Case No. 585/4247/23 of 06/10/2026
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:** A father’s claim to change the place of residence of a minor child, who, according to a previous court decision, was to reside with the mother but had effectively remained with the father due to his refusal to comply with the court order.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that filing a new lawsuit while an existing court decision on determining the child’s place of residence remains unexecuted is an attempt to legitimize the unlawful conduct of the father, who is ignoring legal requirements.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the father does not have the right to make decisions regarding the child’s upbringing unilaterally, ignoring the interests of the mother and the mandatory nature of court decisions.
– It was established that the father exerts psychological pressure on his son, shaping a negative image of the mother, which contradicts the child’s best interests for harmonious development.
– The court noted that a child’s desire to live with the father is not an absolute ground for granting the claim, as it may be the result of manipulation and restricted contact with the other parent.
– The absence of significant changes in circumstances that would justify a review of the previous decision indicates that the lawsuit is merely a way to avoid the execution of an already existing judicial act.
– The court reminded that parents are obliged to cooperate rather than create obstacles, and that failure to comply with a court order for the removal of a child is an offense that cannot serve as a basis for changing the place of residence in favor of the offender.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the impossibility of changing the child’s place of residence while the father continues to ignore previous court decisions.
Case No. 519/138/24 of 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a specialist 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:** Declaration of invalidity of a real estate purchase and sale agreement concluded by a father without the prior consent of the guardianship and custody authority, given that his minor children were registered in said apartment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the alienation of housing, in which minor children have the right of use, requires mandatory prior permission from the guardianship and custody authority, which was not obtained in this case.
* An important factor was that the apartment was the children’s only place of residence, and their temporary non-residence therein was forced due to the father’s immoral behavior and his commission of domestic violence.
* The court emphasized that parents are obliged to act in the best interests of the children, and the alienation of property that reduces the scope of a child’s property rights or…[vitiating] guarantees of her right to housing, is unacceptable.
* Although the fact of the absence of permission from the guardianship authority in itself is not always an unconditional ground for cancellation of an agreement, in this case, the court proved that the transaction directly contradicts the interests of the children.
* The Supreme Court noted that the complainant’s arguments regarding the ineffectiveness of the method of protection or references to case law where the rights of children were not violated do not refute the fact established by the courts of a real violation of the rights of minors in this specific situation.
* The court of cassation instance confirmed that the reassessment of evidence is not within its authority, and the courts of previous instances provided an exhaustive assessment of all circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances on declaring the contract of sale invalid — unchanged.
Case No. 991/311/26 of 08/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 991/311/26:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of assets (an apartment and two vehicles) as unsubstantiated and recovery of their value to the state revenue due to the inability to confirm their acquisition from lawful income of a military official.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the defendant, PERSON_1, being a military official, acquired assets through third parties (the mother, PERSON_2 and PERSON_3), while maintaining the ability to directly or indirectly dispose of them.
– The prosecutor provided compelling evidence of the lack of lawful income in said third parties sufficient to purchase the disputed property, and also confirmed the actual use of these assets by the defendant, PERSON_1, himself.
– The court took into account the statement of the defendant, PERSON_1, on full admission of the claims, having verified it for voluntariness and compliance with the law.
– Since the admission of the claim does not violate the rights of third parties and is confirmed by the case materials, the court accepted this admission as a sufficient basis for satisfying the claim without conducting a lengthy examination of all evidence.
– The court also considered the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the expediency of recovering specifically the value of the assets, as this is a more effective method of protection, considering the improvements made to the property and the risks of its depreciation.
– Regarding the installment of the execution of the decision, the court found the defendant’s arguments about his difficult financial situation to be well-founded and established a payment schedule that complies with the principle of proportionality and the requirements of the law.
3. **Court decision:** The court satisfied the claims, declared the assets unsubstantiated, and ordered the recovery of their value in the amount of UAH 2,992,769.50 from PERSON_1 to the state revenue, with the granting of an installment plan for the execution of the decision.
Case No. 924/236/25 of 13/05/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you.tion. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the subdivision of land plots that were under the permanent use of the plaintiff, and the subsequent registration of rights to the newly created plots in the name of other persons, which became the grounds for claims to cancel such registration and restore the land to its previous state.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the methods of protection chosen by the plaintiff (cancellation of registration entries and compelling the State Geocadastre to “restore” entries) are ineffective, as they do not lead to the restoration of the real right to a specific object. The Court emphasized that a state registrar is not a proper defendant in disputes regarding the cancellation of registration actions performed in respect of third parties; rather, the proper defendant must be the person in whose name the right is registered. The Supreme Court emphasized that in such situations, the plaintiff must use a vindicatory claim (recovery of property), as it is the proper method of protecting a right of use that was violated by the subdivision of the plots. The court also noted that state registration of ownership creates a presumption of “record” possession, therefore a demand for cancellation of registration without a demand for recovery of property fails to achieve the purpose of protection. The court indicated that the subdivision of land plots does not preclude the application of vindication, since the boundaries of the plots are known, and the protection of a user’s real rights is carried out according to the same rules as the protection of ownership rights. In conclusion, the court reached the decision that the plaintiff’s claims were legally incorrectly formulated, which serves as an independent ground for their dismissal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the City Council, cancelled the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to dismiss the claim, modifying only its reasoning part.
Case No. 761/40728/24 dated 03/06/2026
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 plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the NABU and the SAPO for compensation for moral damages caused, in his opinion, by his illegal status as a suspect in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (ERDR) and the inaction of law enforcement agencies.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The court proceeded from the premise that for compensation of damages under the special Law No. 266/94-VR, it is necessary to have an exhaustive list of grounds, in particular, a court decision that would directly establish the illegality of the actions of law enforcement officers, which was not the case here. Although the investigating judges of the HACC pointed to the incompleteness of the procedure for serving the notice of suspicion due to an international element, they did not cancel the notice of suspicion itself and did not recognize it as illegal. The court emphasized that the mere fact of the existence of information in the ERDR is not an automatic ground for compensation for damages, it…if the procedure for drawing up the notice of suspicion was complied with. The court also noted that the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights through the obligation imposed on the prosecutor’s office to consider the attorney’s motion already constitutes sufficient satisfaction. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the unlawfulness of the actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies in the manner prescribed by law, there are no grounds for the civil liability of the state. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding moral suffering are based on assumptions and are not supported by proper evidence.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which denied the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
[Case No. 991/987/25 dated 06/09/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137306854)
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 case concerns a civil lawsuit regarding the recognition of assets (real estate, vehicles, and a vessel) acquired by the spouse of a local self-government official as unjustified, and their subsequent forfeiture to the state revenue.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant (village council head) is a subject covered by anti-corruption restrictions, and therefore, he is obligated to prove the legal origin of assets associated with his family.
* The panel of judges concluded that the income of the defendants and their relatives for the period of 2019–2023 was objectively insufficient to purchase the disputed property, the value of which exceeded their official legal earnings.
* The court critically evaluated the defendants’ explanations regarding alleged “cash savings” and assistance from parents, as these data contradicted official income information from tax and pension registers.
* An important factor was that the property, although registered in the wife’s name, was effectively controlled by the defendant, and the acquisition process itself took place with his direct participation (inspection of objects, negotiations, payment of funds).
* The court rejected the defense’s arguments that the wife is not a subject of declaration, pointing out that the regime of common joint property of spouses allows these assets to be considered as being under the control of the official.
* Regarding the value of the property, the court relied on the findings of expert examinations by the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, recognizing them as proper and admissible evidence of the market value of the assets.
* Ultimately, the court noted that the evidence presented by the defendants did not refute the position of the prosecutor’s office, and the balance of evidence in the case leaned in favor of the state.
3. **Court Decision:** The Appeals Chamber of the HACC dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance on the forfeiture of unjustified assets to the state revenue.
[Case No.](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137375820)Case No. 990/578/25 dated 05/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging a decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) by a candidate for the position of an appellate court judge regarding the non-confirmation of the ability to administer justice based on the results of qualification assessment.
2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
* The Court confirmed that the HQCJ is vested with exclusive discretionary powers to assess the professional ethics and integrity of candidates, and the court may not assume these functions or re-evaluate scores based on its own conviction.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the absence of a detailed response to each argument of the candidate in the Commission’s decision does not indicate that these arguments were not considered, as the decision must contain a logical justification rather than an exhaustive description of all explanations.
* The Court established that the use of the terms “tribunal” or “arbitration court” by HQCJ members during the interview was aimed at organizing the workflow and does not indicate bias or the punitive nature of the procedure.
* The Court found the HQCJ’s conclusions regarding the candidate’s improper declaration of assets and income, as well as the candidate’s inability to provide convincing evidence of the lawful sources of funds for real estate construction, to be well-founded.
* The Court emphasized that successfully passing a special check does not guarantee the automatic confirmation of integrity during an interview, as the HQCJ assesses the candidate comprehensively, including their conduct and knowledge of anti-corruption legislation.
* The Court concluded that the candidate failed to prove the arbitrariness or lack of justification of the Commission’s decision, and her disagreement with the assessment results is subjective and does not constitute grounds for the court to interfere with the discretionary powers of the HQCJ.
3. **Court ruling:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the decision of the court of first instance to deny the claim remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/7978/21 dated 05/27/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the invalidation of an investment agreement concluded between a state-owned enterprise and a private company due to the absence of mandatory approval by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The Court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim, guided primarily by the procedural flaws in the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff. In particular, the court noted that the claim for invalidation of an agreement without simultaneously requesting the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction (restitution) is ineffective. Since courts do not have the right to apply restitution on their own initiative, the choice of such a method of protection became self-defeating.a sufficient ground for refusal. The court also emphasized that the agreement had been performed by the parties for a long time, and the appellants failed to prove that the courts of lower instances had misapplied substantive law. The Supreme Court stressed that the cassation instance is not a court of fact and cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by the appellate court. The appellants’ arguments regarding the violation of legal norms were rejected, as they failed to substantiate the inconsistency of the lower courts’ conclusions with the settled case law of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the resolution of the commercial appellate court.
Case No. 909/459/25 dated 08/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the consideration of the defendants’ motions for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the recovery from the plaintiff of costs for professional legal aid incurred during the cassation proceedings.
2. In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and justification of judicial costs, as enshrined in the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of the attorney’s fee must be proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed, rather than being based solely on the terms of the agreement between the client and the attorney. The court drew attention to the fact that the legal position of the defendants in the case was settled, and representation was carried out by the same specialists as in the lower instances; therefore, the volume of work in the cassation proceedings did not require significant efforts. Considering the criteria of reality and appropriateness of expenses, the court concluded that the claimed amounts of UAH 15,000 for each defendant were excessive. Consequently, the court exercised its right to reduce the amount of reimbursement, guided by the settled case law of the Supreme Court regarding the prevention of a disproportionate burden on the losing party. In conclusion, the court recognized the amount of UAH 3,000 for each of the defendants as justified and meeting the criterion of reasonable necessity.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defendants’ motions, ordering the plaintiff to pay each of them UAH 3,000 in professional legal aid costs, while refusing to satisfy the remainder of the claims.
Case No. 904/3312/25 dated 10/06/2026
Here is the analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject matter of the dispute was the recovery of rent arrears and penalties from the tenant under land lease agreements.
2. The court was guided by the fact that, at the time of the case consideration, the defendant had fully paid the amount of the debt and penalty, which is confirmed by proper evidence—a payment instruction clearly indicating the purpose of the payment and the details of the agreements. The Supreme Court emphasized that since the amount waswas credited to the appropriate budget and was not returned to the payer, the subject matter of the dispute effectively ceased to exist. The court also noted that the lease agreements did not contain requirements regarding the mandatory separation of payments for the principal debt and penalties into different accounts. The City Council’s arguments that the funds were credited by the tax authority solely as payment of the principal debt were rejected as unfounded, since the fact of the funds’ receipt into the budget under specific agreements was proven. Consequently, in the presence of evidence of the performance of the obligation, the court lacks legal grounds to continue the consideration of the case on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Kryvyi Rih City Council unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts to close the proceedings in the case unchanged.
Case No. 990/65/25 of 11/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenging of actions and decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine performed within the framework of the qualification assessment or selection procedure for judges.
When rendering this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of the immutability of judicial acts if the court of first instance had correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court examined the arguments of the appeal filed by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) of Ukraine and concluded that they do not refute the legality of the findings of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court. Given the specific nature of the HQCJ’s powers, the court emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural guarantees when making decisions concerning the careers of judges. The Grand Chamber confirmed that the Commission’s actions must meet the criteria of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality defined by the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine. Since no grounds for overturning the decision of the court of first instance were established, the Grand Chamber upheld it, emphasizing the finality of such a conclusion.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appeal of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine unsatisfied and the decision of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court unchanged.
Case No. 990/222/25 of 28/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief professional analysis for your material.
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The plaintiff challenged the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification examination and the refusal to admit the plaintiff to the next stage of the competition for the position of an appellate court judge due to disagreement with the evaluation of the practical task.
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The court confirmed that the HQCJ has broad discretionary powers in evaluating practical tasks, and the evaluation is carried out by members of the commissionbased on their internal conviction.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that current legislation and Regulation No. 185/zp-24 do not require the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) to reflect scores element-by-element for each criterion in the final decision.
* The Court clarified that Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24 are instructive in nature for commission members and do not constitute norms mandating the detailing of assessments in official decisions.
* The plaintiff’s argument regarding the necessity of a re-evaluation due to the difference in scores between two tasks was rejected: the court indicated that the 20-percent discrepancy threshold applies to the assessment of a single assignment by different examiners, not to a comparison of the results of two different tasks completed by one candidate.
* The Court emphasized that the anonymity of the examination is a fundamental guarantee, and re-evaluating a specific paper effectively negates this principle.
* Furthermore, the court noted that interference with the discretionary powers of the HQCJ by obliging it to re-evaluate a paper is inadmissible, as the court cannot assume the functions of a specialized body.
* Finally, the court pointed out that the contested decisions of the HQCJ are reasoned, as they contain references to legal norms and factual circumstances, which complies with the requirements of Article 88 of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.”
**3. Court Decision**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
[Case No. 756/7672/23 dated 05/27/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137375078)
1. The subject of the dispute is the request of the alienator to terminate a life maintenance contract due to the alleged improper fulfillment of the acquirer’s obligations regarding financial support and care, as perceived by the plaintiff.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that to terminate a life maintenance contract, it is necessary to prove the fact of a material breach of contract terms that deprives the alienator of what they were entitled to expect. The Court established that the acquirer had properly fulfilled their obligations for 13 years, and that the minor delays in payment or issues regarding indexation were not critical, as the defendant demonstrated a readiness for reconciliation and recalculation of funds. An important argument was that, under the terms of the contract, the duty of care was transformed into a monetary equivalent, which the acquirer paid systematically, often even in amounts greater than agreed. The Court also stressed the importance of maintaining a balance of interests between the parties, noting that terminating the contract after 13 years of proper performance would impose an excessive burden on the acquirer. Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the defendant’s abandonment of their obligations. Thus, the cassation instance concluded that the appellate court had erroneously overturned the lawful decision.decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 523/15705/25 dated 09/06/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 523/15705/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality and validity of the appellate court’s verdict, by which a clergyman was sentenced to actual imprisonment for inciting national enmity and justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that the status of a clergyman entails an increased level of responsibility due to significant influence on the worldview of believers. The court noted that the systematic anti-Ukrainian statements of the convicted person, which included support for missile attacks and calls for the destruction of Ukrainian statehood, pose an increased public danger. The panel of judges emphasized that such actions under martial law cannot be justified by the private nature of the conversations or the presence of positive character references. Although the court took into account sincere remorse and the absence of a criminal record as mitigating circumstances, it deemed them insufficient to apply a suspended sentence. Consequently, the imposition of an actual term of imprisonment was recognized as proportionate and necessary to achieve the goal of correcting the convict. The court also confirmed that the appellate instance correctly applied the norms of criminal law, selecting a punishment within the sanctions of the article, which corresponds to the gravity of the crimes committed.
3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Odesa Court of Appeal unchanged and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. P/9991/1182/12 dated 28/05/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review based on exceptional circumstances of the ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine dated February 28, 2013, regarding the refusal to satisfy a claim to cancel the decision of the High Council of Justice on the dismissal of a judge from office for violation of the oath.
2. The Court was guided by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in its judgment “Kozak and Others v. Ukraine,” established that Ukraine violated Article 6(1) and Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the applicant. The Grand Chamber noted that at the time of the judge’s dismissal, the procedure for holding a person liable for “violation of the oath” had systemic flaws, lacked clear legislative criteria, and did not ensure the independence and impartiality of the court. The Court emphasized that the previous decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine did not contain a proper legal assessment of the High Council of Justice’s actions for compliance with the requirements of administrative procedure and did not take into account the impact of the dismissal onprivate life of a judge. Since the violations established by the ECtHR call into question the outcome of the case proceedings, this constitutes grounds for the application of individual measures. Therefore, in order to restore the applicant’s violated rights, it is necessary to ensure a rehearing of the case by the court of first instance, taking into account the conclusions of the ECtHR.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to satisfy the application of Person_1, to set aside the ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, and to remit the case for a new trial to the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.
Case No. 920/1347/24 dated 03/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by an individual entrepreneur for the removal of obstacles in the use of property and the refund of paid rent, filed against another entrepreneur and a mobile network operator.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts, when considering the case, did not fully examine all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, a violation of procedural law was established regarding the assessment of evidence provided by the parties to confirm the fact of the existence of obstacles in the use of the property. The court of cassation instance pointed out that the lower courts failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the legitimacy of collecting rent for the period when access to the property was restricted. Furthermore, the issue of the distribution of liability between the two defendants remained unresolved, as their roles in creating obstacles for the plaintiff were not clearly delineated. Due to these gaps in establishing the factual circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to render a new decision on its own. Therefore, to ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, it must be returned to the stage of consideration on the merits to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, remitting the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Sumy Oblast.
Case No. 914/2107/25 dated 03/06/2026
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 dispute concerns the legality of the termination of a municipal property lease agreement and the obligation of the lessee (a veterans’ organization) to vacate the premises in connection with the lessor’s refusal to extend the agreement due to the balance holder’s own needs.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that during martial law, a special procedure for the extension of lease agreements is in effect, where a key condition for the termination of the relationship is the balance holder’s compliance with the procedure of notifying the lessee 30 days before the expiration of the agreement term. The Court found that the balance holder failed to provide evidence that it had sent any notification to the lessee at allnotice of non-renewal of the lease, and also failed to duly substantiate its “own needs” for using the premises. The courts of lower instances erroneously focused solely on the fact of the order being issued by the lessor, ignoring the absence of mandatory notification and justification from the balance sheet holder. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lessee is the more vulnerable party; therefore, any refusal to renew a lease must be clearly motivated and proven. Since the appellate court did not assess these critical procedural violations, the decision was deemed premature. As a result, to establish all the factual circumstances of the case, the court was compelled to set aside the appellate ruling and remand the case for a new trial.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate commercial court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 01/5026/1159/2011(925/1040/21) dated 06/03/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidating the results of an auction for the sale of a bankrupt’s property and the transaction concluded as a result thereof due to a violation of the procedure for forming the lot, in which engineering networks, being an accessory to mortgaged real estate, were included without the consent of the secured creditor.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The court established that engineering networks, which are an integral part (accessory) of real estate under a mortgage to JSC “Ukreximbank,” were unlawfully included in the lot without obtaining the mortgagee’s consent.
– It was confirmed that the alienation of these networks separately from the real estate leads to the depreciation of the mortgage object and deprives it of the functional characteristics necessary for operation.
– The court identified numerous violations of the auction preparation procedure: the use of unclear abbreviations in the property description, the absence of technical parameters and photographs, and the inclusion of inaccurate information regarding the absence of encumbrances.
– **Legal Position:** The Supreme Court noted that it is departing from its previous position (set forth in the resolution of 06.07.2022 in case No. 914/2618/16) regarding the ineffectiveness of claims for invalidating the results of an auction and a sale and purchase agreement.
– Referring to the new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 13.02.2024 (case No. 910/2592/19), the court confirmed that invalidating the results of an auction and the sale and purchase agreement concluded as a result thereof is a proper and effective way of protecting rights in such legal relations.
– The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the “improper status” of the arbitration manager as a defendant, noting that this procedural issue did not affect the correctness of the dispute resolution on its merits, and
