Case No. 732/1780/24 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute was a complaint by the claimant regarding the inaction of a state enforcement officer concerning the foreclosure on the debtor’s property (State Enterprise “Ukrspyrt”) within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. In rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the key criterion for determining the jurisdiction of a dispute is the essence of the challenged actions of the enforcement officer. The Court established that the claimant’s enforcement proceedings are part of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combine court decisions from various jurisdictions (civil, commercial, administrative). According to the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, challenging the actions of an enforcement officer in such consolidated proceedings falls exclusively within the competence of administrative courts. The courts of lower instances committed a procedural error by considering the case under civil procedure rules, despite lacking the authority to do so. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction is mandatory and is verified by the court of cassation regardless of the parties’ arguments. Since the dispute was not subject to consideration under civil procedure rules, the decisions of the lower courts were subject to cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, close the proceedings in the case, and clarify the claimant’s right to apply to an administrative court.
Case No. 761/23185/24 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the legality of the dismissal of an employee (head of the trade union committee) for absenteeism and claims for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to dismiss an employee for absenteeism, the employer is obliged to prove the employee’s absence from the workplace without valid reasons for more than three hours.
– The Court stressed that the validity of the reasons for absence is assessed individually, and the burden of proving objective circumstances that exclude the employee’s fault lies with the employee themselves.
– A key point was the issue of compliance with special guarantees for employees elected to trade union bodies, as provided for by Article 252 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
– The Court noted that the dismissal of the head of a trade union body requires not only the consent of the primary trade union but also, if applicable, the consent of the higher elective body of that trade union.
– The lower courts did not verify whether the given trade union has a higher elective body, which is critically important for complying with the dismissal procedure.
– Since the appellate court did not investigate this issue, it could not properly assess whether the legal procedure for dismissal of a trade union official was followed.leader.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that without establishing these circumstances, the conclusion regarding the legality of the dismissal is premature, which necessitates a retrial of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
Case No. 924/871/25 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:** Challenging the decision of the territorial branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the recognition of the actions of the Security Police Department and individual entrepreneur V.S. Savchenko as anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of the results of tender proceedings.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to qualify actions as anti-competitive concerted actions, it is not necessary to prove that damages were caused; the very fact of coordination of the participants’ behavior, which eliminates competition, is sufficient.
– The Court emphasized that the evaluation of evidence must be carried out in their entirety and interconnection, rather than in isolation, in accordance with the requirements of Article 86 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
– It was established that the use of a single IP address by the participants, the existence of family ties between an employee of the plaintiff and another participant, as well as identical printing defects in the documents and similarities in their formatting are sufficient evidence of an exchange of information.
– The Supreme Court rejected the appellate court’s argument regarding “delay” by the AMC, noting that the decision was adopted within the statute of limitations established by law.
– The Court indicated that the appellate instance erroneously evaluated this evidence as circumstantial, failing to take into account that their aggregate excludes a mere coincidence of circumstances.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that competition in bidding requires the independence of the participants’ actions, which was not observed in this case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim of the Security Police Department was dismissed.
Case No. 569/3196/20 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 detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The Rivne City Council filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot by demolishing an unauthorized non-residential building and canceling the state registration of property rights for it.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Court confirmed that the disputed premises constitute unauthorized construction, as they were erected without permits on a land plot that was not allocated for this purpose.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the protection of the rights of the land owner (the territorial community) through the demolition of unauthorized construction is a proportionate interference with the property rights of a bad-faith acquirer.
– The Court distinguished the claims: the recognition of registration actions as unlawful and the cancellation of alienation agreements is not an effective method of protection, as they do not restore the right to the land, but merely concern the legal connection with the object.
– An effective method of protection is specifically the claim for the demolition of the object; however, to satisfy it, it is necessary to clearly identify the developer and the proper defendant.
– The court noted that the defendant in a claim for demolition must be the person who creates obstacles to the use of the plot (the final acquirer), and therefore the appellate court should have investigated the chain of transfer of property rights in more detail.
– : The Supreme Court, in this decision, took into account the legal position set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 17, 2025, in case No. 908/2388/21, regarding the determination of the proper defendant in disputes over the demolition of unauthorized construction.
– Since the appellate court did not properly establish who exactly is the developer and whether the final owner is the proper subject of liability, the case was remanded for a new trial regarding the demolition claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the cancellation of registration actions (upholding the refusal to satisfy them on other grounds), and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court regarding the claim for the demolition of the building.
Case No. 756/4936/22 dated 06/11/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict, which changed the qualification of the convicted person’s actions from manslaughter (homicide by negligence) to intentional murder.
In rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the appellate court had properly examined the evidence and reasonably refuted the defense’s version of an accidental discharge. The court emphasized that the subjective side of the crime (intent) is established through a combination of circumstances: the method of commission, the use of a firearm, and the nature of the person’s actions. In particular, it was established that the convicted person was aware of the danger of the weapon, pointed it at the victim’s head, and pulled the trigger, which excludes a negligent form of guilt. The court stressed that the technical findings of the forensic examination refute the possibility of a shot without consciously pulling the trigger. It was also noted that the subsequent behavior of the convicted person (calling for help) does not affect the qualification of intentional murder, as the intent to cause death had already been realized. Thus, the appellate court lawfully overturned the first-instance verdict, which did not contain proper justification for the qualification under the article for manslaughter.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the defense attorney unsatisfied, and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 509/4257/18 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise professional analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor appealed to the court with a claim fora claim for the cancellation of a state registrar’s decision and the record of ownership rights to real estate objects which, in the opinion of the prosecutor’s office, are temporary structures and are not subject to state registration.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that a prosecutor may represent the interests of the state in court only in exceptional cases, when the relevant state authority fails to exercise protection or does so improperly.
* The Court stressed that the prosecutor is obliged to contact the competent authority in advance (in this case, the Ministry of Justice or the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate) to provide it with the opportunity to respond to the violation independently.
* In this case, the prosecutor did not prove that they had contacted the specified authorities with a notification of the violation; therefore, the fact of “inaction” on the part of the competent authorities was not confirmed.
* The Supreme Court noted that the prosecutor does not have the right to represent the interests of the state “automatically,” but must substantiate the grounds for such representation in the statement of claim.
* Since the prosecutor failed to comply with the procedure provided for by Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” this constitutes a procedural violation that renders consideration of the case on its merits impossible.
* The Court pointed out that when choosing a method for protecting the interests of the state, the prosecutor must act as a subsidiary body and not substitute for state authorities that possess the relevant powers.
* Considering the above, the Court concluded that the claim was filed in violation of the requirements regarding representation, which is a ground for leaving it without consideration.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and left the prosecutor’s statement of claim without consideration.
Case No. 2-747/11 of 08/06/2026
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:** Challenging the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the unlawful termination of enforcement proceedings and the lifting of seizures on the debtor’s property in the absence of legal grounds for doing so (cancellation of the court decision on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued).
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that enforcement proceedings are the final stage of judicial proceedings, and the right to enforce a court decision is an integral component of the right to judicial protection.
– The Court established that the decision on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued remains in effect, as previous attempts to cancel it due to newly discovered circumstances were deemed unfounded.
– The enforcement officer had no legal basis for applying Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” since there was no full cancellation of the court decision, which is a mandatory condition for terminating proceedings on these grounds.
– The Court rejected the arguments regarding the bias of the court of first instance, noting that a party’s disagreement with procedural decisions or the refusal to satisfy motions does not constitute grounds for recusal.
– It was also emphasized that in the event of recognizing the actions inof the executor are unlawful, the enforcement proceedings are subject to restoration under the original terms, and the loss of the original enforcement document during postal delivery does not exempt from the duty of its execution.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court in the previous instances erroneously attempted to review the case on the merits within the framework of the procedure for newly discovered circumstances, which had been corrected by the Supreme Court earlier.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the debtor and the private executor — without satisfaction.
Case No. 761/14803/23 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of acquiring ownership of a garage located on a land plot of municipal ownership, and the legality of the actions of the court of first instance regarding leaving the lawsuit without consideration due to the plaintiff’s failure to deposit funds into the court’s deposit account.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court focused on verifying the procedural authority of the representative of the Kyiv City Council, as this specific issue became key in the defendant’s cassation appeal. The court established that the representative acted in the order of self-representation, as his authority was confirmed by a combination of documents: an employment contract, a job description, and a power of attorney from the mayor. The court emphasized that for self-representation of a local self-government body, it is sufficient that the right to act on behalf of the body follows from the law, the regulations on the structural unit, or the employee’s job duties. The Supreme Court noted that the cassation appeal did not contain arguments regarding the merits of the dispute (application of Law No. 4292-IX), therefore the court limited itself to checking only the procedural issue regarding the representative’s authority. Referring to its own established practice, the Supreme Court confirmed that employees of the Department of Land Resources have the right to represent the interests of the Kyiv City Council in courts. Thus, the appellate court rightfully recognized the representative’s authority and opened appellate proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court, by which the case was returned to the court of first instance for consideration on the merits, — without changes.
Case No. 464/5945/21 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the appellate court on closing the appellate proceedings opened upon the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case (the claimant in the enforcement proceedings) against the decision of the court of first instance on canceling the state registration of ownership of real estate.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal forof persons who did not participate in the case arises only when the court decision directly resolves the issue of their rights, freedoms, interests, or obligations.
– The court noted that a probable or indirect impact of a decision on a person’s legal status (for example, through potential consequences for electronic auctions or other court cases) is not a sufficient ground for recognizing such a person as a participant in the proceedings.
– The reasoning and operative parts of the court of first instance’s decision lack any conclusions regarding the rights or obligations of the appellant, which indicates the absence of a legal connection between the appellant and the disputed legal relations.
– The court emphasized that establishing the lack of a right to appellate review is an independent and sufficient ground for closing the proceedings; therefore, the failure of the appellate court to resolve other procedural motions (in particular, regarding the stay of proceedings) does not affect the legality of such a decision.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court does not have the authority to change the procedural status of a person who filed an appeal as a “person who did not participate in the case” to the status of a “third party” if the grounds for such an appeal have not been confirmed.
– Thus, the appellate court correctly applied the norms of procedural law by closing the proceedings, as the appellant failed to prove a direct impact of the decision on their rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of the appellate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 510/634/19 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of an apartment by way of inheritance under the law and the cancellation of the state registration of the right of municipal ownership to this property, which was unlawfully alienated by the city council.
**2. Arguments of the court**
The court established that the plaintiff is a legal heir, as they timely accepted the inheritance after the death of both parents, who owned the apartment by the right of common joint ownership. A key argument was that the right of municipal ownership of the apartment was registered based on a court decision that was subsequently overturned due to newly discovered circumstances, and subsequently, the court finally refused to recognize this apartment as ownerless property. The Supreme Court emphasized that an heir becomes the owner of the property from the moment of the opening of the inheritance, and the absence of title documents does not deprive them of the right to judicial protection. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding an improper method of protection, noting that in this situation, the claims for recognition of ownership and cancellation of registration are effective for restoring violated rights. Regarding discrepancies in the spelling of the testator’s patronymic in the documents, the court recognized them as technical translation errors that do not refute the identity of the person. Ultimately, the court concluded that since the primary basis for the registration of the right of ownership by the mthe city council has ceased to exist, the state registration is subject to cancellation, and the plaintiff’s right of ownership is subject to recognition.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts (in the non-overturned part), confirming the plaintiff’s right to the inherited property.
Case No. 569/12524/24 dated 06/16/2026
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:** An employee filed a lawsuit with the court to cancel an order of dismissal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism due to the employer’s violation of the employment procedure during staff reduction.
2. **Court arguments:** The court established that the employer did indeed violate the requirements of labor legislation, as they did not offer the dismissed employee all available vacant positions that existed at the enterprise until the moment of dismissal. Despite this fact, the court denied the satisfaction of the lawsuit because the plaintiff missed the one-month statutory period for challenging the dismissal. The court critically evaluated the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of missing the deadline due to service in a volunteer formation, noting that the plaintiff did not provide evidence confirming the impossibility of applying to the court on time. The court also rejected the reference to the decision of the Constitutional Court, as it concerned other types of payments, not the deadlines for challenging dismissal. Regarding the lawsuit against the branch of the enterprise, the court closed the proceedings, as the branch is not a legal entity and cannot be a defendant in court. In conclusion, the court reached the conclusion that a violation of the dismissal procedure does not cancel the employee’s obligation to observe procedural deadlines for applying to the court.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s resolution, which denied the satisfaction of the lawsuit due to missing the deadline for applying to the court and closed the proceedings regarding the claims against the branch.
Case No. 163/630/25 dated 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. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the procedure for a father’s participation in the upbringing of a minor child and the removal of obstacles to communication with the child.
2. The court was guided by the principle of equality of rights and obligations of both parents regarding the child, regardless of their personal relationships or the fact of being married. The Supreme Court emphasized that restricting a child’s contacts with one of the parents is possible only if there is compelling evidence that such communication harms the child’s development, which in this case was not properly proven by the defendant. The court critically evaluated the evidence provided by the mother (psychological conclusions and kindergarten reports), pointing to their insufficient justification and the lack of verification of the stated facts in the court session. Also taken into account was[the child] has the right to maintain regular relationships with both parents, and isolating a father from his child is not in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court emphasized that the visitation schedule established by the appellate court is balanced and aimed at restoring the psycho-emotional bond between the father and the daughter. Ultimately, the court noted that it lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by lower courts, provided those courts acted within the scope of their authority.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling establishing the father’s visitation schedule with the child.
Case No. 317/3250/21 dated 06/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from unlawful possession and the cancellation of the state registration of a lease agreement, which the plaintiff considers to be forged.
2. The court established that the lease agreement was not signed by the plaintiff but by another person, as confirmed by the findings of a handwriting examination; therefore, there was no expression of will by the owner to conclude this transaction. The lower courts erroneously equated the fact of issuing a power of attorney in 2012 and receiving funds under other arrangements with an expression of will to conclude the specific lease agreement in 2014. The Supreme Court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requirement for a written transaction, and its absence indicates that the transaction was never executed. Since the agreement was not concluded, it creates no legal consequences for the owner. An effective method of protecting property rights in such cases is a negatory action, i.e., a claim to remove obstacles to the use of property by returning it. Therefore, the court concluded that the land plot must be returned to the owner, as the defendant failed to prove the existence of legal grounds for its use.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to return the land plot and rendered a new decision ordering the defendant to return it to the owner; in all other parts, the decision remained unchanged.
Case No. 490/7902/16-ts 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. The subject matter of the dispute is the declaration of nullity of transactions regarding the alienation and mortgaging of real estate that was under a bank mortgage, due to a change in its address and area without the consent of the mortgagee.
2. In its decision, the Supreme Court focused exclusively on procedural violations committed by the appellate court. The key argument was that the court heard the case in the absence of one of the defendants (Person 4), who had not been properly notified of the date and time of the court hearing. The court emphasized that the return of a court summons marked “expired”with the expiration of the storage period” does not constitute proof of proper notification of a participant in the proceedings. Since the right to participate in a court hearing is a fundamental principle of civil proceedings, its violation is an absolute ground for overturning a decision. The Court of Appeal, contrary to the requirements of the procedural law, failed to assess the arguments of the appeal regarding this violation and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged. In this regard, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to assess the other arguments of the parties, as the procedural violations by the appellate instance made a lawful consideration of the case on the merits impossible.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 205/7675/20 dated 10/06/2026
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:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim to invalidate powers of attorney and apartment sale and purchase agreements, as well as to vindicate property from someone else’s unlawful possession, since the real estate was alienated on the basis of a forged power of attorney without her volition.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that since the signature on the power of attorney was forged, the owner’s expression of will for the alienation of the property was absent, which is a key factor for the protection of property rights. The Court emphasized that in cases where property leaves the owner’s possession against their will, it is subject to vindication from the final acquirer by way of a vindication claim, even if the acquirer is a bona fide purchaser. At the same time, invalidating all chains of contracts is an ineffective method of protection; therefore, the court correctly focused on the claim for vindication of property. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff learned about the violation of her rights only in 2020, when she received a response from a notary. Regarding the bona fide acquirer, the court noted that they are not deprived of the right to claim damages from the seller, but this cannot be an obstacle to the return of the property to the lawful owner. Finally, the Supreme Court recognized the conclusion of the handwriting examination conducted within the framework of criminal proceedings as proper and admissible evidence confirming the fact of fraudulent seizure of property.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which satisfied the claims for the vindication of the apartment from someone else’s unlawful possession.
Case No. 726/1637/25 dated 03/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim for the termination of a mortgage agreement and the removal of encumbrances on real estate in connection with the alleged full performance of the principal credit obligation.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the mortgage is accessoryand (derivative) nature, therefore its termination is possible only subject to the complete termination of the principal obligation. The Court of Appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that the “protocol of reconciliation” signed by the parties was not an additional agreement on the termination of the loan agreement, but merely defined the terms of restructuring. The parties clearly stipulated that a separate additional agreement was to be signed after the payment of funds, which, in fact, did not occur. The Supreme Court noted that the principle of “contra proferentem” (interpretation against the one who drafted the agreement) applies only when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous; however, in this case, the issue was the absence of the necessary legal actions to close the loan. The court also rejected the arguments regarding the “contradictory behavior” of the bank, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the bank had committed actions that would indicate the final termination of the obligation. Thus, the absence of evidence of the full performance of the loan agreement makes it impossible to terminate the mortgage as a method of security.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 904/2585/23 dated 06/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Court of Appeal’s return of the claimant’s appeal without consideration due to the non-payment of the court fee for challenging the court ruling rendered in the course of judicial control over the execution of a judgment.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that judicial control over the execution of a judgment is an integral part of the right to judicial protection, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that a person who has already obtained a judgment in their favor should not bear additional financial burdens in the form of a court fee to achieve the actual execution of that judgment. The legal position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was taken into account, according to which the introduction of a fee for such procedural actions negates the effectiveness of judicial proceedings and contradicts the principle of the rule of law. The Court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” does not provide for rates for applications within the framework of judicial control, and therefore the Court of Appeal’s requirement to pay the fee is groundless. The Supreme Court noted that impeding access to appellate review in such matters violates constitutional guarantees. Consequently, the return of the appeal due to non-payment of the fee was recognized as an unlawful violation of the claimant’s procedural rights.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal on the return of the appeal and remanded the case to the appellate court for further proceedings starting from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 521/17473/23 dated 06/10/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the state registrar regardingregarding the transfer of ownership of a residential building to the mortgagee (Isagis LLC) through an extrajudicial procedure.
2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the lower courts made errors in evaluating evidence and applying legal norms. Firstly, the Supreme Court confirmed that the mortgagee is required to provide an appraisal report, as Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages” has a higher legal force than the Procedure for State Registration of Rights, which at that time did not contain such a direct requirement. Secondly, the court noted that the lower courts had groundlessly dismissed evidence of proper notification of the debtors regarding the foreclosure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the signature of a postal employee on the registered notification is sufficient proof of delivery, and the improper performance of duties by postal services should not entail negative consequences for the mortgagee. It was also stressed that the burden of rebutting the presumption of proper notification lies with the plaintiffs. Since the courts did not provide a proper assessment of these circumstances, the decisions cannot be considered well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 465/8/19 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 detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the bank’s actions regarding extrajudicial foreclosure on the mortgaged property (an apartment) and the registration of ownership title to it without proper notification to all mortgagors of the need to remedy the breaches of the loan agreement.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that to exercise the right to extrajudicial foreclosure on mortgaged property, the mortgagee is obliged to strictly adhere to the procedure provided for by Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages.” The key argument was that the bank failed to provide evidence of proper dispatch and delivery of the demands to remedy the breaches to all co-owners (mortgagors) of the disputed property. Since the state registrar did not receive confirmation of compliance with the 30-day period from the moment all mortgagors received the demands, the registration of ownership title in favor of the bank was carried out in violation of the law. The court also emphasized that following the legislative amendments of January 16, 2020, an effective method of protection is the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision, rather than the cancellation of the entry in the register. Regarding the allocation of court costs, the court noted that since the claims against the bank were partially satisfied, the bank is obliged to reimburse legal aid expenses in proportion to the satisfied claims. Finally, the court rejected the bank’s reliance on Supreme Court practice, pointing out that the circumstances in the cases cited by the bank are not identical to the circumstances of the present case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “PrivatBank,” and the decisions of the lower courts (in the part concerning the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision…state registrar) — unchanged.
Case No. 932/8952/20 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a request to declare illegal the decisions of the local government body on the commissioning of real estate objects and to oblige the co-owners of the household to demolish unauthorized extensions and restore the common basement premises to their previous state.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the fact that the parties are co-owners of a single real estate object, therefore any changes (reconstructions, extensions) must be carried out with the consent of all co-owners if they affect common property.
– A key factor was the establishment of prejudicial circumstances in previous court cases, which confirmed the fact of the remodeling of the common basement and the restriction of the plaintiff’s access to it.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of ownership is inviolable and the protection of a co-owner’s rights must be effective; therefore, the obligation to restore the basement to its previous state is an appropriate method of protection.
– Regarding other claims (demolition of the garage and reconstruction of building “B-1”), the court refused, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that these objects actually violate her rights or create obstacles in the use of the property.
– The court noted that the mere fact of carrying out reconstruction without the consent of a co-owner is not an automatic basis for demolition if a real violation of the plaintiff’s rights is not proven.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law, and the parties’ arguments regarding the violation of these norms were not confirmed during the cassation review.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances — unchanged.
Case No. 906/780/24 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 analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Zhytomyr City Council with a demand to declare the land plot sale and purchase agreement invalid, return it to the territorial community, demolish the object of unauthorized construction, and cancel the relevant entries regarding the right of ownership.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that for the correct resolution of the case, it is necessary to clearly establish whether the disputed object is real estate or a temporary structure, as this radically changes the legal regime of the property and the grounds for registering rights to it.
* The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of lower instances did not properly investigate whether the construction was carried out in compliance with urban planning norms and whether the defendant had legal grounds for acquiring the right of ownership to the building, and therefore — to the land plot underneath it.
* The court emphasized that the registration of the right of ownershipdoes not automatically legalize self-willed construction if the object was built in violation of regulations; therefore, the courts should have verified the existence of construction permits and the documentation regarding the commissioning of the object.
* It was also noted that the courts failed to assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the possible contradictory conduct of the city council and whether it was aware of the lack of grounds for registering the ownership right to the pavilion at the time of the land sale.
* Regarding the appellate court’s reference to the ECtHR practice, the Supreme Court noted that the courts failed to determine whether the interference with the defendant’s right to property was proportionate, as they did not establish all the factual circumstances regarding the good-faith acquisition of the property and the maintenance of a balance of interests.
* Since the lower courts failed to establish the key factual circumstances necessary for the correct application of substantive law, their conclusions were deemed premature.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore cannot independently establish the circumstances of the case that were not examined by the lower courts.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zhytomyr Region.
Case No. 120/2559/25 dated 06/16/2026
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:** The plaintiff challenged the decision of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to pay her only 50% of the one-time financial aid in connection with the death of her husband, a serviceman, demanding payment of the full amount (15 million UAH) due to the fact that other persons lacked legal grounds to receive a share of this aid.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court determined that the one-time financial aid is compensatory in nature and is granted only to those family members who have a legal right to it in accordance with Article 16-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen.”
– In this case, the daughter of the deceased was an adult and did not provide evidence of being dependent on her father, which deprives her of the right to receive a share of the aid.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the current legislation does not provide a mechanism for “reserving” a portion of the payment for persons who have not confirmed their social and legal status as a recipient.
– The Ministry of Defense had no legal grounds to artificially divide the amount of aid in half, as at the time of the decision, no other person had confirmed their right to the payment.
– The court noted that if other persons subsequently appear and prove their right to the aid, the issue of redistribution of funds must be resolved separately—by agreement of the parties or through legal proceedings.
– Thus, since the plaintiff was the only person who had proven her right to receive the aid at the time of the case hearing, she is entitled to the payment of the full amount in its entirety.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Courtdismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim had been satisfied.
Case No. 927/231/25(750/9526/23) dated 03/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is an individual’s claim to invalidate a suretyship agreement on the grounds that the signature on the document was executed not by the plaintiff, but by another person.
2. The court was guided by the principle that the chosen method of protection must be effective and aimed at the final resolution of the dispute in order to avoid the need for repeated appeals to the court. Since a court decision on the joint and several recovery of debt under the same agreement had already been rendered and had entered into legal force, the plaintiff lost the opportunity to challenge the validity of the agreement in separate claim proceedings. The court noted that the plaintiff should have defended their rights directly during the consideration of the debt recovery case by objecting to the claim and proving the fact that the agreement was not signed there. A separate lawsuit filed after the completion of the debt recovery dispute contradicts the principles of procedural economy and legal certainty. Even the existence of an expert opinion confirming that the signature was executed by another person cannot be a basis for satisfying the claim, as the chosen method of protection is improper. Therefore, choosing an ineffective method of protection is an independent and sufficient ground for denying the claims.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/10501/25 dated 16/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a request by the Department of Economy and Investments of the Kyiv City State Administration (KCSA) to recognize a supplementary agreement to a contract as concluded by judicial order.
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of freedom of contract and the inadmissibility of forcibly imposing terms on a counterparty that were not agreed upon by the parties during negotiations. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to recognize a supplementary agreement as concluded, it is necessary to prove the existence of a valid expression of will by the parties to change the terms of the contract, which was not established in this case. The court also drew attention to the fact that the institute of recognizing an agreement as concluded cannot be used as an instrument for unilaterally changing the essential terms of a contract without the consent of the other party. The plaintiff’s argumentation regarding the mandatory signing of such an agreement was deemed insufficient, as the case files did not contain evidence of the parties reaching an agreement on all essential terms. Thus, the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law by evaluating the evidence in its entirety. The court found no grounds to interfere with the discretionary powers of the business entity regarding the refusal to sign the proposed changes.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Department’s cassation appeal., and the resolution of the commercial appellate court — without changes.
Case No. 522/20626/15-k dated 06/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the sentencing of the convicted person for violation of traffic safety rules that caused grievous bodily injury, as well as the procedure for resolving a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage by an insurance company.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the convicted person is subject to exemption from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, which is an imperative requirement of the law. Regarding the civil claim, the court established that the issue of collecting non-pecuniary damage from the insurer within the framework of criminal proceedings was resolved in violation of procedural norms. Specifically, the court pointed out the necessity of distinguishing jurisdictions, as disputes regarding the compensation for damage caused by a traffic accident involving insurance companies must be considered under civil procedure rules. The court emphasized that the criminal process should not substitute for the civil process in terms of resolving property claims against legal entities that are not parties to the criminal offense. Thus, the overturning of the decisions in this part is aimed at ensuring the parties’ right to a proper judicial review in the appropriate jurisdiction. This will allow the victim and the insurance company to substantiate their positions in accordance with the norms of civil legislation.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, exempted the convicted person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and remanded the case regarding the civil claim for a new trial to the court of first instance under civil procedure rules.
Case No. 362/5608/24 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 plaintiff’s claim for the recovery of monetary compensation from the aggressor state (the Russian Federation) for non-pecuniary damage caused as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine, which led to forced displacement and mental suffering.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the armed aggression of the Russian Federation is a universally known fact that does not require proof, and an application to a Ukrainian court is the only available means of protecting the rights of victims. The Supreme Court confirmed that non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of rights as a result of aggression is subject to compensation on the basis of Article 23 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the court emphasized that the amount of compensation does not have a fixed scale and is determined by the court individually, based on the principles of reasonableness, balance, and fairness. The appellate court reasonably took into account that although the plaintiffs experienced stress and were forced to leave their home, their settlement was not included in the list of territories of active combat operations, which influenced the assessment of the depth of the suffering. The Supreme Court agreed that the amount in30,000 UAH per person is sufficient satisfaction that does not lead to unjust enrichment. The cassation arguments regarding the failure to consider previous practice were rejected, as the appellate court duly assessed the specific circumstances of the case and adhered to the criteria of similarity of legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s resolution on the partial satisfaction of the claim.
Case No. 183/4502/16 dated 05/13/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement, which includes the principal amount, interest for the use of funds, and three percent per annum after the lender’s death.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed the fact that a loan agreement was concluded on the basis of the existing receipt, which is proper evidence of the receipt of funds and the obligation to return them.
* The Supreme Court clearly distinguished the legal nature of interest: interest for the use of a loan (Art. 1048 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) can be accrued only within the term of the agreement.
* Upon the expiration of the loan repayment period (in this case, January 1, 2016), the legal relationship between the parties shifts to a protective plane, where the accrual of contractual interest becomes groundless.
* During the period of delay in the performance of a monetary obligation, the creditor has the right only to collect three percent per annum and inflation losses (Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and not contractual interest.
* The court noted that the lower instances erroneously collected interest for the use of the loan for the period after January 1, 2016; therefore, this decision was corrected.
* Regarding court costs, the court applied the principle of proportionality, redistributing them between the parties in accordance with the amount of satisfied claims (71% in favor of the plaintiff).
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower instances regarding the collection of interest for the use of the loan after its term had expired, and adopting a new decision to deny this part of the claim, while leaving the remaining recoveries unchanged.
Case No. 474/1673/23 dated 06/17/2026
The subject of this dispute is the verification of the legality of the first-instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of an individual for committing theft under martial law (Part 4 of Art. 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, while considering the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, focused on verifying the appellate court’s compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural law during the review of the verdict. The court concluded that the appellate court did not provide an appropriate level of judicial oversight required to guarantee the right to a fair trial. In particular, it was established that during the appellate review, the arguments of the defense, which are of material importance to the legality of the conviction, remained unaddressed or were insufficiently investigated. The court noteheld that ignoring the arguments of the defense in an appeal constitutes a substantial violation of the requirements of criminal procedural law. As a result, it was recognized that the appellate review procedure did not meet the standards of completeness and objectivity, which made it impossible to uphold the appellate court’s ruling. Therefore, to rectify the committed violations and ensure the legality of the judgment, the case must be remitted for a new trial to the appellate instance.
The Supreme Court partially granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 907/1048/25 dated 06/16/2026
The subject of the dispute is a claim by an individual against a limited liability company regarding the obligation to perform certain actions arising from corporate or economic legal relations.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and comprehensive examination of the case materials, having verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the Commercial Court of Zakarpattia Oblast and the Western Commercial Court of Appeal had fully and objectively investigated all circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute. The judges established that the arguments of the cassation appeal of LLC “SN Development” do not refute the findings of the lower courts and do not indicate a violation of legal norms that could serve as grounds for overturning the contested decisions. The panel of judges confirmed that the legal position underlying the decisions of the first and appellate instances complies with the requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine. Thus, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, as the lower courts correctly applied the norms of law to the factual circumstances of the case as established by them.
The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Zakarpattia Oblast and the ruling of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 447/2207/23 dated 05/27/2026
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:** Invalidation of real estate gift deeds concluded by an 80-year-old mother in favor of her son, due to the lack of free expression of will and the use of psychological and physical pressure against her.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff’s expression of will was not free, as she acted under the influence of psychological pressure and threats from her son, with whom she resided in the same house.
* The fact of domestic violence was documented: the family was registered with social services due to the defendant’s relevant actions.
* The court took into account the plaintiff’s advanced age, her state of health, and the fact that she had no other housing, which made her vulnerable to her son’s threats.
* Testimonywitnesses, who confirmed the systematic conflicts and violent behavior of the respondent, were recognized by the court as credible and admissible evidence.
* The respondent’s arguments that the plaintiff had signed the agreements voluntarily were refuted by the totality of the collected evidence, in particular, the existence of a prior will in favor of another person, which indicates her lack of intent to donate the property to her son.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that to invalidate a legal transaction due to duress, it is not necessary to have a criminal conviction; it is sufficient to prove the fact of pressure and the causal link between such pressure and the execution of the transaction.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the donation agreements were declared invalid.
Case No. 759/5072/21 dated 08/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of an application for an additional decision regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by a party during the cassation review of a case concerning the lifting of an attachment on property and the invalidation of a purchase and sale agreement for a share in the authorized capital.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the costs for legal assistance must not only be actual, but also proportionate, justified, and necessary, considering the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that organizational actions (going to the post office, sending documents) do not constitute legal assistance and are not subject to separate payment.
– The court found the recovery of costs for preparing an application for an additional decision to be groundless, as this is a technical implementation of the right to reimbursement rather than legal assistance.
– It was specifically noted that expenses for the preparation of documents that were subsequently returned by the court without consideration (due to procedural errors by the representative) cannot be imposed on the other party.
– The court took into account the opponent’s objections regarding the disproportionality of the fee, as the attorney duplicated previously submitted documents, which did not require significant time expenditures.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that it has the right to reduce the amount of expenses if they do not meet the criteria of reasonableness and reality, even if there is an agreement between the client and the attorney regarding a different fee amount.
– Taking into account the partial satisfaction of the initial claims, the court applied a proportional allocation of costs, recovering from the opponent only two-thirds of the amount recognized by the court (10,000 UAH), which totaled 6,666.67 UAH.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, extended the deadline for submitting evidence, and ordered PERSON_3 to pay PERSON_1 6,666.67 UAH for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 926/3689/25 dated 09/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided.
