institute of procedural deadlines is a guarantee of the principle of legal certainty (res judicata); therefore, their restoration is possible only in exceptional cases and upon the existence of compelling reasons. The appellant failed to prove the existence of obstacles that objectively prevented the timely filing of a properly formatted appeal. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellate instance rightfully deemed the reasons for missing the deadline invalid and refused to initiate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings unchanged, and the cassation appeal — unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/403/26 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court’s return of a prosecutor’s statement of claim, filed in the interests of the state against “ENERGY TRADE GROUP” LLC, regarding the invalidation of supplementary agreements to an electricity supply contract and the recovery of funds.
**2. Arguments of the court**
The court of cassation instance upheld the position of the lower instances that the prosecutor failed to prove the existence of an “exceptional case” for representing the interests of the state, which is a mandatory condition under Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject for applying to the court and should not substitute for the competent authority that has the power to protect the interests of the state. The court stressed that the prosecutor is obliged not only to formally notify the authority of a violation but also to provide the court with convincing evidence as to why this authority is not exercising protection or is doing so improperly. Although the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 03.12.2025 declared certain provisions of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” unconstitutional, the court took into account that they remain in force until January 1, 2027; however, this does not exempt the prosecutor from the obligation to justify the exceptional nature of their intervention. The court noted that the assessment of the competent authority’s inaction must be conducted by the court individually in each specific case. Since the prosecutor in this case did not providesufficient justification for such intervention, the courts of lower instances lawfully applied procedural consequences in the form of returning the statement of claim.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, upholding the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court.
Case No. 205/3280/14-ts dated 06/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is the employee’s claim for the cancellation of a dismissal order, reinstatement at work, recovery of wages for the period of forced absenteeism, and compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court examined an application for the review of the case based on exceptional circumstances that arose after the adoption of the previous decision by the Supreme Court of Ukraine in 2017. The Court analyzed the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of Deputy Chairman of the Board of “Chornomornaftogaz” in the context of circumstances that had not been previously considered or had changed. The key task was to determine whether the dismissal complied with the requirements of labor legislation, taking into account the specifics of the enterprise’s activities and the evidence provided. The Court concluded that the previous court decisions regarding reinstatement at work were lawful and well-founded. Consequently, the Grand Chamber effectively confirmed the correctness of the position of the courts of first, appellate, and cassation instances, which had previously ruled in favor of the employee. The cancellation of the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in this part returned the case to a state where the decision on reinstatement became effective again.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the plaintiff’s application, canceling the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the refusal of reinstatement and upholding the decisions of the lower courts to reinstate PERSON_1 to the position.
Case No. 340/3787/24 dated 06/11/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of holding a forensic expert disciplinarily liable by the Central Expert-Qualification Commission (CEQC) during the period between the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure” and the introduction of relevant amendments to special legislation.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the entry into force of the Law “On Administrative Procedure” (LAP) did not lead to the automatic termination of the powers of bodies that conducted disciplinary proceedings on the basis of special laws. The Court emphasized that the transitional provisions of the LAP expressly provide for the application of existing special regulations until they are brought into compliance with the new law, provided that such regulation does not contradict the principles of the LAP. The panel of judges noted that the Law “On Forensic Expertise” at the time the dispute arose already defined the grounds and limits of disciplinary liability, and the delegationon procedural issues to the bylaws (Regulation No. 301/5) did not violate the principle of legality. The court emphasized that the absence of a direct mention of the CECC (Central Expert Qualification Commission) in the law as a disciplinary body does not imply the absence of such powers, as they derive from a systemic interpretation of the legislation on forensic expert activity. Thus, the actions of the CECC were recognized as lawful, and the plaintiff’s arguments regarding a “procedural vacuum” during the transition period were deemed groundless.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 240/35233/23 dated 11/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A challenge by a citizen of the Russian Federation against the decisions of the State Migration Service (SMS) office to cancel an immigration permit and a permanent residence permit in Ukraine.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the migration authority does not have the right to make a decision on the cancellation of an immigration permit solely on the basis of a letter from law enforcement agencies without due verification of the facts stated therein.
* The Court stressed that the grounds for the cancellation of a permit, defined by Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Immigration,” require proof of specific culpable actions by the immigrant that pose a threat to national security or public order.
* The appellate court erroneously limited itself solely to the fact of the existence of an entry ban order, without investigating whether the plaintiff actually committed unlawful acts, which is mandatory for a reasoned decision.
* The Supreme Court noted that even under martial law, an authority exercising administrative powers is obliged to adhere to the principle of proportionality and justification, as provided for by Article 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
* The Court pointed out the necessity of a comprehensive clarification of circumstances, as the contested decisions of the SMS lacked references to specific facts that would confirm a threat posed by the plaintiff.
* Since the appellate court did not evaluate the evidence and did not verify the validity of the migration service’s conclusions, the Supreme Court recognized this as a violation of procedural norms, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 359/7220/23 dated 11/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a demand to remove obstacles to the use of the beach area and to compel the defendant to dismantle a fence that restricts access to the bank of the Dnieper River.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant’s land plot (LLC “RC “Vo…land”) does not border directly on the water edge but is separated from it by other land plots belonging to third parties.
* Since the plaintiff did not join the owners and users of adjacent plots, which have direct access to the water, to the case, the court concluded that the lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant.
* The court emphasized that effective protection of rights is possible only on the condition of involving all subjects whose rights and obligations may be affected by the court decision.
* Regarding the amicable agreement, the court noted that its terms concern the rights of third parties who are not participants in the case, which makes its approval impossible under the norms of procedural law.
* It was also emphasized that the arguments of the appellants regarding the violation of the right to access the coastline cannot be satisfied without establishing the proper composition of defendants who actually control access to the coastal strip.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of law, and the arguments of the appellants boil down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which does not fall within the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim unchanged.
Case No. 902/152/25 of 05/20/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the request of LLC “Construction Company ‘Novi Mineraly'” for the establishment of fixed-term paid land servitudes on land plots that are in the permanent use of SE “Murafskyi Quarry” to ensure mineral extraction activities.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts made a mistake by denying the claim due to the alleged existence of other ways for the plaintiff to formalize land rights (lease or ownership). The court emphasized that according to current legislation (in particular, Art. 66 and Art. 99 of the Land Code of Ukraine), the establishment of a land servitude is a special and legitimate instrument for subsoil users, which does not require changing the intended purpose of the lands. The panel of judges noted that the requirement for the plaintiff to arrange a lease instead of a servitude is erroneous, as the law explicitly provides for the possibility of using plots within subsoil areas specifically through a servitude. The court also indicated that denial due to “uncertainty of the scope of rights” in the lawsuit is a manifestation of excessive formalism, as the plaintiff provided draft agreements where these conditions were detailed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that a user is not obligated to establish a servitude on the entire area of a land plot but may limit it to only the part necessary for extraction. Ultimately, the courts did not properly examine the evidence, which made it impossible to establish the factual…of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new consideration to the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Oblast.
Case No. 753/17854/24 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recognition on the territory of Ukraine of a foreign court decision (Great Britain) regarding the determination of a child’s place of residence and the procedure for visitation.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that jurisdiction in disputes regarding parental responsibility is determined by the “habitual residence of the child,” which in this case was established in Great Britain. The Court emphasized that since the child is integrated into the social environment of another state, the court of that jurisdiction had the right to resolve issues concerning the child’s residence. An important argument was that the procedure for recognizing a foreign judgment does not provide for a review of the case on the merits, but only for verifying compliance with procedural norms. The Court rejected the father’s arguments regarding the “abduction” of the child, relying on previously established facts about the family’s voluntary departure. It was also emphasized that the British court’s decision does not deprive the father of parental rights but merely establishes a safe visitation procedure, which is in the best interests of the child. Finally, the Court noted that the existence of parallel judicial proceedings in Ukraine is not an obstacle to recognizing a foreign judgment if the proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction were initiated earlier.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, which granted the motion for recognition of the foreign court’s judgment.
Case No. 280/6267/25 dated 06/11/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of returning a statement of claim filed by a serviceman due to his alleged failure to meet the three-month deadline for applying to the court with claims for the recalculation of pecuniary allowance.
**** In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the position of the Judicial Chamber, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of time limits for applying to the court. The Court emphasized that the amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which limited the period for filing a claim to three months, do not apply to legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022. Regarding the period after this date, the Court clarified that the start of the limitation period cannot be linked solely to the moment a serviceman is removed from the unit’s personnel lists and receives a financial certificate. The financial certificate is a document regarding final settlement upon discharge, but it does not contain detailed information about the accrual of pecuniary allowance for past periods. Therefore, the serviceman could not have learned about the violation of his rights solely on the basis of this document. The Court emphasize
