Case No. 991/1081/19 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court in Case No. 991/1081/19 provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a judge of committing two episodes of receiving an improper benefit (bribery) for influencing the consideration of administrative offense cases.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the accused, using his official position, made requests for and received funds (1,000 Euros and 500 US Dollars) for the dismissal of administrative cases or to avoid liability through the manipulation of jurisdiction.
– Guilt was confirmed by a combination of evidence: statements from applicants, protocols of covert investigative (search) actions (audio and video surveillance), results of currency identification, and searches.
– The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding entrapment, noting that law enforcement agencies acted passively, merely documenting criminal activity, and the accused did not admit to committing the actions, which, according to ECHR practice, makes references to entrapment inconsistent.
– The court recognized the prosecution’s evidence as relevant and admissible, rejecting the defense’s motions for their exclusion due to alleged procedural violations during acquisition or lack of authority of the investigators.
– The court emphasized the increased public danger of a crime committed by a judge, which undermines the authority of the judiciary and trust in state institutions.
– Arguments regarding the violation of the right to defense (participation of a lawyer from the Center for Free Legal Aid) were found to be groundless, as the accused had the opportunity to exercise his right to legal assistance, and procedural aspects did not affect the legality of the investigative actions.
3. **Court’s decision:** The court found the accused guilty of committing criminal offenses stipulated by Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a period of 3 years.
Case No. 570/2753/23 dated 06/18/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the review of the legality of court decisions in criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person for committing a traffic accident with severe consequences (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in terms of the correctness of sentencing.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, analyzed the compliance of lower courts with the requirements of criminal law during the selection of sentencing. The court concluded that the previous decisions require correction in view of the need to comply with the principles of individualization of punishment and its proportionality to the severity of the committed act. The panel of judges deemed it possible to apply the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for a lighter sentence than provided by law, in the presence of…and relevant circumstances. At the same time, the court took into account the possibility of the convicted person’s rehabilitation without actual service of the sentence in places of restriction of liberty. Therefore, a decision was made to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for exemption from serving a sentence with probation. Such an approach ensures a balance between the necessity of punishment for a crime and the possibility of social rehabilitation of an individual without isolation from society.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the court decisions of the lower instances by imposing a more lenient sentence on the convicted person with the application of a probationary period.
Case No. 643/7307/20 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the appellate court’s refusal to recover professional legal assistance expenses due to the party’s alleged non-compliance with the requirements for submitting a preliminary calculation of such expenses.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural legislation does not contain an imperative requirement for an unconditional refusal to reimburse expenses in the event of failure to submit a preliminary calculation, as this is a right, not an obligation of the court. In this case, the party effectively complied with the requirements of the law by stating the estimated amount of expenses in the response to the appellate appeal. The court stressed that evidence of the expenses incurred was submitted within the established five-day period after the decision was rendered, which complies with the requirements of Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, warning against “excessive formalism” that hinders effective access to justice. The court noted that refusing to reimburse expenses under such conditions constitutes a violation of the right to fair judicial protection. Ultimately, the appellate court mistakenly ignored the submitted documents confirming the reality and justification of the attorney’s fees.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the supplementary ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new hearing to resolve the issue of the distribution of court costs.
Case No. 199/2741/20 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An heir challenged a city council’s decision to transfer a land plot into the ownership of a third party, claiming that this land historically belonged to her family and was in their actual use.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the decedent had not completed the privatization procedure during her lifetime and had not received a state deed for the right of ownership, which was a mandatory condition for the emergence of the right of ownership to land under the legislation of that time.
– The Supreme Court nstated that the actual use of a land plot and the payment of taxes do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for the recognition of ownership of real estate.
– The defendant, on the other hand, acquired ownership of the plot in 2019 by complying with the procedure for the privatization of reserve lands established by law.
– The court noted that the right to use land necessary for the maintenance of a house does not imply an automatic right to the entire area of the plot that the plaintiff’s family had been using for decades without proper registration.
– Since the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed plot overlaps with the specific portion of land necessary for the maintenance of her house, there are no grounds to cancel the registration of the defendant’s ownership right.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence already examined by the appellate court and affirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal of the claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which denied the claims in full.
Case No. 910/7256/25 dated 06/18/2026
The subject of this dispute is the demand of Sota Ukraine Limited Liability Company to invalidate and cancel certain items of the decision of the Northern Interregional Territorial Branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee acted within the powers granted to them by law and in compliance with the decision-making procedure. The Supreme Court analyzed the case files and concluded that the courts of lower instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, giving them a proper legal assessment. The complainant’s arguments regarding the violation of its rights were not confirmed during the cassation review, as the plaintiff’s arguments amounted to a re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of the court of cassation’s authority. The court also confirmed that the conclusions of the AMC regarding the existence of violations of competition legislation are well-founded and based on the collected evidence. Thus, there were no legal grounds for overturning the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 927/1005/24 dated 06/17/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate commercial court’s ruling, which resolved issues within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings for AMTT LLC.
2. When considering the cassation appeals, the Supreme Court was guided by the need to ensure the unity of judicial practice and compliance with procedural law norms in resolving bankruptcy cases. The court established that during the consideration of the case in the appellate instance, violations occurred that prevented a full and comprehensive investigation of circumstances relevant tofor a proper resolution of the dispute. In particular, the panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not fully assess the parties’ arguments regarding the legitimacy of the creditor’s claims and the procedural aspects of initiating the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of interests of all participants in the bankruptcy case, including the debtor and the creditors. Since the establishment of the actual circumstances of the case requires an additional assessment of evidence, which the court of cassation instance has no authority to perform under procedural law, the case was remanded for a new trial. This approach ensures the parties’ right to a fair trial and the proper protection of their rights within the bankruptcy procedure.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturned the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 915/1177/24 dated 17/06/2026
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:** The plaintiff attempted to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting of company participants, claiming that she was not properly notified of the meeting and that the meeting itself was held without a quorum.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that the procedure for convening the meeting was fully complied with, as the initiator of the meeting provided evidence of the company’s receipt of the request to convene it, which is confirmed by the internal log of incoming correspondence. Since the director did not convene the meeting within 10 days, the participant holding 60% of the capital had the legal right to initiate it independently. The court also took into account that the company’s charter allowed for notifying participants via regular mail, which was done, and the fact that the plaintiff did not receive the notice does not indicate a procedural violation by the initiator. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the irrelevance of the evidence and non-compliance with the procedure were rejected as they were not supported by proper evidence. The Supreme Court also emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined by lower courts. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s rights were not violated, as she was properly notified of the meeting in accordance with the charter.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part referring to the failure to take into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 910/12685/25 dated 17/06/2026
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:** The prosecutor appealed to the court with a request to cancel the auction results and permit documents for subsoil use issued to TLLC “Cherembud”, due to the absence of a mandatory environmental impact assessment report.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the state participates in the process through its bodies; however, in the absence of a specifically authorized body to protect the interests of the state in such legal relations, the prosecutor has the right to apply to the court independently. The Court rejected the position of the appellate instance, which refused the claim solely on the grounds that the prosecutor had chosen an “improper plaintiff” (the State Environmental Inspectorate of the Carpathian District instead of the central apparatus). The Supreme Court stressed that an erroneous determination of the body in whose interests the prosecutor acts should not become an obstacle to considering the case on its merits. The Court also noted that the legislation does not define a specific body authorized to challenge the procedure for granting special permits for subsoil use, therefore the prosecutor acts in the public interest. Consequently, the appellate court had no right to refuse the claim without examining the case on its merits, based solely on formal procedural issues. **** — in this case, the Supreme Court effectively departed from previous practice, which required strict adherence to the definition of an “improper plaintiff” in cases where the prosecutor acts in the interests of the state, recognizing that in the absence of a body clearly defined by law, the prosecutor should not be restricted in the right to appeal to the court due to formal errors in identifying such a body.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Appellate Court to resolve the dispute on its merits.
Case No. 755/460/24 dated 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiffs attempted to reclaim basement premises from another’s illegal possession, arguing that it is an auxiliary premise of an apartment building and belongs to the co-owners under the right of common joint ownership.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Court emphasized that the key criterion for determining the status of a premise is its functional purpose: whether it ensures the operation of the entire building and the household needs of the residents.
* The plaintiffs did not provide proper evidence that the disputed premise contains engineering equipment that serves more than one premise in the building.
* The Court noted that although the premise was designated as “storage rooms for residents” in the design documentation, storage rooms in themselves are not auxiliary premises, as they are not necessary for the vital functions of the building.
* The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the standard of proof: the burden of proving that a premise is auxiliary lies with the plaintiffs, not the defendant.
* The Court rejected the argument regarding “negative evidence,” pointing out that plaintiffs cannot build their position solely on the fact that the defendant did not refute their claims.
* SinceSince the plaintiffs did not provide expert reports or other evidence to confirm the technical purpose of the premises as auxiliary, the court found their claims unsubstantiated.
* The court also confirmed that non-residential premises that are not part of the residential housing stock are independent objects of civil rights, which precludes their automatic classification as common property of the residents.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 757/60733/18-ts dated 06/17/2026
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 heir filed a lawsuit to declare a certificate of acquisition of property at public auction null and void, to cancel decisions on the state registration of ownership rights, and to invalidate mortgage and sale and purchase agreements for an apartment that had left the possession of the testator during their lifetime.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an inappropriate method of protection is an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
– The court noted that in cases where property has left the possession of the owner (or testator) against their will, the appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim — the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession on the basis of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– Claims to invalidate legal transactions or cancel registration entries in such situations are ineffective because they do not ensure the actual return of the property to the plaintiff’s possession.
– The court emphasized that the right to vindicate property passes to the heirs along with the inheritance; therefore, the plaintiff had the right to file vindication claims specifically against the current possessors of the apartment.
– Since the plaintiff did not file a claim for the recovery of property but chose the path of challenging individual documents and registration actions, the court concluded that the claim could not be satisfied.
– The court also pointed out that the issue of evaluating evidence (in particular, a copy of the auction certificate) does not affect the outcome, as the chosen method of protection will, a priori, not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s resolution, which denied the satisfaction of the claim, unchanged.
Case No. 990/585/25 dated 06/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 990/585/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions and decisions of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the consideration of a judge’s report on interference in their activities, as well as the legality of certain provisions of the HCJ Regulations.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the HCJ is a collegial body acting within the limits of its discretionary powers, and the mere fact of a prolonged consideration of a report is not automatic proof ofunjustified inaction, if the body had made the necessary inquiries and verification actions. The court noted that the High Council of Justice (HCJ) is not vested with the authority to perform criminal-legal qualification of actions; therefore, referring the matter to law enforcement agencies is an appropriate way to respond to facts containing signs of a crime. Regarding the appeal of the HCJ decision, the court established that it was adopted collegially, signed by members of the HCJ, and based on the materials of the verification conducted by a working group of the Council of Judges of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the absence of clearly defined time limits for each stage of verification in the HCJ Rules of Procedure does not render this regulatory act unlawful or contrary to laws of higher legal force. In the court’s opinion, procedural matters of the HCJ’s activities fall within its exclusive competence, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the discriminatory nature of the challenged provisions of the Rules. Consequently, the court found no grounds to declare the actions of the HCJ illegal, as the body acted within the scope of its powers and within reasonable timeframes, considering the complexity of the case.
3. The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Administrative Cassation Court, decided to dismiss the claims of PERSON_1 in their entirety.
Case No. 990/44/26 dated 04/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is a judge’s appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice to hold her disciplinary liable in the form of a reprimand for unjustified delay in the consideration of a criminal case and failure to take measures for the timely consideration of a motion to lift the seizure of property.
2. The court established that the disciplinary body acted within the scope of its powers and that the decision to hold the judge liable is reasoned and based on proper evidence. The Grand Chamber confirmed that for a long period (over 5 years), the judge failed to ensure the consideration of the criminal proceedings, allowing unjustifiably long breaks between hearings and taking no measures to summon the participants in the proceedings. The court specifically drew attention to the fact that the judge ignored a motion to lift the seizure of property, which should have been considered within three days, but in fact remained without proper consideration for over 900 days. The judge’s arguments regarding excessive workload were rejected, as they do not justify complete inaction on specific procedural matters. The court emphasized that a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand is proportional to the committed misconduct and complies with the principles of justice. Thus, the Grand Chamber found no grounds to overturn the HCJ decision, as the procedure for holding the judge liable was observed, and the conclusions regarding the existence of misconduct were substantiated.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the judge’s appeal and uphold the decision of the High Council of Justice.— no changes.
Case No. 361/7341/21 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:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the recovery of immovable property (an object of incomplete construction) from another’s illegal possession, claiming to be its rightful owner based on a 2003 sale and purchase agreement.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court of cassation instance determined that the lower courts erroneously refused the claim, baselessly assuming that the absence of a record in the State Register of Proprietary Rights to Immovable Property automatically deprives the plaintiff of ownership rights.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that state registration is merely a confirmation of a right, not a method of acquiring it; therefore, the courts were required to investigate the legal grounds for the plaintiff’s acquisition of the property in 2003.
* The lower courts improperly applied prejudice regarding the decisions in case No. 15/318-08-27/218-08, as the plaintiff was not a participant in that process and their arguments regarding ownership rights were not examined.
* The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of assessing the principle of “proper governance” and the case law of the ECHR, as the state cannot correct its own errors (double sale of property) at the expense of bona fide purchasers.
* The courts failed to evaluate the evidence of the registration of the plaintiff’s agreement in 2003, which contradicts the case files.
* At the same time, the court of cassation instance supported the actions of the court of first instance regarding the hearing of the case in the absence of the plaintiff, acknowledging that this did not constitute a violation of procedural rules in this specific case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 580/1002/26 of 06/17/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the application of reduction coefficients to the pension payments of military personnel in 2026, based on the provisions of the Law on the State Budget and the corresponding resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The court proceeded from the premise that the pension provision for military personnel is regulated by a special law, which has priority over other regulatory legal acts. It was emphasized that the Law on the State Budget cannot change or revoke the scope of rights and guarantees provided for by special laws, as this contradicts the principle of the rule of law and Articles 8, 19, and 92 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The court stressed that any changes to the terms of pension provision must be made exclusively through amending the specialized law, rather than through budget acts or secondary legislation of the government. The court also applied the principle that “a special law takes precedence over a general one” (lex special*lex specialis derogat legi generali*), recognizing the provisions of budget legislation in this part as not subject to application due to their non-compliance with the Constitution. It is important that the court pointed out the inadmissibility of narrowing the content and scope of existing citizens’ rights when adopting new laws. On this basis, the court concluded that the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the limitation of the pension are unlawful, as they are based on norms that violate constitutional guarantees of social protection.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which satisfied the pensioner’s claims, recognizing the actions of the Pension Fund as unlawful and obliging it to pay the pension without applying reduction coefficients.
Case No. 280/4259/25 dated 06/17/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appealing the refusal of the Pension Fund to recalculate the monthly life-long monetary allowance of a retired judge based on a certificate of judicial remuneration, calculated taking into account the subsistence minimum established as of January 1, 2024.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the amount of judicial remuneration and, accordingly, the life-long allowance of a retired judge must be calculated exclusively on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” which is a special law.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the State Budget Law cannot change the guarantees of judicial independence established by the Constitution and special law, in particular, by artificially limiting the subsistence minimum for the calculation of salaries.
– The court noted that the provisions of the State Budget Law regarding the “special” subsistence minimum for judges constitute an unlawful interference with the guaranteed level of financial support.
– An important aspect was that the court distinguished this case from the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 240/9028/24, since that case addressed calculation issues upon dismissal, not the recalculation of a life-long allowance.
– The court explicitly stated that it is departing from the legal position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of November 17, 2025, in case No. 520/32171/24, which previously allowed the Pension Fund to apply a limited amount of the subsistence minimum.
– Instead, the court supported the position of the Judicial Chamber of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 17, 2026 (case No. 200/2309/25), which confirms the right of retired judges to a recalculation of the allowance with each increase in the subsistence minimum established as of January 1 of the corresponding year.
– Thus, the refusal of the Pension Fund was recognized as unfounded, as it was based on an unconstitutional narrowing of judges’ social guarantees.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and rendered a new decision satisfying the claim.of the claims of PERSON_1, ordering the Pension Fund to recalculate the lifetime monetary maintenance.
Case No. 389/3293/21 dated 06/17/2026
Case No. 640/24404/20 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging tax notices-decisions by PJSC “Ukrnafta”, by which the company was imposed with penalties for late payment of value added tax (VAT).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the tax authority had groundlessly credited Ukrnafta’s current tax payments towards the repayment of a non-existent (canceled) tax debt, which had arisen on the basis of previously canceled tax notices-decisions.
– The key factor was that the tax authority failed to fulfill its duty to bring the data in the taxpayer’s integrated card into compliance with the actual state of settlements after the cancellation of the previous tax notices-decisions.
– Since the tax debt was effectively absent and current liabilities were paid by the taxpayer on time, the automatic crediting of funds to repay the “fictitious” debt led to the artificial emergence of arrears on current declarations.
– The court emphasized that since the tax notices-decisions on the basis of which the debt was accrued were canceled through administrative and judicial procedures, they lost their regulatory effect and created no obligations for the taxpayer.
– The tax authority did not provide evidence of the legitimacy of the interest accrual and the existence of a tax debt that would justify the application of Clause 87.9 of Article 87 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.
– Consequently, the imposition of fines for late payment of taxes that were actually paid on time is unlawful, as it arose solely due to the erroneous actions of the controlling authority itself in its accounting systems.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to cancel the tax notices-decisions.
Case No. 466/4655/25 dated 06/18/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint.
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the issue of the lawfulness of the lower courts’ refusal to recover from the plaintiff in favor of the defendants the costs of professional legal assistance after the plaintiff submitted an application to leave the claim without consideration.
**2. Court’s arguments**
The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the plaintiff’s right to have a claim left without consideration is a dispositive procedural right, the exercise of which in itself does not constitute an “unjustified action” within the meaning of Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that for the imposition of an obligation on the plaintiffto compensate the defendant’s expenses, the latter must prove the existence of specifically bad-faith actions by the plaintiff that indicate an abuse of procedural rights. In this case, the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff acted intentionally for the purpose of delaying the process, obstructing justice, or causing harm to the defendants’ interests. The Supreme Court emphasized that applying to a court is a constitutional right, and the mere fact of filing a claim, which was subsequently left without consideration, is not an automatic ground for the recovery of attorney’s fees. The Court also noted that the case materials did not confirm arguments regarding systematic delay of the proceedings or the plaintiff’s bad-faith change of representatives. Thus, the lower courts correctly applied the rules of procedural law by assessing the absence of signs of abuse of rights in the plaintiff’s actions.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/2111/24 dated 10/06/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing appellate proceedings upon the appeal of a person (the State Mortgage Institution) who did not participate in the insolvency case of a natural person but claims that the court decision directly concerns its rights and interests as a creditor.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the court of appeal took a formal approach to the issue of the appellant’s procedural status without investigating the actual impact of the ruling on closing the case proceedings on the institution’s property rights. The Court emphasized that a person who did not participate in the case has the right to file an appeal if the court decision contains findings regarding their rights, interests, or obligations, or if the decision effectively deprives them of the opportunity to realize their claims. The court of appeal was obliged to verify the institution’s arguments that the debtor had knowingly concealed a change of creditor by providing outdated information in the application, which led to the write-off of a multi-million debt without the participation of the actual creditor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a guarantee of a fair trial, therefore the court cannot be limited to merely verifying the formal status of a participant. Refusal to conduct a review without analyzing whether the appellant’s property interests were violated is a violation of procedural norms that obstructs further proceedings. Thus, the court of appeal should have clarified the existence of a legal nexus between the appealed ruling and the institution’s rights, rather than simply closing the proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeal for further consideration of the appeal on its merits.
**Case No. 902/243/25 dated 16/06/2026**j. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is an entrepreneur’s claim to compel the distribution system operator (oblenergo) to enter into an electricity distribution services agreement for a recreation center, which the plaintiff acquired without the relevant electrical facilities (transformer substation and lines).
2. The court established that the plaintiff is not the owner of the electrical installations through which the facility is powered and has no agreements with their owner regarding their use. Since the essential terms of the agreement, such as the list of electrical installations, the boundaries of balance sheet ownership, and the permitted capacity, require individual negotiation, the court deemed the claim for the forced conclusion of a standard agreement to be unfounded. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s reliance on previous Supreme Court decisions is groundless, as the legal relations in those cases are not similar to this situation. Specifically, the cases cited by the plaintiff involved different circumstances regarding the acceptance of the operator’s actions or the existence of prejudicial decisions, whereas in this case, technical specifications and rights to the networks are absent. The court also noted that to conclude the agreement, the plaintiff must first resolve the issue of capacity allocation or obtain new technical specifications for connection. Since the grounds for cassation appeal were not confirmed, the court denied the appeal.
3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the claim of failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 910/19061/21 dated 06/18/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is an audit firm’s claim to invalidate and cancel the decision of the territorial branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in the part concerning the imposition of sanctions or the finding of a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition.
2. When rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and the justification of the administrative body’s actions when applying enforcement measures. The Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with substantive and procedural law, particularly regarding the completeness of the investigation of circumstances relevant to the case. The court concluded that the evidence upon which the AMCU’s decision was based did not properly confirm the fact that the plaintiff had committed the incriminated violation. It was also taken into account that during the proceedings in the first and appellate courts, proper assessment was given to all arguments of the parties regarding the lawfulness of the audit firm’s actions. The court confirmed that the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the absence of grounds to hold the plaintiff liable are logical and correspond to the factual circumstances of the case. Thus, the cassation appeal did not contain sufficient legal grounds for overturning the contested judicial acts.
3. The Supreme Court left thethe cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee shall be dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances shall remain unchanged.
Case No. 910/3232/25 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 analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the recognition of monetary claims of two creditors in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “AK Sater” and compliance by the courts of lower instances with the procedure for verifying these claims.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, a “heightened standard of proof” applies, which obliges the court to critically evaluate any claims, even if the debtor acknowledges them. The courts of first and appellate instances approached the matter formally, failing to properly examine the content of the documents on which the claims were based (in particular, agreements on the termination of contracts and supplementary agreements). The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts did not verify whether these pieces of evidence were submitted within the 30-day period established by law, which is critical for competitive creditors. The need for a detailed analysis of the legal nature of the obligations was also ignored, which creates a risk of legitimizing fictitious indebtedness. As a result, due to the incompleteness of the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the violation of procedural norms, the decisions of the lower instances were deemed premature. The Court emphasized that the recognition of claims without proper legal analysis violates the rights of other creditors who claim satisfaction of their demands at the expense of the debtor’s assets.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the relevant part, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv City.
Case No. 160/31220/24 dated 17/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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 subject of the dispute is the legality of the State Labor Service’s resolution imposing a fine on LLC “Alfa SB” in the amount of 3,360,000 UAH for the actual admission of 14 employees to work without proper registration of employment relationships.
**2. Court’s arguments**
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower instances because they did not examine key evidence and misapplied the provisions of law regarding the “repeatability” of a violation. The Court emphasized that the characteristic of repeatability under Article 265 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is linked to the fact of the violation being detected by an authorized body within two years, and not to the existence of a final court decision in an administrative offense case. The court also indicated that video recordings by inspectors constitute admissible electronic evidence, which the courts of first and appellate instances groundlessly ignored without conducting an analysis thereof. Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized that security activities, by their nature, require the conclusion of employment contracts, rather than civil-law…agreements, and the courts were required to verify whether this constituted “disguised employment.” Regarding procedural violations, the court noted that formal deficiencies (such as issues concerning notification of case proceedings) do not constitute grounds for overturning a decision if they did not affect the merits of the case or if the person was able to defend their rights in court. Ultimately, the courts did not examine the content of the order dated April 2, 2024, which is a factual prerequisite for qualifying actions as repeated.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the State Labor Service, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 360/773/14-ts (360/773/13-ts) of 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decision for you. Here is the essence of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from a private individual in favor of the state and the invalidation of state acts on the right of ownership to this land.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in its judgment, established a violation by Ukraine of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the interference with the applicant’s property rights was disproportionate and raised doubts regarding its legality. The Grand Chamber noted that the national courts of lower instances did not analyze the issue of proportionality of the interference and did not properly investigate the circumstances of the good-faith acquisition of the property. Since the Supreme Court is a court of law and not of fact, it is deprived of the possibility to independently establish the circumstances of the case or assess evidence that was not previously examined. Therefore, to comply with the ECHR judgment and restore the applicant’s rights, it is necessary to set aside all previous court decisions. The case must be remanded to the court of first instance, which is obligated to investigate the issues of legality, proportionality of the interference, and compliance with the statute of limitations. Such an approach ensures adherence to the principle of subsidiarity of the international human rights protection mechanism.
3. The court decided to set aside the decisions of the courts of first, appellate, and cassation instances and remit the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 520/32309/24 of 06/16/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenging by the agricultural company “Mriya” of tax notice-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv Oblast, as well as the subsequent dispute between the parties regarding the amount and justification of expenses for professional legal assistance.
The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, concluded that the lower courts had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. The court confirmed the legitimacy of the conclusions to cancel the tax notice-decisions, as the tax authority had not proven the lawfulness of its accruals with proper evidence.The panel of judges paid particular attention to the issue of the distribution of legal costs, in particular, the costs for legal assistance. The court noted that the amounts of expenses claimed by the parties meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the attorneys. At the same time, the court did not identify any violations of substantive or procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the contested decisions. Thus, the position of the courts of first and appellate instances was recognized as consistent with the requirements of the law and the factual circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 280/8287/25 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the date from which a pensioner is entitled to the reinstatement of a length-of-service pension after dismissal from a position that granted entitlement to such a pension.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a length-of-service pension arises directly from the moment of dismissal from the respective position, and not from the moment of filing an application with the Pension Fund. The court distinguished between the concepts of “payments not received through the fault of the pensioner” and “payments not received through the fault of the Pension Fund authority,” noting that in this case, limiting the payment to the date of application is groundless. The panel of judges emphasized that since the plaintiff applied for the reinstatement of payments within the three-year period established by law, she is entitled to receive the pension for the entire period starting from the day following the date of dismissal. The court rejected the position of the appellate instance, which groundlessly limited the payments to the date of filing the application (07/31/2025) instead of the date of dismissal (09/01/2023). It was also noted that the Pension Fund’s refusal due to the lack of information regarding a pension from the Russian Federation is unreasonable and not supported by any legal provisions. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the priority of an individual’s right to receive a pension from the moment the grounds for its reinstatement arise.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which mandated the Pension Fund to reinstate and pay the pension starting from 09/01/2023.
Case No. 907/771/21 dated 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from a limited liability company of over UAH 14.7 million in damages caused to the natural environment as a result of land contamination with phenols.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the assessment of evidence, groundlessly rejecting materials obtainednor during the pre-trial investigation of the criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that evidence collected within the framework of a criminal case may be used in commercial proceedings if it relates to the subject matter of proof. The Supreme Court highlighted that the soil sampling report was signed by the defendant’s representative without any objections, which must be taken into account when assessing liability. The court also noted that in the event of doubts regarding the reliability of an expert opinion, the appellate court had the authority, and not just the right to deny the claim, to appoint a forensic expert examination on its own initiative. Since the appellate court did not examine all evidence in its entirety and did not evaluate all arguments of the prosecution, its conclusions were deemed premature. As a result, to establish the truth and fully clarify the circumstances, the case must be reconsidered.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the commercial appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the same court of appellate instance.
Case No. 907/742/25 dated 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of taking measures to secure a claim in the form of seizure of funds and movable property of the defendant (sole proprietor) in a case regarding the recovery of damages caused by the failure to preserve cargo.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that securing a claim is an instrument to prevent situations where the enforcement of a decision becomes impossible due to the debtor’s alienation of property. The court indicated that in disputes regarding the recovery of funds, the possibility of disposing of property is indisputable; therefore, the requirement to prove the risk of its disappearance should not turn into an “unattainable standard of proof.” The adequacy of measures is assessed through their proportionality to the claim amount, rather than through a total prohibition of business activities. The court emphasized that the seizure of property only restricts the right of disposal but does not deprive the owner of the right to use it. The issues of whether the amount of damages is justified and whether the defendant is the proper party must be resolved during the consideration of the case on its merits, and not at the stage of securing the claim. Therefore, the imposition of a seizure within the amount of the claim was recognized as a reasonable and balanced measure that guarantees the actual enforcement of the court decision in the future.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s resolution on taking measures to secure the claim unchanged.
Case No. 910/1800/22 (910/7737/22) dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a debt assignment agreement concluded by a debtor in a bankruptcy case, based on the special provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures(CBPC).
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the institution of invalidating transactions within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings is a mechanism for protecting the interests of creditors against actions of the debtor that deteriorate its financial condition. It was established that the debtor concluded an agreement on the assumption of debt in the amount of 65 million UAH during the “suspicious period” (within three years prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings). The court emphasized that such a transaction was gratuitous, as the debtor assumed significant obligations without receiving any property equivalents or benefits. Such behavior of the debtor was recognized as contrary to the principles of good faith and reasonableness, as it objectively reduced the volume of assets available to satisfy the claims of other creditors. The lower courts correctly applied Part 2 of Article 42 of the CBPC, which allows for the invalidation of transactions where a debtor assumes obligations without corresponding property actions on the part of the other party. The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellants’ arguments regarding violations of legal norms were not substantiated, and the factual circumstances of the case were assessed correctly by the courts.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the debt assumption agreement was declared invalid.
Case No. 910/9482/24 dated 02/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of joint and several liability for loan agreements concluded within the framework of a General Credit Agreement between a bank and a group of borrower and guarantor companies.
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of freedom of contract, enshrined in Articles 3 and 627 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that parties to an agreement have the right to independently determine the priority of debt repayment, even if it differs from the dispositive norm of Article 534 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court had erroneously interpreted the terms of the loan agreements, as they expressly provided for the bank’s right to independently determine the priority of allocating payments. The court emphasized that the existence of such a right for the bank contains no contradictions and is mandatory for the parties to fulfill. Regarding the complaint of a third party (guarantor), the court closed the proceedings, as the challenged decision did not resolve issues concerning their rights or obligations, and it lacked prejudicial significance for them. Thus, the Supreme Court recognized the bank’s actions regarding the allocation of funds as lawful and in compliance with the terms of the concluded agreements.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to fully satisfy the bank’s claims.
Case No. 495/8640/21 dated 17/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the issue ofgranting permission for the enforcement in Ukraine of a foreign court judgment (Italy) concerning both non-property issues (deprivation of parental rights and determination of a child’s place of residence) and a property-related issue (recovery of legal costs).
2. The Supreme Court distinguished between the applicant’s claims, noting that a foreign court judgment is not always a single entity in the context of enforcement proceedings. The Court emphasized that matters of parental responsibility and guardianship are, by their nature, not subject to compulsory enforcement through the enforcement service; rather, they are to be recognized as a legal fact or legal status. Therefore, the appellate court erroneously applied the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as this case concerns the legitimization of a decision already rendered on the merits of the dispute. At the same time, regarding the recovery of legal costs, the foreign court judgment has a property character and is subject to compulsory enforcement. The Supreme Court also noted that national courts should not independently convert amounts awarded in foreign currency into the hryvnia equivalent, as this alters the operative part of the foreign judgment. Thus, the court clearly separated the procedures for the recognition of status and the compulsory recovery of funds.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision regarding non-property claims and overturned the refusal to enforce the judgment regarding the recovery of legal costs, upholding the first-instance court’s ruling on the recovery of funds (without conversion into hryvnia).
Case No. 741/1681/24 of 17/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief legal analysis for your publication:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the facts of residing as a single family with a deceased uncle-serviceman and being dependent on him for the purpose of receiving social benefits.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Court emphasized that for persons to be recognized as family members, family ties alone are insufficient; it is necessary to prove cohabitation, maintaining a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations.
* The appellate and Supreme Courts concluded that the evidence provided (certificates, witness testimonies) does not confirm the fact of maintaining a joint household, as the applicant has parents who are legally obligated to support her.
* Regarding the fact of being a dependent, the court noted that the assistance from the uncle was not proven to be a “permanent and primary” source of livelihood, as the applicant’s mother had her own income.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that a court in special proceedings has the right, but not the obligation, to collect evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the applicant.
* The Court also indicated that indirect witness testimonies cannot be the sole basis for establishing a legal fact if there is no other objective evidence of maintaining a joint household.
* The cassation instance confirmedconfirmed that the courts of lower instances had correctly evaluated the evidence in its entirety, and that the arguments of the appeal amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the factual circumstances, which falls outside the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts (refusing to establish the facts).
Case No. 910/7759/25 dated 06/18/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the consideration of an application for the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant during the cassation proceedings.
When rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle of proportionality of legal assistance costs to the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney. The Supreme Court emphasized that although the agreement between the client and the attorney is the basis for payment, it is not binding on the court when determining the amount subject to reimbursement by the other party. The Court took into account that the defendant’s legal position had remained consistent throughout all instances, and therefore preparation for the cassation hearing did not require a significant volume of additional legal work. Furthermore, the Court applied the provisions of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, noting that the claimed amount of expenses significantly exceeded the amount previously declared in the preliminary estimate without proper justification for such an excess. The Court also took into account the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, according to which costs for the preparation of the application for reimbursement of expenses itself are not subject to reimbursement. In summary, the Court concluded that only 6,000 UAH of the claimed 20,000 UAH met the criteria of reasonableness and necessity.
The Court partially granted the application, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant 6,000 UAH in professional legal assistance costs.
Case No. 906/957/24 dated 06/17/2026
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:** A prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the City Council with a demand to compel an entrepreneur to vacate a plot of communal land by dismantling unauthorizedly installed temporary structures.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court established that the entrepreneur is using the land plot without proper title documents and without obtaining a placement permit (passport of attachment) for the temporary structures, which constitutes a violation of urban planning and land legislation.
– Regarding jurisdiction, the Court noted that the dispute concerns the protection of real rights to land; therefore, it is private-law in nature and subject to consideration specifically in a commercial court rather than an administrative one.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the prosecutor had the right to represent the interests of the state, as the City Council, being aware of the violation, officially refused to take measures due to a lack of funds, which indicates its inaction.
– The Court rejectedthe entrepreneur’s arguments that the disputed structures are not located on the specified plot, as these assertions contradict the case files and inspection reports drawn up by authorized commissions.
– The court emphasized that an effective way to protect the rights of a landowner in the event of temporary structures being placed on their land is specifically a negatory action (a claim for the removal of obstacles to use).
– The Supreme Court also referred to its previous practice (Case No. 914/1785/22), which confirms that the dismantling of temporary structures installed without legal grounds is a lawful method of protecting the rights of the territorial community.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had satisfied the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 334/9606/24 dated 17/06/2026
Below is a detailed legal analysis of the provided court decision:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from the Enerhodar City Council of wage arrears, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum accrued to the former acting director of the municipal enterprise “Chyste Misto” (Clean City).
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the fact that a municipal enterprise is a separate legal entity that carries out economic activities independently, maintains its own balance sheet, and is liable for its own obligations, in particular regarding the payment of wages.
* A local self-government body (the founder) is not liable for the obligations of the municipal enterprise, and the enterprise is not liable for the obligations of the founder, which is expressly provided for in the Statute and Art. 176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* Subsidiary liability of the founder may arise only in exceptional cases, for example, if it is proven that it was the founder’s actions that led the enterprise to bankruptcy, which was not established in this case.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the City Council was his employer solely on the basis that the mayor appointed him to the position, since employment legal relations arise specifically with the legal entity — the enterprise.
* The plaintiff’s reference to the practice of the Supreme Court (Case No. 761/13951/22) was deemed irrelevant, as that case concerned specific employment relations in an educational institution, whereas this case concerns a self-sustaining municipal enterprise.
* The court emphasized that since the enterprise is in a state of reorganization, rather than liquidation, it continues to remain the proper defendant for its debts until the completion of the legal succession procedure.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance to deny the claim, confirming that the claim was filed against an improper defendant.
Case No. 902/90/21 dated 09/06/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the courtjudgment, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the cassation review is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to stay the proceedings in a bankruptcy case until the Supreme Court establishes a unified legal position regarding the write-off of tax debt.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Court proceeded from the fact that procedural legislation allows for the stay of proceedings if an issue in similar legal relations is being considered in another case, and the prohibition on staying proceedings in bankruptcy cases applies only to the consideration of the case on its merits, not to separate procedural issues.
– The Supreme Court applied the criteria for the similarity of legal relations defined by the Grand Chamber, emphasizing that the substantive criterion (commonality of rights and obligations) takes priority over the subject composition.
– The Court established that despite the different status of the debtors (a legal entity in this case and a natural person in case No. 908/1194/24), in both cases an identical legal conflict arose between the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures and the Tax Code of Ukraine regarding the mechanism for recognizing tax debt as bad.
– Since the judicial chamber of the Supreme Court is already considering case No. 908/1194/24 to resolve inconsistencies in practice, awaiting this conclusion is necessary to ensure legal certainty and avoid contradictory decisions.
– The Court rejected the arguments of the tax authority regarding the impossibility of staying the proceedings, noting that the lack of a unified position on debt write-off makes it impossible to correctly resolve the dispute on its merits in the appellate instance.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the stay of proceedings in this case does not violate the rights of the participants in the bankruptcy procedure, as it is aimed at the correct application of substantive law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling to stay the proceedings, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
Case No. 307/2899/21 of 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiffs attempted to cancel a decision of a local self-government body granting permission to another person to develop a land management project regarding a land plot on which their residential house is located.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that in order to satisfy the claim, the plaintiffs must prove an actual violation of their rights, which was not done in this case. The Court pointed out that the circumstances of the case had already been the subject of review in other judicial proceedings, where the legality of the challenged city council decision was established. The Supreme Court emphasized that prejudicial facts (established earlier by other courts) are mandatory for consideration and are not subject to re-proving. The court also noted that the plaintiffsattempted to reassess the facts already established, which exceeds the powers of the cassation court. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove that the contested decision creates obstacles for them in exercising their property rights, there are no grounds for its cancellation. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant’s motion to close the proceedings, as it found no procedural grounds for doing so, as provided for in Article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 334/5661/24 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles to the use of non-residential premises held under common partial ownership by dismantling the structures (shutters) installed by the defendant, restoring the doors, and ensuring access to utilities.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court focused on procedural violations committed by the appellate court during the examination of evidence. The Court emphasized that the appellate court admitted new evidence (technical conclusions and contracts) that had not been submitted to the first instance court, without any justification regarding the validity of the reasons for such late submission. According to procedural law, parties are obliged to disclose all evidence at the preparatory proceeding stage, and the appellate court may admit new evidence only in exceptional cases. The appellate court not only failed to justify the admission of this evidence but also based its decision on it, which is a gross violation of the adversarial principle. The Supreme Court stressed that the appellate court was required to discuss the admissibility of this evidence and issue an appropriate ruling or provide motivation in its decision. Since the appellate court ignored these requirements, it prematurely decided the case on its merits without ensuring the proper procedural order.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 334/3292/25 dated 06/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the paternity of a deceased serviceman in relation to a minor child and making appropriate amendments to the birth record (changing the surname and patronymic).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the priority of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires ensuring the child’s right to identity and family ties.
– The biological paternity of the deceased was established based on a molecular-genetic examination with a probability of 99.99999%, which s
