Case No. 755/6196/24 of 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The employee filed a lawsuit seeking to declare the dismissal for absenteeism illegal, for reinstatement to the position, and for the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism and compensation for moral damages.
2. **Court Arguments:** The court established that the employee’s absence from the workplace was due to the performance of procedural duties as a suspect in criminal proceedings, in particular, the review of case files upon the investigator’s summons. Since participation in investigative actions is an objective circumstance independent of the employee’s will, it was recognized as a valid reason for absence from work. The court emphasized that in order to dismiss an employee for absenteeism, the employer is obliged to prove the absence of the employee specifically without valid reasons, which was not done in this case. It was also stressed that the dismissal procedure must strictly comply with the requirements of labor legislation, and any doubts regarding the validity of the reasons for absence must be thoroughly checked by the employer before issuing an order. Since the fact of illegal dismissal was confirmed, the court recognized the legitimacy of the claims for reinstatement to work and the payment of compensation for forced absenteeism. Regarding moral damages, the court was guided by the principles of reasonableness and fairness, assessing the depth of the plaintiff’s suffering due to the illegal dismissal.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the dismissal order was canceled, the employee was reinstated to the position, and average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism and moral damages were recovered in their favor.
Case No. 903/124/25 of 06/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to recover funds, recognize the defendant’s delay in fulfilling obligations, and declare an additional agreement on the termination of the main agency agreement invalid or unconcluded.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim because the plaintiff did not provide evidence of a specific list of actions for which they were authorized and did not prove the merits of their claims regarding the invalidity of the agreement.
– The court noted that the demand to recognize an agreement as “unconcluded” in this context is not an effective way to protect rights, and the circumstances of the conclusion and execution of this agreement had already been the subject of examination in another judicial proceeding (Case No. 910/453/24).
– Regarding the suspension of proceedings due to the plaintiff’s director serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the court indicated that the party to the case is a legal entity, not its director, therefore there are no grounds for mandatory suspension.
– In addition, the court took into account that the very [text ends abruptly]the plaintiff in the statement of claim requested to continue the proceedings, which precludes the necessity of staying the proceedings even in the presence of relevant circumstances.
– The Supreme Court upheld the position regarding the absence of grounds for staying the proceedings, but identified a procedural violation by the appellate court.
– The appellate court failed to ensure the proper participation of the plaintiff’s representative in the videoconference, despite the technical problems that arose during the hearing, which deprived the plaintiff of the right to be heard.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court due to the violation of the plaintiff’s procedural rights during the videoconference.
Case No. 280/8358/21 dated 06/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The case concerns a lawsuit by a former prosecutor to recognize as unlawful the inaction of the prosecutor’s office and to compel it to compensate for material damage caused by the payment of salary in an understated amount due to the application of unconstitutional provisions of the Budget Code of Ukraine.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court, sitting as the Joint Chamber, departed from previous inconsistent positions of other judicial panels, establishing a uniform approach to resolving such disputes.
* The Court confirmed that the absence of a special law on the procedure for compensation of damage caused by an unconstitutional act is not a ground for dismissal of the claim, as Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine is a provision of direct effect.
* Declaring a provision of law unconstitutional means that it contradicted the Constitution from the moment of its adoption, rather than from the date of the decision by the Constitutional Court, which creates a legal basis for claims for compensation of damage for the past period.
* The proper defendant in such cases is the prosecutor’s office that carried out the accrual and payment of monetary remuneration, as it was its actions that led to the occurrence of property damage.
* At the same time, the Court noted that the courts of lower instances did not establish the actual amount of damage, as they did not take into account the allowances, bonuses, and additional payments actually received by the plaintiff, as well as the periods of vacation and sick leave, which affect the salary calculation.
* Due to the incomplete clarification of the factual circumstances of the case, which are of decisive importance for determining the amount of compensation, the courts of the first and appellate instances committed procedural violations.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance for a proper calculation of the amount of damage.
Case No. 910/8760/25 dated 06/23/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the unilateral termination of a bank account agreement by the bank…bank with a client due to the assignment of an “unacceptably high risk” rating in the sphere of financial monitoring.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that a bank’s right to terminate a contract on such grounds is not absolute, but depends on the bank proving the validity of its conclusions. The Court stressed that the bank is obliged to document the conduct of an internal review and the existence of specific grounds for establishing a high risk level. At the same time, the Supreme Court criticized the approach of the appellate court, which granted the claim solely due to the formal absence of certain documents in the case file, without examining the substance of the bank’s arguments. The Court noted that the appellate instance should have independently taken measures to clarify the circumstances, including by requesting evidence, even if it contains banking secrecy. Since the appellate court did not assess all arguments of the parties and did not properly investigate the justification for the bank’s actions, the decision was deemed premature. Ultimately, the Supreme Court pointed to the necessity of a comprehensive review of the case, taking into account the balance between banking secrecy and the client’s right to judicial protection.
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 910/3714/24 dated 06/23/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** LLC “Agrocontrast” applied to the court with a demand to cancel the orders of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which had annulled the decisions of state registrars regarding the registration of the company’s ownership rights to a number of land plots.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances did not properly investigate the issue of legal succession between the collective agricultural enterprise (CAE) and LLC “Agrocontrast,” in particular, whether there was an actual transfer of property based on a general meeting decision. The Court emphasized that the mere fact of registering a legal entity as a successor or the matching of an identification code is not incontrovertible proof of the transfer of land ownership. It is important to analyze the composition of participants and the existence of transfer acts confirming the expression of will of the CAE members. The court also underscored the necessity of applying Clause 21 of the Transitional Provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine, according to which lands of defunct CAEs that were not re-registered into private ownership are considered the property of territorial communities. The courts did not assess whether there were grounds for suspending or refusing state registration, as identified by the Ministry of Justice. Due to the incomplete establishment of the circumstances of the case, which are of key significance, the Supreme Court deemed the conclusions of the lower instances to be premature.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial.to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 757/8409/22-ts dated 06/03/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a credit agreement, specifically the lawfulness of interest, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum accrued by the bank during the period of quarantine restrictions related to COVID-19.
2. The court established that, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Section IV “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Credit,” a consumer is released from liability for delay in the performance of obligations during the quarantine period. The Supreme Court emphasized that this exemption extends to any payments provided for delay, including accruals under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (inflationary losses and 3% per annum). The lower courts erroneously failed to take these legislative restrictions into account when calculating the amount to be recovered. At the same time, the court noted that the accrual of interest for the use of credit (as payment for the lawful use of funds) within the modified credit term is lawful. Since the bank did not accrue an increased rate (50% per annum) for breach of obligations, the borrower’s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of interest accrual at a rate of 22% were dismissed. Consequently, the Supreme Court recalculated the debt amount, significantly reducing the amount of inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the decisions of the lower courts by reducing the total amount of recovery and proportionally redistributing litigation costs.
Case No. 399/297/25 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit seeking the recovery of a land plot from unlawful possession and the cancellation of lease rights; however, the courts of first and appellate instances left the lawsuit without consideration due to non-compliance with the procedural law requirements regarding the preliminary deposit of the property value into the court’s account.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s obligation to deposit the value of property into the court’s deposit account, introduced by amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Code of Ukraine dated April 9, 2025, applies exclusively to cases of recovering property from a **bona fide** purchaser. In this case, the prosecutor substantiated the lawsuit by the bad faith actions of the defendants in obtaining the land, which excludes the application of the specified norm at the stage of initiating proceedings. The court noted that the issue of the purchaser’s good faith is key and must be resolved exclusively during the consideration of the case on the merits, rather than at the stage of accepting the statement of claim. Therefore, the requirement of the lower courts for the mandatory deposit of funds as a condition for accepting the lawsuit was premature and erroneous. The Supreme Court emphasized that the automatic application of new procedural restrictions bwithout assessing the nature of the legal relationship violates the right of access to justice. The Court also referred to its established case law formed in similar cases during 2025–2026, confirming that such financial guarantees are not required in lawsuits against bad-faith acquirers.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 522/19949/21 of 05/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from the State of moral damages caused to an individual due to the excessive duration and ineffectiveness of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Court confirmed that the State bears liability for damages caused by unlawful actions or omissions of pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office, particularly due to the violation of reasonable time limits for proceedings.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the excessive duration of an investigation (in this case, over 14 years) objectively causes moral suffering due to the uncertainty of the person’s status, restrictions on their rights, and the negative impact on their professional reputation.
– The Court rejected the arguments of the prosecutor’s office regarding the impossibility of recovering damages due to the plaintiff having received compensation from the ECHR, as at the time of the court of first instance’s decision, the ECHR judgment did not yet exist, and therefore there were no grounds to dismiss the lawsuit due to “double recovery.”
– At the same time, the cassation instance critically evaluated the amount of the awarded sum (UAH 500,000), noting that it does not fully take into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, as well as ECHR practice in similar cases.
– The Court emphasized that the legal basis for compensation is the very fact of the excessive duration of the investigation, rather than the need to prove individual unlawful acts by each investigator or prosecutor.
– The Court also clarified that the defendant in such cases is the State of Ukraine, and not specific bodies (the Prosecutor’s Office or the SBI), therefore, it is not necessary to specify the particular body through which the write-off of funds is carried out in the operative part of the judgment.
– Ultimately, the Court concluded that the sum of UAH 100,000 is a more proportionate and adequate compensation for the violation of reasonable time limits in this particular case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the prosecutor’s office and the SBI, modifying the decisions of the lower courts by reducing the amount of moral damages from UAH 500,000 to UAH 100,000.
Case No. 567/459/23 of 06/24/2026
Here is the analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements formalized by promissory notes from both members of a coupleas joint debtors.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that, although as a general rule the burden of proving that funds were used in the interests of the family lies with the plaintiff, in this case, objective facts were established regarding the acquisition by the spouses of a significant number of land plots precisely during the period following the receipt of the loan funds. The Court noted that the defendants failed to provide proper evidence that the funds were spent exclusively on the personal needs of one of the spouses or on business development, since the documents provided by them (meeting minutes, photos) do not confirm the intended use of these specific borrowed funds. The Court also emphasized that for a joint obligation to arise under Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, the consent of the other spouse to enter into a loan agreement is not required if the fact of using the received funds in the interests of the family is proven. The results of a psychophysiological examination using a polygraph were rejected by the Court as they do not constitute proper and admissible evidence in civil proceedings. As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly assessed the evidence and established grounds for joint liability of the spouses.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the Rivne Court of Appeal, which recovered the debt jointly from both spouses, unchanged.
Case No. 187/737/24 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerned the legality of the unilateral blocking of a client’s accounts by a bank and the recovery of a penalty from the financial institution for breach of the terms of the bank account agreement.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the bank failed to provide proper evidence of the client’s violation of legislation or contractual terms that would justify the blocking of the accounts. The Court noted that a bank, as a primary financial monitoring entity, has the right to suspend transactions; however, this does not exempt it from the duty to prove the legality of such actions in court. At the same time, regarding the penalty, the Court applied the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which a penalty under Article 10 of the Law “On Consumer Rights Protection” cannot be accrued on the amount of the deposit itself. The basis for calculating the penalty can only be the amount of interest or other income, which represents the bank’s payment for the use of the consumer’s funds. Since a bank account agreement is, by its nature, often free of charge for the client, the deposit amount is not the “cost of the service” within the meaning of the Law on Consumer Rights Protection. Therefore, the claims for the recovery of a penalty in the amount of 3% of the blocked funds amount were recognized as groundless.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower instances regarding the recovery of the penalty and rendering a new decision to deny this part of the claim, while upholding the restcourt decisions unchanged.
Case No. 636/429/23 dated 30/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which an individual was convicted of committing intentional murder (Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
During the cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law in the assessment of evidence and the imposition of a sentence. The panel of judges analyzed the materials of the criminal proceeding and concluded that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, providing a proper legal assessment of all available evidence. The Court did not establish any essential violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning or amending the challenged court decisions. The arguments of the defense regarding the groundlessness of the conviction or the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case were not corroborated during the cassation review. The Supreme Court recognized that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed sentence meets the requirements of the law and the principles of justice. Thus, the court of cassation affirmed the consistency of the legal position regarding the proof of guilt in committing the aforementioned crime.
The Court decided to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 727/2727/24 dated 24/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of a mortgage agreement, cancellation of an entry in the State Register of Mortgages, and recognition of the plaintiff’s right of mortgage holder under a previous mortgage agreement due to the mortgagor’s violation of legal requirements regarding the disposal of encumbered property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the mortgage under the original 2012 agreement did not terminate, as the principal credit obligation had not been fulfilled, and no legal grounds for the termination of the mortgage had arisen.
* Pursuant to Part 3 of Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages”, the transfer of property by a mortgagor into a subsequent mortgage without the consent of the original mortgage holder is a void transaction, which does not create legal consequences from the moment of its execution.
* The court emphasized that the voidness of a transaction operates automatically (ipso iure); therefore, a claim for its invalidation is not a proper method of protection, although the court is obliged to take this voidness into account when resolving the dispute.
* Regarding arguments about the good faith of the acquirer and the absence of entries in the registers, the court noted that the absence of information about an encumbrance in the register does not automatically terminate the mortgage if there are no legal grounds for doing so (for example, the realization of property in accordance with the law).
* As a proper method of prthe mortgagee’s remedy in such a situation is precisely a claim for recognition of the mortgagee’s right, which allows for the restoration of the legal status of the mortgage in the registers.
* The Court emphasized that the cancellation of previous court decisions, on the basis of which the property was removed from possession, does not automatically restore the mortgage; therefore, a court decision confirming the mortgagee’s right is necessary.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive law by protecting the priority right of the primary mortgagee.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the plaintiff’s right as a mortgagee, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 911/2142/24 dated 06/30/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of staying appellate proceedings in a case regarding the removal of obstacles to the use of water fund lands due to the submission of case materials to the court of cassation instance.
When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided primarily by the provisions of the Transitional Provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that in the event of filing a cassation appeal against rulings of the appellate court that are subject to appeal, all case materials must be transmitted to the higher court. In accordance with Clause 17.12 of Section XI of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the transfer of all case materials makes it impossible for the appellate court to continue consideration of the case. Consequently, staying the proceedings in such a situation is not a right, but a direct procedural obligation of the court. Although the appellate court mistakenly cited Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 227 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, this did not affect the correctness of the conclusion regarding the necessity of staying the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that a decision that is lawful in essence cannot be cancelled solely for formal reasons if the procedural outcome is correct.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on staying the proceedings and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 143/612/24 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 summary of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal of the verdicts of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of a driver under Part 1 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules while in a state of intoxication, which caused moderate bodily injuries to the victim).
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not review the factual circumstances of the case, but only the correctness of the application of legal norms.
– Regarding the admissibility of evidence of intoxication, the Court confirmed that the collection of biological samples at a healthcare facility is a mandatory procedure that does not require the consent of the person if they are in an unconscious state, and is not an investigative action that requires attesting witnesses.
– The Supreme Court stateheld that the right against self-incrimination does not extend to information that exists independently of a person’s will, such as the results of a blood alcohol test.
– Regarding sentencing, the court agreed with the appellate instance that the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a more lenient sentence than provided by law) was unfounded, as driving while intoxicated carries an increased level of public danger.
– The court indicated that the absence of a ruling recognizing the blood syringe as physical evidence does not constitute a substantial violation that would affect the legality of the verdict, especially given that the defense did not initiate the requisition of this document during the proceedings.
– Overall, the panel of judges recognized the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” as fully reasoned and consistent with the case file.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and left the judgments of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 902/1529/23 of 09/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of the tax authority’s application to impose subsidiary liability on former executives of a bankrupt enterprise for causing its bankruptcy.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the former executives committed intentional and purposeful actions that led to the enterprise’s insolvency.
– The first executive was found liable for the deliberate understatement of tax liabilities for land tax, which was confirmed by the materials of the tax audit and criminal proceedings.
– The second executive demonstrated inaction regarding the elimination of tax debt and alienated the enterprise’s assets (real estate and leasehold rights) in favor of a related party at an undervalued price without proper appraisal.
– The court emphasized that an executive is obliged to be aware of the state of affairs of the enterprise; therefore, references to lack of awareness regarding tax debt are groundless.
– The absence of a conviction in a criminal case (due to the expiration of statutes of limitation) does not release a person from civil (subsidiary) liability within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
– The actions of the executives are in a direct causal link with the debtor’s lack of property to satisfy creditors’ claims.
– The court emphasized that the presumption of an executive’s guilt in causing bankruptcy places upon them the burden of proving the absence of their fault, which the defendants in this case failed to do.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first-instance court’s decision to grant the creditor’s application and hold the former executives jointly and severally liable for the amount of 8,348,820 UAH 98 kop.
Case No. 370/866/25 of 01/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, demanding the refutation of inaccurate information disseminated by the defendant in a village Viber chat, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court emphasized the need to distinguish between factual assertions and value judgments, noting that the latter are not subject to refutation as they constitute the subjective opinion of the author.
– The Court of Appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that the disputed messages did not explicitly state the plaintiff’s surname, and the context of the neighborly conflict indicates the emotional nature of the statements.
– The court emphasized that freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, also includes those ideas that may be offensive or shocking, provided they do not exceed the boundaries of value judgments.
– An important factor was that the plaintiff failed to properly prove the fact of dissemination of information by the defendant (regarding the authorship of the messages) and failed to refute that these statements were merely a subjective perception of the conflict.
– The court noted that value judgments do not contain factual data that can be verified for accuracy; therefore, they cannot be the subject of a lawsuit for refutation.
– The Supreme Court also indicated that it lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by lower courts, provided those courts did not commit violations of substantive or procedural law.
– Ultimately, the court concluded that the balance between the right to freedom of speech and the right to protection of reputation was not violated in favor of the defendant in this situation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decision of the Court of Appeal unchanged and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, definitively denying the satisfaction of the claims.
Case No. 500/6757/18 dated 06/24/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of shares in joint ownership of a land plot and its physical partition between co-owners of a residential building.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty, noting that the Court of Appeal had no right to question prejudicial facts established by the court decision of 2008, which recognized the parties’ right to joint ownership of the plot.
– The court indicated that since the parties own separate parts of the house, they have the right to a physical partition (allotment in kind) of the corresponding part of the land plot, which is consistent with the provisions of Articles 364 and 370 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Article 89 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
– The panel of judges emphasized that the court of first instance rightfully chose the most rational partition option (Option No. 2), which ensures the normnormal use of the property and is the least burdensome for the parties.
– The Supreme Court rejected the arguments regarding the impossibility of division due to a change in the designated purpose of the land for a “store,” since the object is still recorded in the State Register as a residential house.
– Regarding monetary compensation, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ waiver of the collection of a significant amount in their favor effectively covered the value of the defendant’s sheds; therefore, the latter’s rights were not violated.
– It was also deemed unfounded the appellate court’s assertion regarding the necessity of involving other persons in the case, since the legal relations concern exclusively the current owners of the real estate.
– The Court concluded that the passive conduct of the defendant, who did not propose an alternative option for division, cannot be an obstacle to resolving the dispute on the merits.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to satisfy the claims regarding the partition in kind of the land plot.
Case No. 758/4494/25 dated 02/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the court of first instance’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the imposed sentence for committing a criminal offense related to the illegal possession of narcotic drugs without the intent to sell.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the need to adhere to the principles of individualization of punishment and its proportionality to the gravity of the committed crime. The panel of judges analyzed the arguments of the cassation appeal and concluded that the lower instances did not fully take into account the circumstances allowing for the application of a more lenient type of punishment. The Court deemed it possible to replace the previously imposed punishment with a fine, which corresponds to the goal of rehabilitating the convicted person without isolation from society. The issue regarding the independent execution of the sentence for another criminal proceeding was also resolved, which excludes the necessity of cumulating sentences according to the rules of sentencing multiple convictions in this case. Such an approach ensures a fair balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the individual, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the court decisions in the part concerning the imposed punishment by mitigating it to a fine in the amount of 51,000 hryvnias and determining the procedure for the independent execution of the previous verdict.
Case No. 756/11508/24 dated 24/06/2026
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 is the determination of the proper jurisdiction for hearing a claim by a former branch director against a company regarding the termination of employment relations in a situation where bankruptcy proceedings have already been initiated against said company.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that although the dispute regarding dismissal of a directorof a branch director, who is not a member of the company’s executive body, is by its nature labor-related rather than corporate, it is still subject to consideration within the framework of commercial litigation. The key argument was the provision of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, which establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the commercial court hearing the bankruptcy case to resolve any disputes involving claims against the debtor. The Court emphasized that the legislator does not limit the scope of such disputes only to pecuniary claims; therefore, even non-pecuniary claims (such as establishing the fact of the termination of an employment relationship) must be considered within the scope of bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff that the dispute is not corporate in nature but rejected the argument regarding its possible consideration under civil procedure. Thus, the court applied the principle of concentrating all disputes in which the debtor is a party into a single proceeding to ensure the efficiency of the liquidation procedure.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions, but upheld their conclusion regarding the impossibility of considering the case under civil procedure.
Case No. 703/4735/23 of 06/24/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to recognize as illegal and cancel a 1990 decision of the city council’s executive committee on the transfer of a land plot to another person, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, violated her right to this plot.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff — the cancellation of an individual act that had already exhausted its effect through execution — is ineffective and does not lead to the actual restoration of the violated right of ownership. The Supreme Court emphasized that in disputes regarding property rights, when property has already left a person’s possession, the appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim (recovery of property from another’s illegal possession). The court noted that challenging only the decision of a local self-government body does not ensure the return of the land plot to the plaintiff’s possession, as it would require additional judicial steps. It was also taken into account that the plaintiff had previously attempted to change the subject of the claim to the recovery of property, but the corresponding motion was left without consideration by the court, and this decision became final. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial protection must be complete and comply with the principle of procedural economy, rather than merely stating the illegality of past decisions. Consequently, the cassation appeal was rejected, as the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law regarding the effectiveness of methods of protection.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and the plaintiff’s cassation appeal — unsatisfied.
Caseand No. 760/34814/21 dated 06/24/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation as a family without marriage registration and the division of property (an apartment and a land plot) acquired during this period.
2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the lower courts erroneously placed the burden of proving the sources of financing for the acquisition of the land plot exclusively on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that for persons cohabiting as a family without marriage registration, there is a presumption of common property acquired during such cohabitation, similar to that applied to an official marriage. Accordingly, it is the party denying joint ownership who must prove that the property was acquired with the personal funds of one of the partners. The court also noted that the claim for recognition of property as “common joint ownership” is an improper method of protection, since an effective method is the direct division of property or recognition of a right to a share. The lower courts did not take these aspects into account, which led to premature conclusions regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim in the part concerning the land plot. Therefore, the cassation court pointed out the need to review the case in this part, taking into account the proper distribution of the burden of proof.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it amended the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions regarding the recognition of property as common joint ownership and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal in the part concerning the claim for recognition of the right to a 1/2 share of the land plot.
Case No. 990/458/25 dated 06/11/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a candidate for the position of a judge the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) declaring that they failed to confirm the ability to administer justice in the appellate court due to non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court emphasized that the assessment of a candidate is the exclusive discretion (authority) of the HQCJ, and the court does not have the right to interfere with the internal conviction of the Commission members, provided that the procedure was followed.
– The Grand Chamber confirmed that the decision of the HQCJ on the failure to confirm the ability to administer justice must be reasoned; however, the Commission is not obliged to respond in detail to every argument of the candidate if the general logic of the decision is understandable.
– Regarding the non-declaration of office premises, the court agreed with the HQCJ that although it was not intentional, the candidate’s repeated negligence when filling out declarations indicates a low level of diligence, which is unacceptable for a judge.
– Regarding the undervalued purchase price of a vehicle (UAH 3,000), the court found the HQCJ’s conclusions to be well-founded, as such a price is obviously notmarket [value], and the candidate’s explanation regarding a “symbolic price” merely confirmed his awareness of the discrepancy with the actual state of affairs.
– Regarding income from legal practice, the court noted that a significant number of cases involving the candidate in the Unified Register of Court Decisions significantly dissonates with the meager declared income, which raises reasonable doubts about the candidate’s integrity.
– The court emphasized that the position of a judge requires higher standards of conduct than those of ordinary citizens; therefore, any actions that may undermine public trust in the judiciary constitute grounds for a negative assessment of integrity.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to deny the claim.
Case No. 686/24039/22 of 06/25/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Verification of the legality of the conviction of a State Duma deputy of the Russian Federation for encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine (Part 3, Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), committed by voting for the recognition of occupation administrations (“LNR/DNR”), in the order of special judicial proceedings (*in absentia*).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the accused’s actions, as a representative of the Russian authorities aimed at changing the borders of Ukraine’s territory, were intentional and had a direct causal link to subsequent aggression and grave consequences (loss of life, destruction).
– The panel of judges deemed the use of the special judicial procedure (*in absentia*) legitimate, as the accused had been duly informed of the proceedings but deliberately evaded court while residing in the territory of the Russian Federation.
– The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence due to a change in the pre-trial investigation body, noting that the Prosecutor General’s resolution was well-founded and aimed at ensuring investigative efficiency under martial law.
– Regarding the defense’s reference to an “indirect link” between the voting and the loss of life, the court emphasized that these actions were part of a unified criminal plan aimed at legitimizing aggression.
– The fact of grave consequences was recognized as generally known, which is confirmed by numerous international acts and Ukrainian court verdicts regarding war crimes; therefore, the absence of specific victims in the given proceedings does not disprove the person’s guilt.
– The court concluded that the accused’s rights to a defense were ensured in full, specifically through the participation of a court-appointed lawyer and compliance with the procedures for publishing court summonses.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 686/24039/22 of 06/25/2026The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the court of first instance’s judgment and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of an individual for committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine, which resulted in the death of people or other grave consequences).
The Supreme Court, while considering the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, verified the lower courts’ compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law during the adoption of their decisions. The panel of judges analyzed the defense’s arguments regarding possible violations during the trial and the assessment of evidence provided by the prosecution. The Court concluded that the lower courts had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, providing a proper legal assessment of all collected evidence. It was established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was well-founded, and the imposed sentence meets the requirements of the law and the degree of gravity of the committed crime. The Court found no grounds for overturning the challenged judicial decisions, as no significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would have prevented the adoption of a lawful decision were identified. Consequently, the defense’s arguments regarding the illegality of the judgment and the appellate court’s ruling were deemed groundless.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 753/202/20 of 06/24/2026**
As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the situation:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court on leaving the lawsuit without consideration due to the plaintiff’s alleged repeated failure to appear at court hearings.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court of first instance formally applied Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, considering that the plaintiff failed to appear twice, which is a ground for leaving a lawsuit without consideration.
– The appellate court supported this position, having found no violations of procedural law.
– However, the Supreme Court established that the first hearing, scheduled for June 17, 2025, did not take place not due to the plaintiff’s absence, but because the judge was on sick leave, as evidenced by the relevant certificate.
– Accordingly, the plaintiff’s failure to appear at one hearing (June 30) cannot be considered a “repeated” failure to appear, which is a mandatory condition for applying the sanction of leaving a lawsuit without consideration.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural norms must be applied taking into account the actual circumstances, and not merely by a formal calculation of dates.
– Since the grounds for leaving the lawsuit without consideration were absent, the lower courts committed an error that impedes further proceedings in the case.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation…appellate complaint, set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the merits review.
Case No. 914/594/25 dated 06/16/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 914/594/25:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a claim with the court to recognize an additional agreement on the renewal of a land lease agreement for communal property for a new term as concluded.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized the priority of the principle of legal certainty and respect for final court decisions, as the local self-government body’s decision to lease this plot had previously been set aside in administrative proceedings.
– The court noted that satisfying the claim for the renewal of the agreement would effectively lead to a revision (review) of the results of another judicial proceeding, which is impermissible.
– The lessor (city council) clearly and unambiguously expressed its position regarding the unwillingness to continue the lease relations, which is its right as a representative of the landowner.
– The court emphasized that the lessor’s failure to comply with the one-month period for reviewing the tenant’s application is not an unconditional ground for the compulsory renewal of the agreement if the lessor has reasonably refused such a renewal.
– The plaintiff failed to prove its own good faith, as it continued to insist on the renewal of an agreement for which the legal basis (the land allocation decision) had been set aside by the court.
– The court indicated that when considering such disputes, it is necessary to take into account the presumption of good faith and honesty of participants in civil relations, as well as the landowner’s right to dispose of its property at its own discretion, in particular, by putting the leasehold right up for auction.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new decision, whereby it completely denied the claims of LLC “Construction and Investment Group ‘Prime'”.
Case No. 922/2188/25 dated 06/26/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a summary of the essence of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation, including the issue of recovering a “success fee”.
2. The court was guided by the fact that although the right to legal assistance is constitutional, the amount of expenses subject to reimbursement by the other party must be proportionate, justified, and meet the criteria of reasonableness. The Supreme Court emphasized that agreements between an attorney and a client, particularly regarding a “success fee,” are not binding on the court when allocating costs, as the court evaluates only the actually incurred and necessary expenses. The panel of judges established that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is inflated, since the attorney was already familiar with the mmaterials of the case, conducting it in all instances; therefore, certain types of work (analysis of practice, review of the complaint) effectively duplicated the preparation of the statement of defense. The court also indicated that some documents submitted by the plaintiff to confirm expenses were provided in violation of procedural deadlines and were therefore disregarded. Ultimately, the court exercised its right to reduce the amount of expenses based on the complexity of the case and the volume of services actually rendered.
3. The court partially satisfied the motion, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff UAH 46,000 in legal expenses (UAH 16,000 for services and UAH 30,000 as a “success fee”), while denying the remainder of the claim.
Case No. 916/2011/25 dated 06/25/2026
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:** Challenging the validity of a decision by a territorial office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding holding a company liable for anti-competitive concerted practices that led to the distortion of bidding results.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court established that the consideration of the antitrust case lasted over 7 years (from 2017 to 2025), which is an excessive timeframe for this category of cases.
* The AMC did not provide convincing evidence that the delay was caused by objective factors, such as quarantine or martial law, since the body did not take active measures for a long time prior to these events.
* The court emphasized that the principle of “good governance” requires state bodies to act in a timely and consistent manner, and that excessive duration of proceedings creates a state of legal uncertainty for businesses.
* It was established that the plaintiff actively cooperated with the AMC, providing all necessary documents back in 2017; therefore, the delay in the process was not caused by the company’s own conduct.
* The court noted that although the AMC has discretionary powers, they are not limitless and must be exercised within reasonable timeframes defined by law.
* It was taken into account that holding a party liable beyond reasonable timeframes violates the property rights of an enterprise that, in particular, is recognized as critically important to the economy.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of law by evaluating the circumstances of the case not formally, but through the prism of the individual characteristics of the specific proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which satisfied the company’s claim and declared the AMC’s decision invalid.
Case No. 990/88/26 dated 06/18/2026
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 decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the refusal to open disciplinary proceedings against a judge.
