Case No. 991/8352/25 dated 06/11/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a civil claim filed by a prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office for the recognition of a number of the defendants’ assets as unfounded and their compulsory forfeiture to the state revenue.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle of verifying the legality of the origin of the funds used to acquire the property by comparing them with the defendants’ confirmed income. The key task of the Court was to establish whether the value of the assets exceeds the individuals’ lawful income, which serves as the basis for applying the mechanism of civil forfeiture. The Court analyzed in detail the evidence provided regarding the value of cash, vehicles, and income from their alienation. Given the specific nature of cases involving unfounded assets, the Court evaluated each object separately, distinguishing those bearing signs of being unfounded from those for which the prosecutor failed to prove their position. As a result, the Court concluded that the claim should be partially satisfied, as a portion of the assets was not supported by legal sources of income. In doing so, the Court clearly demarcated the scope of liability for each defendant, taking into account their role in the ownership and disposition of the disputed property.
The Court ruled to partially satisfy the claims, recognizing a portion of the assets (cash and a number of vehicles) as unfounded and ordering the forfeiture of their value or the assets themselves to the state revenue.
Case No. 754/6420/25 dated 05/21/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of death of an individual (the applicant’s grandmother) in 1925 for the purpose of obtaining a death certificate and subsequently exercising the rights of a burial plot user.
2. The Court concluded that the application should be denied, as the applicant failed to provide proper and admissible evidence that would indisputably confirm the fact of death and the familial relationship with the deceased. The courts critically evaluated the provided burial site inspection report, as it was signed by the applicant herself rather than by an authorized cemetery official, which negates its evidentiary weight. It was also established that the chosen method of legal protection is ineffective, as even the establishment of the fact of death does not prove the fact of the burial of that specific person at that specific location, which is crucial for acquiring the status of a burial plot user. The courts emphasized that it is impossible to establish a legal fact based solely on assumptions, and archival data regarding death registration for 1925 in the specified settlement are absent. The Supreme Court agreed that the arguments of the cassation appeal actually boil down to the need for a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the court of cassation instance. Thus, the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law without committing violations that would affect the legality of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courtsof the first and appellate instances remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal — dismissed.
Case No. 447/1954/24 dated 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to remove the defendant from the right to inherit after the death of a common decedent, citing the fact that the defendant intentionally took the life of the decedent; she also requested to invalidate the certificates of the right to inheritance and to vindicate the property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant committed a socially dangerous act, which, based on objective indicators, falls under the definition of murder; however, it was proven within the framework of criminal proceedings that he was in a state of insanity.
* A key element for removal from inheritance under Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is the presence of intent, which is a mandatory component of the subjective side of a crime.
* Since a person in a state of insanity is unable to realize their actions or control them, there is no guilt in the form of intent in their actions, which precludes the qualification of the act as a crime within the meaning of criminal law.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that to apply consequences in the form of removal from inheritance, the existence of a conviction or a ruling on the closure of proceedings on non-rehabilitating grounds, where the person’s guilt is established, is required.
* In this case, the court applied compulsory medical measures, which is not equivalent to finding a person guilty of committing an intentional crime.
* Thus, the civil court does not have the authority to independently establish the presence of intent in a person’s actions if this was not established in criminal proceedings.
* The absence of proven intent makes it impossible to apply the sanction of Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine; therefore, there are no grounds for depriving the defendant of inheritance rights.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances, by which the claim was denied.
Case No. 991/2243/26 dated 06/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is a lawsuit by the SAPO prosecutor regarding the recognition as unjustified and the forfeiture to the state of an apartment and a car acquired by a local council deputy and his wife, due to the alleged discrepancy between the value of these assets and their legal income.
**2. Court’s arguments:**
* The court recognized that the defendant (deputy) had the status of a person authorized to perform the functions of local self-government, and the assets are the common joint property of the spouses, which gives the prosecutor the right to file such a lawsuit.
* A key stage was the examination of the spouses’ financial capacity: the court did not limit itself only to the data of the declarations, but analyzed the actual movement of fundsin bank accounts over many years.
* The court took a critical view of the prosecutor’s position, who ignored significant amounts of cash withdrawn from accounts by the defendants over a long period, considering them “spent” without proper evidence.
* Regarding the loan agreement for 2 million UAH, which the prosecutor considered fictitious, the court heard a witness (a former judge) and found his testimony and the defendants’ explanations regarding the existence of savings to be convincing.
* The court emphasized that detected errors in the declaration of property or income are not an automatic ground for civil confiscation if the existence of legal sources of funds is proven during the judicial proceedings.
* In summary, the court concluded that the spouses’ aggregate income over many years, confirmed by bank statements and other documents, was sufficient for the acquisition of the disputed assets.
* The court emphasized that the prosecutor failed to prove the impossibility of the defendants accumulating savings, while the defendants’ evidence regarding their financial capacity proved more convincing.
**3. Court Decision:**
The court fully dismissed the prosecutor’s claims and lifted the interim measures in the form of asset seizure.
Case No. 757/22799/24-ts dated 06/24/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and expenses for professional legal assistance, caused to a person as a result of unlawful criminal prosecution and acquittal by the court.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed the plaintiff’s right to compensation for damages, as the fact of unlawful criminal prosecution was established by an acquittal that had entered into legal force. The court emphasized that the minimum amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage guaranteed by the state (based on the minimum wage) is merely a basic benchmark, not a ceiling; therefore, courts have the right to increase this amount, taking into account the depth of emotional suffering and the duration of being under investigation. At the same time, the cassation instance took a critical view of the calculation of attorney’s fees, as the plaintiff provided inconsistent certificates of services rendered. In particular, a duplication of services was discovered in the certificates for different periods, as well as a lack of proper evidence (court session logs) confirming the defense attorney’s participation in a number of hearings. Considering these inaccuracies, the Supreme Court independently recalculated the amount of legal assistance expenses, excluding unjustified charges. In doing so, the court emphasized that the issue of determining the amount of non-pecuniary damage falls under the discretionary powers of the courts of first and appellate instances, provided they have adhered to the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the lower courts by reducing the amount of compensation for legal assistance expensesfrom UAH 489,920 to UAH 435,840, leaving the remainder of the decision (including UAH 800,000 in non-pecuniary damages) unchanged.
Case No. 757/20538/20-ts dated 06/17/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings regarding the bank’s appeal against the court of first instance’s decision due to the expiration of the one-year preclusive time limit for filing an appeal.
The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that procedural law establishes an imperative prohibition on initiating appellate proceedings if the appeal is filed after the lapse of one year from the date the full text of the decision is drawn up. The Court noted that the bank was duly notified of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance and actively participated in it; therefore, it cannot be considered a person who was unaware of the judicial process. The Supreme Court emphasized that the duty to inquire about the status of one’s own case lies with the participant themselves, not with the court. The bank’s arguments regarding the untimely entry of the decision into the Unified State Register of Court Decisions were rejected, as this does not relieve a party from the duty to take measures to obtain information on the status of the proceedings. The Court also indicated that the absence of evidence of force majeure circumstances that would have prevented a timely appeal makes it impossible to reinstate the missed deadline. Thus, the bank’s procedural inaction for a year and a half after the decision was rendered became the decisive factor for the denial of access to appellate review.
The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 212/9719/24 dated 06/26/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use of a land plot through the demolition of unauthorizedly constructed real estate and the termination of the right of ownership thereof by way of canceling state registration.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the right of ownership to a land plot is violated by the very fact of unauthorized construction, and not by the fact of state registration of the right of ownership to such an object. The Supreme Court emphasized that the registration of ownership rights to unauthorizedly constructed property only creates additional legal obstacles but does not change the legal nature of the object itself. The Court underscored that an effective method of protecting the rights of a land plot owner in such cases is exclusively the demand for the demolition of the unauthorized construction in accordance with Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Demands for the cancellation of state registration or the termination of ownership rights to unauthorizedly constructed property were recognized as inappropriate methods of protection, as they do not resolve the legal status of the object and do not restore the unity of the fate of the land plot and the property located thereon. Thus, the court concluded that satisfying the demand for the demo-is sufficient to protect the interests of the state.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming the refusal to satisfy the claims for cancellation of the property rights registration.
Case No. 346/3898/25 of 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of an additional period for filing an application for acceptance of an inheritance by an heir who missed the six-month period established by law due to being abroad.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline must be assessed through the lens of objective and insurmountable obstacles, rather than merely the fact of being abroad. The Court noted that the plaintiff was aware of their mother’s death but did not prove that they took any measures to file the application remotely, for example, by mail. Furthermore, the reference to illness and surgery was critically evaluated, as medical documents indicate that the surgical intervention took place two and a half years after the inheritance was opened, which does not explain the missed deadline in the initial period. The Court emphasized that an employer’s certificate regarding the absence of vacation time is not proof of the impossibility of performing notarial acts, as the plaintiff did not prove that they had submitted a corresponding request to the employer. Additionally, the Supreme Court reiterated its position that granting an additional period without grounds violates legal certainty and the interests of other persons. Ultimately, the cassation instance stated that the lower courts had not properly established the circumstances that would have objectively made it impossible for the heir to contact a notary.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full establishment of the factual circumstances.
Case No. 917/2305/25 of 06/25/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decisions of the meetings of the All-Ukrainian Public Organization “Ice Hockey Federation of Ukraine” regarding the holding of the annual and general congresses, which the plaintiff believes were adopted in violation of the charter and legislation.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that the closure of proceedings in a case due to the “absence of a subject of dispute” is possible only when the challenged decisions have ceased to exist or have been cancelled, which did not occur in this case. The Court clearly distinguished between the concepts of “subject of the dispute” (object of legal relations) and “subject of the claim” (substantive legal demand), indicating that the absence of a violated right in the plaintiff is not grounds for closing the proceedings, but must be examined during the consideration of the case on its merits. Furthermore…Wow, the court emphasized a procedural error by the local court, which considered a motion to close the proceedings outside of a preparatory hearing and without summoning the parties. This violated the plaintiff’s right to judicial protection and the requirements of Articles 182 and 185 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court noted that motions to close a case must be decided exclusively in a preparatory hearing after hearing the arguments of all participants. Thus, the court of first instance effectively evaded the consideration of the case, which is impermissible.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, by which the case was returned to the court of first instance to continue the proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 910/14691/25 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 5,689,940.61 under a service provision agreement, which arose due to the bank’s non-payment of signed service acceptance certificates.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the parties entered into an agreement where service acceptance certificates, drawn up on the basis of approved reports, are the direct basis for payment.
– The bank signed the certificates for the disputed period without any objections, which indicates its agreement with the scope and cost of the services rendered.
– The court applied the “estoppel” doctrine (prohibition of contradictory behavior), noting that after long-term approval and payment for similar services in the past, the bank cannot suddenly refuse to pay by citing alleged discrepancies in tariffs.
– Regarding procedural violations, the court found the appellate instance’s refusal to grant the motion for adjournment of the hearing to be lawful, as the bank did not prove the impossibility of its representative’s participation via videoconference.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not a “court of fact” and cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been duly examined by lower courts.
– The court also pointed out that the appellant’s references to Supreme Court practice are unfounded, as the factual circumstances in the cases cited by the bank are not similar to the circumstances of this dispute.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts regarding the debt recovery unchanged.
Case No. 922/5290/23 (910/10171/24) dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Yakaboo Trade LLC for the invalidation of an assignment of claim agreement (cessation) concluded between Ridna Mova PE and Service Client LLC, due to an alleged violation of sanctions legislation and the moratorium established by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 187.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower instancesand remitted the case for a new trial, as the courts took a formalistic approach to the assessment of evidence and failed to establish key circumstances. Firstly, the courts did not ascertain whether the defendant’s ultimate beneficial owner (a citizen of the Russian Federation) had legal grounds for residing in Ukraine, which is critical for the application of the moratorium provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 187. Secondly, the courts failed to provide a proper assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the application of personal sanctions by the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) against the defendant, which restrict the right to dispose of assets, including claims. Thirdly, the court of cassation indicated that the courts did not investigate the reasons for the parties’ failure to provide documents for the expert examination, baselessly placing the risk of this on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized the inadmissibility of formalism and the court’s duty to facilitate the clarification of all circumstances of the case to ensure a balance between public and private interests. Thus, the decision was overturned due to the incomplete ascertainment of circumstances relevant to the case.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the resolution of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal and the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast, remitting the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 757/34770/23-ts dated 06/03/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of non-pecuniary damage from the National Bank of Ukraine caused by the unlawful return without execution of a state executor’s payment instruction regarding the compulsory debiting of funds from the account of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court departed from its previous position set forth in other decisions, in particular in case No. 757/50881/21-ts, regarding the application of Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals”. The Court emphasized that the enforcement of a court decision is a component of the right to judicial protection, and therefore, restrictions on the use of the Fund’s funds provided for by said law do not exempt it from the obligation to reimburse court expenses recovered in favor of a person. The NBU, as a banking institution servicing the Fund’s accounts, is obliged to execute payment instructions of the state executor regarding the uncontested debiting of funds, and their return without execution is unlawful. The Court noted that the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage arises from the very fact of the violation of a person’s rights, and not only when it is explicitly provided for by law. Since the NBU obstructed the enforcement of a court decision, it bears civil liability for the non-pecuniary damage caused thereby. At the same time, the Court stressed that such disputes are not subject to consideration under the procedure of judicial control over the enforcement of decisions but must be resolved within the framework of litigation proceedings for damages.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new decision, partially satisfying the claim, by recoveringand from the National Bank of Ukraine in favor of the plaintiff 1,600 UAH as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Case No. 991/4190/26 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 991/4190/26:
1. The subject of the dispute is the court’s approval of a plea agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the former acting director of a state institution, accused of embezzlement and official forgery.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the accused fully and unconditionally admitted his guilt, which made it possible to avoid a lengthy trial and save state resources. An important argument was that the accused provided incriminating testimony against other persons involved in the corruption crime, which serves the public interest. The court verified and confirmed the voluntary nature of the agreement, the absence of duress, and the presence of the injured party’s consent to partial compensation for damages. The court also established that the agreed-upon punishment corresponds to the gravity of the crimes and the requirements of the criminal law, in particular regarding the possibility of release from serving a sentence with probation in corruption cases, provided the agreement is approved. The court emphasized that the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights of third parties, and the facts set forth therein have no prejudicial effect on other proceedings. Finally, the court was convinced of the real possibility for the accused to fulfill the obligations undertaken, including cooperation with the investigation and compensation for damages.
3. The court decided to approve the plea agreement and impose on the accused the punishment agreed upon by the parties in the form of 7 years of imprisonment, releasing him from serving this sentence on probation with a probationary period of 2 years and 6 months.
Case No. 920/1061/23(920/963/24) dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the collection of debt for thermal energy supply services and subscriber maintenance from the owners of an apartment disconnected from the central heating system, and counterclaims for the write-off of this debt.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that even if an apartment is disconnected from central heating, the owner is not exempt from the duty to pay a share of the costs for heating common areas and auxiliary premises of the building. The court pointed out that the appellate instance made a mistake by failing to properly examine all of the plaintiff’s evidence, in particular the certificates of heat carrier acceptance and billing records for various periods. The appellate court groundlessly rejected a part of the evidence solely due to the language in which they were drafted, without assessing other documents drawn up in Ukrainian. The court also emphasized that the absence of design documentationon the building is not an automatic ground for exemption from payment, as Methodology of Distribution No. 315 provides for simplified mechanisms for calculating such expenses. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not provide compelling reasons to refute the findings of the court of first instance, thereby violating the requirements regarding the comprehensiveness and completeness of the judicial review. Therefore, for the proper resolution of the case, it is necessary to conduct a re-examination of the evidence, taking into account all legal provisions and standards of proof.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the same appellate court.
Case No. 991/8352/25 dated 06/11/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 991/8352/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of assets (cash and vehicles) acquired by a person authorized to perform state functions and members of their family as unjustified, and their subsequent recovery as state revenue.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor proved a discrepancy between the official legal income of the defendant police officer and their actual expenses, as well as the value of the acquired assets. A key argument was the establishment of the fact that the defendant police officer actually controlled the property registered to third parties (relatives) who lacked the financial capacity for such purchases. The court critically evaluated the loan agreements provided by the defendants, recognizing them as fictitious based on the results of a technical examination of the documents, which confirmed that they had been created significantly later than the dates indicated therein. The court also took into account data from the “Safe City” system and information regarding vehicle maintenance, which confirmed that it was the defendant police officer and his wife who actually used the disputed assets. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding “traditional business practices” as failing to confirm the legality of the origin of the funds. Ultimately, the court applied the standard of the preponderance of evidence, finding the prosecutor’s position more convincing than the defendants’ version.
3. The court partially satisfied the claims, recognizing a portion of the assets as unjustified and ordering the recovery of their value or the assets themselves as state revenue.
Case No. 752/15112/23 dated 06/24/2026
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 recognition of a person as legally incapacitated, the establishment of guardianship over them, and the appointment of their grandson as the guardian.
2. The court concluded that while the fact of the person’s legal incapacity was confirmed by appropriate evidence, the issue of appointing a specific guardian requires more thorough verification. A key argument was that the submission by the guardianship and custody authority proved to be formal and insufficiently motivated. In particular, the guardianship authority did not properly analyze the circle ofall relatives who could claim guardianship, and failed to provide justification regarding the possibility or impossibility of the incapacitated person’s own son performing these duties. The Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is not an automatic procedure, but a responsible process where the interests of the ward must be paramount. Since the submission did not contain data on the relationship between the applicant and his grandmother, the lower courts rightly refused to appoint a guardian at this stage. The Supreme Court confirmed that the burden of proving the expediency of appointing a specific person lies with the guardianship authority, and courts should not make decisions based on assumptions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legitimacy of the refusal to appoint a guardian due to the guardianship authority’s inadequate justification of the submission.
Case No. 761/20653/24 of 06/24/2026
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:** Recovery from ARMA in favor of the electronic auction winner of the prepayment amount under the sales contract for assets that the defendant failed to transfer to the buyer.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that civil legal relations arose between the parties, where ARMA acted as the seller and the plaintiff as the buyer, who fully fulfilled their obligation to pay for the lot.
– Since ARMA did not transfer the goods within the established time frame, the buyer, in accordance with Article 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, has a legal right to demand the return of the paid funds.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that to return funds in such a case, it is not necessary to declare the sales contract invalid, since the basis of the claim is the very fact of the seller’s failure to fulfill the obligation to transfer the property.
– ARMA’s arguments that the property was in the possession of a third party, against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted, do not exempt the Agency from liability to the buyer for breach of contract terms.
– The court also confirmed the plaintiff’s right to recover inflation losses and 3% interest per annum due to the delay in fulfilling the monetary obligation.
– ARMA’s reference to a violation of the auction procedure was rejected, as this issue was not the subject of consideration in the lower courts and does not affect the buyer’s right to return funds for undelivered goods.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed ARMA’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the recovery of funds in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 761/14520/23 of 06/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An employee challenged the unlawful suspension of their employment contract andsubsequent dismissal due to staff reduction, demanding reinstatement in the position, payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court established that the employer failed to prove the existence of an “absolute impossibility” of providing work, as the enterprise continued its business operations and the suspension of employment contracts was selective in nature.
– Regarding the dismissal, the court emphasized the imperative duty of the employer to offer the employee all available vacancies throughout the entire notice period of dismissal.
– It was established that after notifying the plaintiff of the dismissal, new vacant positions appeared at the enterprise, which were transferred to other employees without being offered to the plaintiff, which constitutes a direct violation of labor legislation.
– The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding the higher qualifications of other candidates, noting that the assessment of “competitive advantages” does not exempt the employer from the obligation to offer a vacancy, and the court does not have the authority to substitute the employer in assessing qualifications.
– Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the court confirmed that the unlawful dismissal and suspension of the contract are wrongful acts that caused the employee emotional discomfort, which provides grounds for monetary compensation.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant’s reference to practice in other cases is inappropriate, as the factual circumstances of those cases differed significantly from the plaintiff’s situation.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, by which the employee’s claim was satisfied: the orders for contract suspension and dismissal were declared unlawful, the employee was reinstated in the position, and the payment of average earnings for forced absenteeism and compensation for non-pecuniary damage were awarded.
Case No. 908/1787/25 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 908/1787/25:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Determining the legality of writing off an individual’s tax debt as uncollectible within the framework of a debt restructuring procedure in an insolvency case.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
– The court emphasized that the application of the consequences provided for in Part 2 of Article 125 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (write-off of tax debt that arose within the last 3 years) is not automatic and cannot be based solely on a formal comparison of dates.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the write-off of debt is an element of the restructuring procedure; therefore, it must take place under judicial supervision with a mandatory verification of the debtor’s financial status.
– The court is obliged to examine the bona fide conduct of the debtor, the results of the verification of their declarations, and the completeness of asset disclosure, which the courts of the lower instances failed to do.
– It is important that the court must establish the moment of the origin of the tax debt as the first day of delay in payment of an already agreed monetary obligation, rather than simply stating the fact of the existence of the debt.- The court noted that the absence of an approved restructuring plan does not exempt the court from the obligation to examine all circumstances of the case, as the institution of insolvency cannot be a mechanism for the formal evasion of obligations.
– Since the local court simultaneously discharged the debt and requested additional evidence regarding the debtor’s assets, the Supreme Court deemed such a decision premature and not based on a comprehensive examination of the case materials.
– **:** In its decision, the court refers to the legal position set forth by the Judicial Chamber for Bankruptcy Cases of the Cassation Commercial Court dated 27.05.2026 in case No. 908/1194/24, which is mandatory for consideration and clarifies the approaches to the application of Article 125 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Oblast.
Case No. 502/1619/23 of 20/05/2026
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The plaintiff challenged her dismissal due to staff redundancy, demanding reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism due to the employer’s failure to fulfill the obligation to offer all available vacant positions.
**2. Arguments of the court:**
* **:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the employer is obliged to offer vacant positions to an employee not only at the time of the notice of dismissal but throughout the entire period up to and including the day of actual dismissal.
* The court emphasized that the territorial remoteness of units does not exempt the employer from the obligation to offer vacancies available in any structural unit of the enterprise.
* The burden of proving the lawfulness of the dismissal, in particular the fact of the absence of vacancies, rests exclusively on the employer, not on the employee.
* The courts of previous instances erroneously shifted the burden of proving the availability of vacancies onto the plaintiff without properly examining the staffing table and the actual state of affairs at the enterprise.
* The Supreme Court noted that references to minutes of meetings of participants dated later than the date of dismissal cannot be proper evidence of the lawfulness of the employer’s actions at the time of the employee’s layoff.
* The court also pointed out that the absence of a position in the staffing table at the time of the case consideration is not an obstacle to the reinstatement of an employee if the dismissal was found to be unlawful.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances (including additional decisions on the distribution of legal costs) and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 677/1286/24 of 30/06/2026
The subject of the dispute is the legality…the imposition of an attachment on a residential building as a measure to secure a claim in a case regarding the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this property by the bank.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the courts of previous instances, reasoning that the securing of a claim is a temporary restriction aimed at protecting the plaintiff’s interests against potential bad-faith actions by the defendant. The Court emphasized that the attachment of property is a proportionate measure, as it is directly related to the subject matter of the dispute and is aimed at preserving the object in its existing state. The panel of judges noted that failure to take such measures could make it impossible to enforce a future court decision, which would violate the plaintiff’s right to effective judicial protection. The Court also took into account that the plaintiff’s claims had essentially already been satisfied by the lower courts, which further confirms the reasonableness of applying the attachment. The Court stressed that the bank’s arguments regarding the lack of evidence of the impossibility of enforcing the decision do not refute the established circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the challenged decisions meet the criteria of legality and validity, and there are no grounds for their cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “PrivatBank,” and the court decisions regarding the imposition of an attachment on the residential building remained unchanged.
Case No. 754/3497/23 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** A student challenged an expulsion order from a college for smoking electronic cigarettes on the premises of the educational institution, demanding reinstatement and compensation for moral damages.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the relationship between the student and the college is governed by an educational services agreement, which explicitly obligates the student to comply with the Internal Regulations.
– The fact of smoking electronic cigarettes in the classroom was proven and confirmed by the case materials, which is qualified as a gross violation of discipline.
– The head of the institution acted within their authority as defined by the Law of Ukraine “On Professional Pre-Higher Education,” since the agreement provided for expulsion as a sanction for violating its terms.
– The court emphasized that the student self-governance body granted consent to the expulsion, which complies with procedural requirements.
– The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of coordination with the Children’s Service were rejected by the court, as the signed agreement clearly defined the consequences of gross violations, of which the student was aware.
– The court also noted that the right to education was not violated, as the plaintiff continued their studies at another educational institution.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court, which denied the claim, remained unchanged.
Case No. 920/1175/14(920/947/25) dated 06/25/2026Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience in commercial law, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the imposition of subsidiary liability on the former head and founders of a bankrupt company for its obligations due to causing the company’s bankruptcy through asset stripping and improper management.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that subsidiary liability in bankruptcy cases is of a tortious nature and, therefore, requires proof of fault, unlawful actions, and a causal link between them and the bankruptcy.
– A key factor was the establishment of the fact that the debtor’s key assets (real estate) were disposed of gratuitously through purchase and sale agreements and subsequent acts of set-off, which occurred without actual cash inflows to the company’s accounts.
– The Court noted that the existence of debt to a counterparty does not justify the automatic set-off of counterclaims if this led to the removal of assets and the impossibility of satisfying the claims of other creditors.
– Separately, the Court drew attention to the failure to provide primary documentation to the liquidator and the lack of claim-related work regarding the collection of accounts receivable, which is qualified as bad-faith inaction by the governing bodies.
– The Supreme Court highlighted the existence of a rebuttable legal presumption: if a person’s actions raise doubts about their good faith, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that the transactions were part of ordinary business risk.
– Since the appellant failed to provide evidence of the economic expediency of the transactions conducted and did not refute the findings regarding the cashing out of funds, the Court deemed his guilt proven.
– The Court also confirmed that the statute of limitations had not expired, as the fact of asset insufficiency and the actual amount of losses became known to the liquidator only during the bankruptcy procedure.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to impose subsidiary liability on the founders and the head.
**Case No. 420/3372/25 dated 07/01/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An appeal by an individual against tax notices-decisions regarding the assessment of real estate tax, where the key procedural issue was the lawfulness of the appellate court granting the tax authority an extension for filing the appeal.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of budgetary funding for the payment of court fees is not a valid reason for extending procedural deadlines for authorities, as the state is obliged to properly organize its activities.
– The Court stressed that when resolving…and the issue of reinstatement of the time limit, the appellate court is obliged to verify whether the control authority took all actions within its power to appeal to the court in a timely manner, rather than limiting itself to formal references to the case law of the ECHR.
– It was noted that the appellate court’s reference to the case “Kreuz v. Poland” is inappropriate, as these guarantees protect private individuals from excessive financial barriers, rather than state bodies that must ensure budgetary expenditures.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that unjustified reinstatement of a time limit violates the principle of legal certainty (*res judicata*), which is an impermissible interference with a legal status that has already acquired legal force.
– The appellate court failed to assess the balance between the right of access to court and the need to observe procedural discipline, which constitutes a significant violation of procedural law.
– The court of cassation instance confirmed that a mere indication of “good reasons” without proper justification and analysis of the case circumstances is not a sufficient basis for opening appellate proceedings after the expiration of the time limits.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings, taking into account the expressed legal position.
Case No. 120/14946/24 of 06/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine’s refusal to pay the family members of a deceased service member a one-time financial assistance in the amount of 15 million UAH, provided for by CMU Resolution No. 168, instead of a smaller payment amount assigned under general rules.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court sitting as a judicial chamber in this case officially departed from its previous legal positions (in particular, in cases No. 600/548/23-a and No. 380/9868/23), which previously allowed for a broader interpretation of the right to the 15 million UAH payment.
– The Court emphasized that the concept of “death” in the context of Resolution No. 168 is not identical to any death of a service member during martial law.
– The key criterion for receiving the increased payment is the existence of a causal link between the death and a wound, shell shock, injury, or mutilation sustained while defending the Motherland.
– The mere fact that the illness which led to death is connected with the defense of the Motherland is not an automatic ground for the 15 million UAH payment if a link to a wound or injury is not proven.
– Since in this case the cause of death was acute cardiovascular failure (an illness), rather than a wound, the lower courts rightfully denied the claim in this part.
– At the same time, the court pointed to a procedural error by the lower instances, which failed to take into account the death of one of the plaintiffs during the consideration of the case, whichrequires a review of the issue of legal succession.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the refusal to pay 15 million UAH to other plaintiffs, but overturned these decisions in the part concerning the claims of the deceased plaintiff and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of legal succession.
Case No. 755/25124/25 of 07/01/2026
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 court’s establishment of measures to secure a claim in the form of a schedule for a father’s meetings with a minor child during the period of proceedings regarding the child’s return to the place of permanent residence in the Kingdom of Sweden.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the priority of the best interests of the child, which consist in maintaining an emotional bond with both parents, regardless of the existence of a conflict between them. The court emphasized that the father’s right to communicate with the child is equal to the mother’s right, and the restriction of such contact is possible only in exceptional cases, which were not proven in this case. At the same time, taking into account the tense relationship between the parties and the mother’s concerns regarding the possible removal of the child, the court deemed it necessary to change the method of securing the claim. Specifically, the meetings must take place not in the absence of the mother, as requested by the plaintiff, but in her presence, which is a more balanced measure. Such an approach allows for avoiding risks to the child while simultaneously ensuring the realization of the father’s right to participate in the upbringing of his son until a final decision is rendered. The court also indicated that a lengthy judicial process should not lead to the loss of emotional contact between the father and the child, which corresponds to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the mother’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and rendered a new decision establishing a schedule for the father’s meetings with the child in the presence of the mother.
Case No. 120/6333/23 of 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 120/6333/23:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the inaction of a military unit regarding the non-accrual and non-payment to a serviceman of an additional remuneration in the amount of up to 100,000 UAH for the period of participation in combat operations and measures to ensure national security and defense.
2. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances did not fully examine the evidence confirming the plaintiff’s direct participation in combat operations. The Court emphasized that for the payment of the remuneration, it is necessary to apply the orders of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine Administration No. 164-AG and No. 392-AG, which determine the procedure for documenting such participation. The appellate court erroneously denied the claim, relying solely on the absence of information in the combat logs, without verifying at the same timeother evidence and without clarifying the objective reasons for the absence of certain documents. The Supreme Court emphasized that formal defects in the processing or transfer of documents between military units should not deprive a serviceman of the right to proper monetary provision. The Court ordered the appellate instance to examine in detail the nature of the tasks performed by the plaintiff and to evaluate all available evidence in its entirety. It was also taken into account that for part of the period (July 2022) the payment had already been made; therefore, the appellate court’s decision in this part was left unchanged.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court in the part regarding the refusal to pay for the period from 01.08.2022 to 12.10.2022 and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 560/18331/24 dated 30/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadline for appellate appeal of the first-instance court’s decision.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Supreme Court emphasized that the restoration of a procedural time limit is possible only in the presence of objective, insurmountable circumstances that were beyond the person’s control and prevented a timely appeal to the court.
2. The Court established that a copy of the first-instance decision was delivered to the electronic cabinet of the plaintiff’s representative on April 25, 2025, which, according to procedural law, constitutes the moment of proper service of the document.
3. The plaintiff attempted to justify the validity of missing the deadline by claiming that his representative allegedly no longer had authority at the time the decision was rendered; however, he provided the court with no evidence that the first-instance court had been officially notified of the termination of representation.
4. The legal assistance agreement provided by the plaintiff did not confirm the termination of authority, as it did not correspond to the agreement on the basis of which the warrant (power of attorney) was issued, under which the representative acted in court.
5. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline lies exclusively with the person appealing to the court, and the plaintiff did not fulfill this obligation in a proper manner.
6. Considering the lack of evidence of objective obstacles, the Court concluded that the appellate instance lawfully recognized the reasons for missing the deadline as invalid and refused to initiate proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 160/8976/25 dated 30/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the tax authority’s issuance of tax notice-decisions on the increase of monetary obligations regarding corporate income tax and VAT due to conclusions regarding the unreality of the plaintiff’s business transactions with counterparties.
2. The Court was guided by… in that the taxpayer submitted properly executed primary documents reflecting the movement of assets and changes in liabilities to confirm the reality of business transactions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tax authority failed to prove the lack of a business purpose or the plaintiff’s awareness of potential violations by its counterparties. The Court stressed that the mere fact of the existence of criminal proceedings against counterparties or their tax non-compliance cannot automatically testify to the lack of reality of the buyer’s transactions. Tax legislation does not make the right to a tax credit dependent on the tax discipline of counterparties, provided the transaction was actually carried out. Since the defendant failed to provide evidence refuting the reality of the transactions, the lower courts rightfully sided with the taxpayer. The Supreme Court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal essentially amount to a request to re-evaluate the evidence, which falls outside the scope of the cassation court’s authority.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim.
Case No. 200/6643/24 of 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime financial allowance of a retired judge based on a certificate regarding the increased amount of judicial remuneration as of January 1, 2024.
2. The Court proceeded from the fact that, pursuant to Part 4 of Article 142 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” a change in the amount of the components of a serving judge’s remuneration is an unconditional ground for the recalculation of payments to retired judges. The Supreme Court emphasized that to determine the base amount of a judge’s official salary, the subsistence minimum established by the law on the State Budget for the relevant year should be applied, without taking into account artificial restrictions contained in the “final provisions” of budget laws. The Court noted that the legal position set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 240/9028/24 concerned other legal relations (settlements upon dismissal), and therefore it is not relevant to this dispute. Instead, the court applied the established practice formed by the Judicial Chamber of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 200/2309/25, which confirms the right of judges to a recalculation in connection with the increase in the subsistence minimum. The Court rejected the Pension Fund’s arguments regarding the lack of clarifications from the Ministry of Social Policy as having no legal significance for the execution of mandatory legal provisions. Thus, the refusal of the Pension Fund body was recognized as unfounded and as one that violates the guarantees of social protection for judges.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the Pension Fund’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim.
Case No. 911/1284/23 dated 07/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to a land lease contract as concluded for a new term in connection with the tenant’s exercise of a preemptive right.
2. In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the burden of proving the fact of proper notification of the lessor regarding the intent to exercise the preemptive right lies exclusively with the tenant. The Court established that the evidence provided by the plaintiff (the receipt and the description of the attachment) contained significant discrepancies and incorrect data, which did not allow for the reliable confirmation of the fact that the notification had been sent. The appellate court erroneously shifted the responsibility for these deficiencies to postal service employees, ignoring the fact that the tenant failed to fulfill their procedural duty regarding the proper documentary confirmation of their actions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of first instance correctly evaluated the evidence in its totality, establishing its inadmissibility. Since the plaintiff failed to prove compliance with the procedure provided for by Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease,” there are no grounds for the compulsory renewal of the contract. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance was recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Bucha City Council, cancelled the resolution of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 910/15750/25 dated 07/02/2026
The subject of this dispute is the collection of debt under a contract, the cancellation of an operational-economic sanction, as well as the allocation of court costs, in particular, expenses for professional legal assistance.
Within the scope of its powers, the Supreme Court reviewed the decisions of the courts of lower instances, focusing on the correctness of the calculations of monetary obligations and the justification for the recovery of attorney’s fees. The Court concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances made errors in the mathematical calculations of annual interest, which led to an unsubstantiated inflation of the recovery amount. The panel of judges paid particular attention to the issue of proportionality of expenses for legal assistance, pointing out the necessity of reviewing them, taking into account the criteria of reasonableness and reality. As a result of the audit, it was established that the amounts awarded for collection as attorney’s fees did not fully correspond to the scope of services rendered and the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court independently adjusted these amounts, ensuring adherence to the principles of justice and procedural economy. Thus, the cassation instance did not cancel the decision on the merits of the dispute, but only corrected the financial indicators that had been determined by the lower courts in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the decision.of the courts of lower instances regarding the amount of annual interest, court fees, and expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 902/869/25 dated 07/02/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for the invalidation of a contract concluded between a local self-government body and an individual entrepreneur, as well as the recovery of funds in the amount of over UAH 11.4 million.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legal certainty and the necessity of adhering to procedural norms regarding the proving of case circumstances. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the cassation appeal and established that the court of appeal had provided a proper legal assessment of all circumstances referred to by the prosecutor. In particular, the lawfulness of the grounds for the prosecutor’s office to intervene in the disputed legal relations and the existence of violations of state interests that would justify declaring the contract invalid were verified. The court concluded that the case files do not contain sufficient evidence to confirm the validity of the claims in full. It was also taken into account that the appellant’s arguments amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance. As a result, the court found no grounds for overturning the appellate court’s ruling, as it was adopted in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Northwestern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/1761/25 dated 07/02/2026
Here is the analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Norma Plus” for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred during the proceedings in the court of cassation instance.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of proportionality and reasonableness of expenses, emphasizing that the mere fact of submitting evidence of payment for attorney services is not an unconditional basis for their reimbursement in full. The Supreme Court established that the claimed amount of the fee for preparing a response to the cassation appeal is excessive, as the attorney was already familiar with the case materials, and the plaintiff’s legal position remained unchanged throughout all stages of the proceedings. The court noted that a significant portion of the arguments in the response to the cassation appeal duplicated previously submitted documents; therefore, the time spent (17 hours) does not meet the criterion of necessity. At the same time, the court emphasized that it does not interfere in contractual relations between the client and the attorney, but it has the right to assess the proportionality of expenses imposed on the other party to the dispute. In summary, the court applied the criteria of reality and reasonableness, determining the amount subject to reimbursement based on the actual volume of work performed and the complexity of the case.
3. The court partially granted the application, ordering the defendant to pay in favor ofof the plaintiff in the amount of UAH 20,000 for legal assistance instead of the claimed UAH 54,000.
Case No. 910/10158/25 dated 02/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Industrial-Construction Group ‘Kovalska'” regarding the invalidation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine related to the concentration of business entities in the construction materials market.
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that during the consideration of the case, no violations of substantive or procedural law were established on the part of the Antimonopoly Committee bodies. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, providing a proper assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. The Court confirmed the legitimacy of the AMCU’s conclusions regarding the absence of a negative impact on competition as a result of the effected concentration, as evidenced by the case file. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Committee’s decision’s non-compliance with the requirements of the law were found to be groundless and insufficient to refute the legality of the challenged acts. The Court also took into account that the AMCU’s discretionary powers in assessing concentrations were exercised within the limits defined by law. Ultimately, the panel of judges found no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence that had already been the subject of consideration in the commercial courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Industrial-Construction Group ‘Kovalska'” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 904/3067/25 dated 02/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenging by a sole proprietor of a decision of a territorial branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the imposition of sanctions and the recognition of a business entity’s actions as a violation of competition law.
In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of legality and validity of administrative acts, verifying whether the Committee had complied with the procedure for gathering evidence and whether such evidence was sufficient to conclude that a violation had been committed. The Supreme Court analyzed the case file and concluded that the lower courts had correctly established the absence in the plaintiff’s actions of the elements of an offense incriminated by the AMCU. The Court emphasized that the conclusions of the antimonopoly authority must be based on incontrovertible facts, rather than on assumptions that were not confirmed during the consideration of the case. It was also taken into account that the arguments of the cassation appeal did not refute the correctness of the conclusions of the local and appellate courts, which had already provided a proper legal assessment of all the circumstances of the case. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence, as the lower courts acted within the scope of their authority and in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee and upheld the decisions of the lower courtsof instances — upheld.
Case No. 120/1982/24 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the refusal by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to appoint and pay a one-time financial assistance in the amount of UAH 15,000,000 to the father of a deceased serviceman, as provided for by Paragraph 2 of Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to receive assistance in the amount of UAH 15,000,000, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between cases of a serviceman’s death in action and cases of death resulting from an illness.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that Resolution No. 168 establishes an exhaustive list of grounds for the payment of this sum, where death from an illness must be directly linked specifically to a wound, contusion, injury, or mutilation received while defending the Motherland.
– In this case, the Military Medical Commission determined that the cause of the serviceman’s death was acute circulatory failure and atherosclerotic heart disease, not a wound or injury.
– The court noted that although the illness was recognized as being related to the defense of the Motherland, this does not serve as an automatic basis for the payment of UAH 15,000,000 specifically, as this amount is an exceptional social guarantee for wartime.
– The Judicial Chamber of the Administrative Cassation Court in its legal position (Case No. 620/10029/24) confirmed that legislative changes do not eliminate the necessity of proving the very legal facts to which the law ties the right to such a payment.
– Therefore, since the death occurred as a result of an illness and not a combat-related injury, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive assistance in the amount of UAH 15,000,000, although this does not deprive him of the right to receive other types of social benefits provided for by general legislation.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense, set aside the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to deny the claim.
Case No. 380/8515/23 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of replacing a debtor in a writ of execution with their legal successor (Western Interregional Department of the State Migration Service) in a case regarding the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that procedural succession in enforcement proceedings is possible only in the event of the actual departure of a party, which is confirmed by the legal fact of the termination of a legal entity. The court emphasized that, according to the Civil Code of Ukraine, a legal entity is considered terminated only from the moment the corresponding entry is made in the Unified State Register. Since, at the time of consideration of the application for the replacement of the debtor, such an entry regarding the Main[of the] Main Department of the State Migration Service in the Lviv region was absent, the grounds for the substitution of a party in the writ of execution had not occurred. The court rejected the arguments regarding the impossibility of executing the decision due to a lack of funding, as this is not equivalent to the termination of the debtor’s legal personality. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts satisfied the application prematurely, violating procedural law. Thus, as long as a legal entity has not been officially liquidated, it remains the proper debtor in enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new decision, by which it denied the application for the substitution of the debtor in the writ of execution.
Case No. 200/3445/25 dated 06/30/2026
Here is an analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the lower courts leaving without consideration the claims of a military serviceman regarding the recalculation and payment of monetary support due to the alleged expiry of the deadline for filing an appeal to the court.
2. The court in this case was guided by the legal position established by the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court on March 21, 2025, departing from previous conclusions regarding the application of deadlines for filing an appeal to the court. The court emphasized that for military personnel, the start of the three-month period for filing an appeal to the court is not the date of receiving monthly monetary support, but the moment when the person received reliable and documented information about the amount and components of the sums accrued to them (for example, a pay slip or certificate). The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously failed to investigate whether the defendant had brought such calculations to the plaintiff’s attention prior to the moment they received an official response to their inquiry. Since the courts did not establish when exactly the plaintiff objectively learned about the violation of their rights, the conclusion regarding the expiration of the deadline was premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the fact that the calculations were brought to the attention of the military serviceman lies with the subject of authority. Therefore, the courts violated procedural norms by failing to ensure proper clarification of the circumstances relevant to calculating the filing deadline.
3. The Supreme Court decided to cancel 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 consideration on the merits.
Case No. 288/1776/19 dated 07/01/2026
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 demand of a former husband (owner of the house) to recognize his former wife as having lost the right to use the housing and for her subsequent eviction.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the right of ownership is not absolute and must be balanced with a person’s right to housing, especially if they do not have another place of residence. A key argument was Article 8 of the ConvConvention for the Protection of Human Rights, which guarantees respect for one’s home, regardless of whether it was occupied on legal grounds. The Court emphasized that eviction is an extreme measure of interference; therefore, the owner must prove that such interference is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. Since the defendant has no other housing and the plaintiff failed to prove an urgent social need for her eviction, the courts of the lower instances correctly applied the principle of a balance of interests. The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts acted within the legal positions of the Grand Chamber by assessing the circumstances of the case through the prism of proportionality. Thus, the plaintiff’s right of ownership cannot be exercised through the arbitrary deprivation of a former family member of their only housing.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, denying the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 520/18147/23 dated 30/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging a police officer’s dismissal order and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism due to disagreement with a disciplinary sanction imposed for failure to report for duty during martial law.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts failed to fulfill their procedural obligation to verify the plaintiff’s compliance with the time limit for filing an appeal to the court, which is critical in disciplinary sanction cases. The Court confirmed that the special norms of the Disciplinary Statute of the National Police of Ukraine take priority over the general norms of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine; therefore, the time limit for appeal is 15 days from the moment of familiarization with the personnel order. It was also clarified that the new algorithm for notifying a police officer of orders (via mail or electronic communication) is effective regardless of whether the person actually received the notification, provided the police authority followed the dispatch procedure. Since the trial and appellate courts ignored these issues and failed to assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the missed deadline, it made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court is obligated to ascertain the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline before proceeding to the merits of the case. The lack of proper investigation into these procedural aspects served as grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the trial and appellate courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a proper resolution of the issue regarding the plaintiff’s compliance with the time limit for filing an appeal to the court.
Case No. 620/10333/25 dated 01/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Sub**Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the procedural rulings of the court of appeal, by which the appeal was groundlessly returned and the opening of appellate proceedings was refused due to formal errors in the preparation of payment documents and issues regarding the terms for filing an appeal.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that access to justice cannot be restricted due to excessive formalism, in particular, when the court failed to verify the actual receipt of funds by the budget, instead formally assessing only the data in the payment document. The court noted that the duty to verify the crediting of the court fee lies with the court itself, and if the funds have reached the budget, an error in the “payer” field is not grounds for returning the appeal. The court also indicated that the appellate instance failed to provide a proper assessment of the motion to extend the procedural deadline, ignoring the fact that the lapse of time occurred due to a prior unlawful return of the appeal by the court of appeal itself. The Supreme Court emphasized that in a ruling to leave an appeal without movement, the court is obliged to clearly define the method for remedying the defects, which was not done in this case. Thus, the actions of the court of appeal were recognized as creating artificial obstacles to the exercise of the constitutional right to appellate review of a case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals, set aside the rulings of the court of appeal, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further consideration on the merits.
**Case No. 912/1503/24 dated 06/30/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate a construction contract for asphalt pavement repair and to recover funds for the benefit of the state due to the parties’ engagement in anti-competitive concerted practices during the tender.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
* Absence of evidence of actual harm caused to the state, such as overpayment of funds or substandard quality of work performed, which renders the application of the consequences of invalidity of a transaction impossible.
* The fact of a violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition had already been the subject of review by the Antimonopoly Committee, which imposed the respective fines that have since been paid.
* Applying confiscatory consequences under Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine without proof of significant harm or the existence of a criminal conviction would contradict the principle of proportionality regarding interference with property rights.
* The court confirmed the stability of the position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which limits the application of confiscatory sanctions to exceptional cases.
* The prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to depart from the previous legal position were deemed unfounded, as the appellant failed to provide compelling grounds for changing established judicial practice.
* The absence of an exceptional legal issue served as the basis for refusing to transfer the case.for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, dismissing the cassation appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office.
Case No. 280/6827/25 dated 01/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of applying measures to secure an administrative claim by suspending the effect of the tax authority’s decision to terminate a license for retail trade in fuel until the case is resolved on the merits.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the institution of securing a claim is a mechanism for protecting the plaintiff’s rights, which allows for the preservation of the existing state of affairs until a final decision is rendered. The courts of previous instances established that the termination of the license effectively halts the entity’s primary economic activity, which may lead to irreversible negative consequences. The Supreme Court emphasized that security measures must be proportionate and adequate, and their purpose is to prevent complications in the execution of a future court decision. At the same time, the court stressed that at the stage of considering the application for securing a claim, the merits of the claims are not examined. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, as the tax authority failed to provide convincing arguments that would refute the risks to the plaintiff’s economic activity. Thus, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, as the courts did not commit violations of procedural law in evaluating the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
Case No. 910/18143/23 dated 30/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 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 the recovery from the state of property damage in the amount of over UAH 13.9 million, caused to a business entity as a result of unlawful actions of customs authorities during the customs clearance of goods.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that in order to hold the state liable in tort under Article 1173 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove the fact of unlawful actions by a government authority, the existence of damage, and a causal link between them. In this case, it was established that the customs office had groundlessly detained the cargo and drawn up protocols on violations of customs rules, which were subsequently overturned by the court due to the absence of the elements of an offense. Furthermore, the court drew attention to the absence of reasoned written decisions by the head of the customs office regarding the sampling of goods, which constitutes a gross violation of the procedure provided for by Article 356 of the Customs Code of Ukraine. The plaintiff provided appropriate evidence (contracts, certificates, payment documents) that confirmed the actual amount of theincurred expenses for storage and demurrage of containers that arose precisely due to the unlawful delay of the goods by customs officials. The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of law, and the customs authorities’ arguments regarding the necessity of establishing a new legal position were not substantiated, as the circumstances of the case did not concern the sale of seized goods.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Odesa Customs without satisfaction, and the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of damages — unchanged.
Case No. 420/5878/25 dated 06/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a private notary as a state registrar regarding the amendment of the Unified State Register (exclusion of the plaintiff from the list of signatories of a legal entity) due to violations of the state registration procedure.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that when performing registration actions, a notary acts as a subject of authority, exercising public functions delegated by the state, and not as a private individual.
– The Court clearly distinguished between disputes: if the plaintiff is challenging the procedural violations of the registrar (for example, ignoring a court injunction or the absence of necessary documents), such a dispute is of a public law nature and is subject to consideration in an administrative court.
– The existence of parallel labor or corporate disputes does not deprive a person of the right to administrative judicial control if the subject of the claim is exclusively the legality of the registrar’s actions, rather than the resolution of issues of ownership or corporate rights.
– The Court emphasized that a registration action is an administrative act, and verification of compliance with the procedure for its performance does not require an assessment of the lawfulness of the decisions of a legal entity’s governing bodies.
– Refusal to consider such a case on its merits by an administrative court constitutes a violation of the right to access to justice and excessive procedural formalism.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that previous conclusions regarding the “corporate nature” of similar disputes concerned other legal relations and did not take into account modern regulations, in particular, the Law “On Administrative Procedure”.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the rulings of the lower courts on closing the proceedings, and remanded the case to the court of first instance for consideration on the merits.
Case No. 357/3080/24 dated 06/03/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The owner of a land plot appealed to the court with a demand to remove obstacles to the use of her land and to oblige the tenant to return the plot after the expiration of the lease agreement.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court establishedstated that the courts of lower instances erroneously determined the expiration date of the agreement by failing to take into account that the lease term begins from the moment of state registration of the lease right, and not from the moment of signing the agreement. Due to this, a legal conflict arose regarding the automatic renewal of the agreement for one year in accordance with Law No. 2145-IX, since the term of the agreement had actually expired during the period of martial law. Despite this, the Court confirmed the correctness of the decision to satisfy the claim, as the lessor had notified the lessee in advance and in a proper manner of their unwillingness to continue the lease relations. At the same time, the lessee did not fulfill the legal requirements regarding the initiation of the renewal of the agreement (did not send a draft supplementary agreement) and did not return the plot after the expiration of the term. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that, despite the errors in the reasoning of the lower courts regarding the expiration date of the agreement, the result of the case consideration is lawful and fair.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, but leaving their operative parts (on the return of the land to the owner) unchanged.
Case No. 604/808/24 dated 07/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is a claim by a farm enterprise against a lessor to recognize supplementary agreements as concluded and to renew land lease agreements.
**2. Court arguments:**
* The Court established that during the consideration of the case in the first and appellate instance courts, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff — Farm Enterprise “Zolotyj Zhaivir”.
* In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, all property disputes to which the debtor is a party must be considered exclusively by the commercial court in whose proceedings the bankruptcy case is pending.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that claims for the renewal of lease agreements directly affect the composition of the debtor’s liquidation estate, as the right of lease is a property asset that can be realized to satisfy the claims of creditors.
* The Court emphasized that the consideration of such cases under civil procedure is a violation of the rules of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
* Since the lower courts considered a case that was not subject to consideration under civil procedure, they cannot be considered a “court established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
* Therefore, the Supreme Court did not analyze the arguments of the appeal on their merits (regarding signatures or the refusal to conduct an examination), as the procedural violation of the rules of jurisdiction is an absolute ground for overturning the decisions.
**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case materials to the Commercialof the Khmelnytskyi Region Court for consideration within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
Case No. 203/967/24 dated 03/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the city council’s decision on leasing a land plot to other persons and the lease agreements themselves, asserting that, as an heir to a portion of a house, they hold a preferential right to use the corresponding share of the land.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts prematurely dismissed the lawsuit without examining key circumstances of the case. Firstly, the courts erroneously linked the emergence of the right to land use to the moment of state registration of the title to the inherited property, whereas an heir becomes an owner from the moment the inheritance opens. Secondly, the courts failed to clarify whether other defendants hold a share in the ownership of the house and on what grounds. The court also indicated that it is necessary to establish whether the lawsuit concerns the entire land plot or only a part of it, as this affects the determination of the circle of defendants and the effectiveness of the remedy. The courts did not verify the circumstances regarding the conclusion of the lease agreements during the period when a court dispute over the ownership of the house was already ongoing. Ultimately, the Supreme Court emphasized that a refusal to protect a right on the grounds of an “improper method” is possible only after the court has ascertained the absence of a violation of the right itself, which was not done in this case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 753/17455/20 dated 03/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement in the amount of 1,900,000 USD, formalized by an oral agreement and a promissory note.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right of a case participant to attend a court hearing, which is an integral component of the right to a fair trial under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
– The Court recognized the circumstances of an “Air Raid Alert” signal as universally known facts that objectively make it impossible for the parties to participate in the hearing and require the court to take these circumstances into account when deciding on the postponement of the proceedings.
– The appellate court committed a procedural error by failing to assess the validity of the reasons for the non-appearance of the defendant’s representative, who was late for the hearing due to an air raid alert, and by failing to verify whether he had sufficient time to arrive after the “all clear” signal.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the court is obligated to assist participants in the realization of their rights, rather than formally closing proceedings based on their…of her absence, especially when it is known that the defendant is in custody and cannot independently ensure her presence.
– Since the appellate court did not ensure the principle of “equality of arms” and did not provide the party with the opportunity to be heard, this was recognized as a material breach of procedural law.
– The Supreme Court noted that in the absence of a record of the court proceedings in the appellate instance, it is deprived of the opportunity to verify whether sufficient time was provided for the representative’s appearance, which makes it impossible to uphold the appellate decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 938/12/25 dated 06/24/2026
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the court for the recovery of a land plot of the nature reserve fund from the illegal possession of an individual and for the cancellation of the state registration of rights thereto.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts mistakenly left the lawsuit without consideration because the prosecutor had not deposited the value of the land plot into the court’s deposit account, as required by the new legislative amendments (Law No. 4292-IX). The court clarified that this compensation mechanism applies exclusively in cases where property is recovered from a **bona fide** purchaser. Since the prosecutor in the lawsuit substantiated the claims precisely by the **bad faith** of the defendant, the issue of the purchaser’s status must be resolved directly during the trial on the merits, and not at the stage of initiating the proceedings. The court emphasized that it is impossible to determine a person’s bona fides without examining evidence; therefore, the requirement for mandatory deposit of funds at the initial stage is premature. Accordingly, the courts of the first and appellate instances had no legal grounds to block access to justice due to the formal non-compliance with requirements that apply only to bona fide purchasers.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the appellate court’s decision, remanding the case to the court of first instance for further proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 372/1501/24 dated 07/01/2026
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to invalidate the sale and purchase agreements for a garden house and a land plot, concluded by her with a deceased buyer, claiming that these transactions were fictitious and were not intended to lead to actual legal consequences.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that to recognize a transaction as fictitious (Art. 234 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), it is necessary to prove the existence of intent on the part of both partiesfor creating only an “appearance” of an agreement without a real intention of its performance. The court noted that non-performance of the terms of the contract or subsequent use of the property by the seller does not, in itself, constitute unconditional proof of the sham nature of a legal transaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court erroneously equated the motive for concluding the contracts (the desire to preserve the property from division during a divorce) with the absence of intent to transfer the right of ownership. It was also taken into account that in another case, the right of ownership to this property had already been recognized as belonging to the deceased buyer, which refutes the arguments regarding the absence of a transfer of rights. The court of cassation instance concluded that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the parties knew in advance that the contracts would not be performed and did not intend to change the owner of the property. Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance was recognized as lawful, as it was based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence and the correct application of the norms of substantive law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 521/18024/23 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded in 2013 and the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the statute of limitations when applying to the court.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the loan agreement contained a condition regarding the possibility of returning funds upon the creditor’s demand, as well as a provision on the extension of the agreement’s validity in the absence of claims from the parties. A key point was the determination of the date when the plaintiff actually submitted a written demand for the repayment of the debt to the defendant, namely — May 2023. The court noted that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment a person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right, which, in this case, is connected with the failure to comply with the demand for the return of funds. Since the lawsuit was filed in July 2023, that is, immediately after the presentation of the demand and the expiration of the period for its performance, the court concluded that the statute of limitations had not been missed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court correctly evaluated the evidence and provided a reasoned response to all arguments of the parties. The court also indicated that it does not have the authority to reassess evidence that has already been examined by the lower courts.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the debt recovery.
Case No. 824/11/26 dated 07/02/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the proper territorial jurisdiction for the consideration of an application to set aside a decision of the Internationalof the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
2. **Key arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized the clear distinction between the concepts of “seat of arbitration” and “place of hearings.” The Court noted that, according to the Rules of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, its registered seat is exclusively the city of Kyiv, and this provision cannot be amended by agreement of the parties. Although the parties designated the city of Lviv in the contract as the venue for hearings, this constitutes merely a technical place for hearings, not the legal seat of arbitration. In accordance with procedural legislation, an application to set aside an arbitral award must be filed with the court at the location of the arbitration seat itself, rather than at the place where the hearing was factually conducted. The court of first instance erroneously equated these concepts, which led to the unfounded transfer of the case based on jurisdiction to the Lviv Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court underscored that it is the Kyiv Court of Appeal that is the proper court for the consideration of this application.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court granted the appellate complaint of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, set aside the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the transfer of the case based on jurisdiction, and remitted the case to the same court for continuation of proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 713/2080/25 dated 06/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the appellate court to open proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadline for appellate appeal against a ruling on the return of a statement of claim.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access a court is not absolute and entails a duty for a party to the case to act in good faith and exercise due diligence. The Court stressed that the plaintiff independently indicated the address of the military unit in the statement of claim; therefore, the risk of non-receipt of correspondence at this address lies exclusively with the plaintiff. The Court rejected references to errors by the lawyers who prepared the claim, as the plaintiff should have been aware of the consequences of specifying that particular address for correspondence. The Court also noted that a participant in the proceedings is obliged to independently monitor the status of their case through official resources, such as “Judicial Power of Ukraine” or the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Since the plaintiff did not inform the court of a change of address and did not provide convincing evidence of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, the appellate court rightfully refused to open proceedings. As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed that non-compliance with procedural deadlines without objective reasons violates the principle of legal certainty and legal stability.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 916/1843/25 dated 07/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experienceI have reviewed and analyzed the court decision provided by you. Below is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from the developer (LLC “Kador”) of funds for shared participation in the development of the settlement’s infrastructure, as well as inflationary losses and 3% per annum due to the failure to fulfill the corresponding obligation.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of “jura novit curia” (“the court knows the law”), according to which the court is obliged to independently provide a legal qualification of the parties’ relations, even if the plaintiff has chosen not entirely accurate regulatory grounds.
* The Court noted that the courts of lower instances prematurely dismissed the claim, formally referring to the impossibility of applying Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (unjust enrichment) solely due to the existence of a contract.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to pay shared participation arises from the law, and the contract only details the settlement procedure; therefore, the absence of separate additional agreements does not exempt the developer from fulfilling the obligation.
* The Court indicated the need to clarify the factual circumstances: the validity of the contract, the volume of construction, the developer’s actual payments, and the moment the default occurred.
* It was also emphasized that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Stimulation of Investment Activity in Ukraine” do not cancel the obligation to pay shared participation that arose before 01.01.2020.
* The Court noted that the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly examine the evidence and arguments of the parties, which made it impossible to establish the key facts for a proper resolution of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast.
[Case No. 552/1216/25 dated 30/06/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137871526)
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadline for appealing the ruling in an administrative offense case.
2. The Supreme Court confirmed that cases regarding administrative liability have a special ten-day period for appellate review, which is calculated from the day the decision is pronounced. The Court emphasized that since the plaintiff filed the appeal outside this period, the appellate court rightfully stayed the proceedings to provide evidence of the validity of the reasons for the delay. The plaintiff received the relevant ruling via the electronic cabinet but did not fulfill the court’s requirements within the established ten-day term. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the bad faith conduct of their lawyer, noting that this is not an objective, insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of procedural rights. The Court emphasized that the duty to perform procedural actions in a timely manner lies with the party.and the failure to respond to a court ruling constitutes an independent ground for refusal to initiate proceedings. Thus, the procedural actions of the appellate court were recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 336/6805/25 dated 06/19/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** An application for the issuance of a restraining order against a former spouse in connection with her systematic commission of physical and psychological domestic violence against the applicant and their joint minor child.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a restraining order is not a punishment, but acts as a preventive measure to ensure the safety of the victims. The court of first instance correctly evaluated the evidence: video recordings of the child being beaten, psychologists’ conclusions regarding the child’s fear of the mother, as well as facts of systematic threats and insults directed at the applicant. The Supreme Court underscored that the existence of a civil dispute regarding the child’s place of residence does not deprive the court of the right to issue a restraining order if the fact of domestic violence is established. The appellate court mistakenly believed that the absence of a conviction in a criminal case or the cessation of the conflict at the time of the case review were grounds for denying protection. Instead, the Supreme Court noted that the application of the order itself helped to stop the violent acts, which confirms its effectiveness and necessity. Thus, the court of cassation instance deemed the conclusions of the appellate court superficial and failing to take into account the real risks to the child’s health.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to issue a restraining order for a period of 6 months.
Case No. 560/17838/24 dated 06/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the Pension Fund’s refusal to transfer her from an old-age pension (general grounds) to a disability pension for civil servants.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court emphasized that after May 1, 2016, Article 37 of the Law “On Civil Service” (regarding civil servant pensions) is not a directly applicable provision and is applied only in conjunction with the “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the new Law No. 889-VIII.
– The key criterion for retaining the right to such a pension is the individual’s possession of the required length of civil service (10 or 20 years) precisely as of May 1, 2016.
– The court established that the plaintiff had only about 7 years of service on the specified date; therefore, she does not belong to the category of persons who have retained the right to a special pension.
– The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that for the assignment of the pension, it is sufficient to have only the fact ofdisability and the availability of length of service at the time of application, as this ignores the transitional requirements of the legislation.
– The position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was also taken into account, according to which the special conditions for the assignment of a pension under the “old” law cannot be applied without compliance with the requirements regarding the length of service acquired before the 2016 reform.
– Regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated January 20, 2026, the court noted that it does not create an automatic right to a pension in the absence of legislative regulation of compensatory mechanisms.
– Consequently, the courts of previous instances mistakenly focused only on the fact of disability, ignoring the plaintiff’s lack of the necessary “entry” length of civil service as of 2016.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rendered a new decision to fully deny the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 918/800/25 dated 07/01/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of funds from LLC “Ostroh Sugar Plant” in favor of the Ostroh City Council for the actual use of a plot of land under communal ownership without formalized title documents.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the principle of the unity of the legal fate of a land plot and the real estate located on it, according to which the owner of a building becomes the actual user of the land.
– Relations regarding the actual use of a plot without a lease agreement are restitutionary (condictional); therefore, the user is obliged to reimburse the owner for the unjustifiably saved funds (rent) on the basis of Art. 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– The court emphasized that for such obligations, the fault of the user is irrelevant — the key factor is the very fact of unlawful retention of property (funds) at the expense of the territorial community.
– Regarding the refusal to appoint a land-technical expert examination, the court noted that this is a right, not a duty of the court, and in this case, there was sufficient evidence available to establish the circumstances without involving experts.
– The court also rejected the arguments regarding the necessity of staying the proceedings, since the consideration of another case (regarding challenging the actions of the city council) did not create an objective impossibility to hear this dispute.
– The cassation instance stated that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of law, and the complainant’s arguments amount to an attempt to reassess the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the Supreme Court.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part concerning the incorrect application of the norms of law and the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court, and in the remaining part, it left the court decisions unchanged and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/15750/25 dated 07/02/2026The provided court decision has been analyzed. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the application of operational-economic sanctions (withholding of funds) by the customer against the contractor for the violation of deadlines for the completion of individual stages of work under a construction contract, as well as the recovery of the corresponding debt together with a penalty, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that liability in the form of penalty sanctions under Clause 10.2 of the contract arises only in the event of delay in the completion of work as a whole, rather than for the violation of deadlines for individual stages, since the work schedule did not contain a separate cost for each stage as a basis for the accrual of penalties. The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of law, taking into account the practice regarding the impossibility of accruing sanctions for individual stages unless clearly provided for by the contract. At the same time, the court determined that when calculating the 3% per annum, the courts erroneously ignored a special contractual provision which established a different interest rate (0.01%), which takes priority in accordance with Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Regarding legal aid expenses, the court emphasized that the assessment of evidence and their reality is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, interference in this part was minimal. The change in the amount of recovery occurred solely due to the recalculation of the annual interest amount and a proportional reduction in attorney’s fees in connection with the partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the decisions of the lower courts in the part concerning the amount of annual interest and court expenses, and left the decisions unchanged in the remaining part.
Case No. 640/21465/19 dated 06/30/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the return of an appellate appeal filed by a tax authority due to the non-payment of court fees in full.
When considering this case, the Supreme Court was primarily guided by the norms of procedural law that regulate the procedure for filing appellate appeals. The court established that the appellant was duly notified of the need to rectify the deficiencies of the appeal, specifically regarding the payment of the court fee in the determined amount. The tax authority provided evidence of payment of only a part of the sum, which effectively meant non-compliance with the requirements of the court’s ruling on staying the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural law clearly defines the consequences of failure to rectify deficiencies within the established time limit, namely, the return of the appeal to the applicant. Since the appellant did not fulfill the court’s requirements, the appellate instance acted lawfully and within the scope of its powers. Additionally, the court drew attention to the fact that the tax authority had already exercised its right to a repeated appellate appeal, and proceedings on its new appeal had already been opened. Thus, the cassation court found no violations of procedural norms that could serve as grounds for overturning the contested ruling.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the city of Kyiv without satisfaction.and dismissed, and the ruling of the court of appeal shall remain unchanged.
Case No. 826/4238/18 dated 06/30/2026
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:** Challenging tax notification-decisions by which SE “Document” was additionally charged with income tax and VAT due to the alleged unreality of business transactions with counterparties.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the reality of transactions is confirmed by duly executed primary documents that reflect changes in the enterprise’s assets and liabilities.
– The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence that would refute the actual activity of the plaintiff or prove his awareness of violations on the part of the counterparties.
– The court emphasized that the tax accounting of a taxpayer cannot depend on the tax discipline of their counterparties if the taxpayer themselves incurred real expenses for their business activities.
– The tax authorities’ references to criminal proceedings against counterparties were deemed groundless, as they do not prove the unreality of transactions in a specific case.
– The court noted that the burden of proving the legality of tax notification-decisions is placed on the controlling authority, which in this case failed to meet this task.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the existence of only tax information or individual defects in the execution of documents is not a sufficient basis for a conclusion about the fictitious nature of transactions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was satisfied, remained unchanged.
Case No. 280/12143/24 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the military unit’s actions regarding the calculation of the indexation of monetary provision in execution of a previous court decision and the plaintiff’s attempt to repeatedly collect indexation through a new lawsuit.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the issue of accrual of indexation for the specified period had already been resolved within the framework of another case that had entered into legal force. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s disagreement with the calculation performed by the defendant in execution of the court decision does not create a new subject of the dispute. Procedural legislation clearly defines that the execution of court decisions must take place within the framework of enforcement proceedings or through mechanisms of judicial control provided for in Section IV of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine. The court also drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff had repeatedly attempted to initiate similar proceedings, for which he had already been refused opening. Thus, a repeated filing of the same claims against the same defendant is inadmissible according to the norms of procedural law. The courts…intermediate instances lawfully closed the proceedings, as the dispute essentially boils down to the enforcement of an already rendered decision, which cannot be the subject of a separate lawsuit.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the appellate court’s decree on the closure of proceedings.
Case No. 205/7428/21 dated 19/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Division of matrimonial property, specifically a land plot, a residential building, a garage, funds in a bank account, and recovery of compensation for an alienated vehicle.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that property acquired during marriage is common joint property; however, the plaintiff did not prove ownership of the garage, as its state registration is absent, and the available documents confirm only the right to use a share in a cooperative.
* Regarding the funds in the defendant’s account, the court established that they were received as a gift from a foreign citizen, and according to the law of the Republic of Korea (which is applied as the law of the donor’s country), a gift agreement for funds does not require written form; therefore, these funds are the personal property of the defendant.
* The court noted that an obligation to pay compensation for the division of property becomes a “monetary” one within the meaning of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine only after its amount and method are determined by a court decision or an agreement; therefore, until that moment, no delay occurs, and inflation losses are not accrued.
* Regarding the garage, the court pointed out that since the plaintiff did not submit a claim for the division of the “property right to the share” specifically, but demanded the division of real estate that does not legally exist, the court could not go beyond the scope of the claims.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of rebutting the presumption of community property lies with the spouse who claims its personal nature, and in this case, the defendant confirmed the personal nature of the currency funds with proper evidence (a gift letter).
* The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of adversarial proceedings and dispositive nature, noting that the court cannot independently change the subject of the claim if the plaintiff has chosen an incorrect method of protecting a right.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to divide the garage unchanged, and amended the reasoning parts regarding the refusal to recover inflation losses and funds.
Case No. 607/11558/22 dated 05/11/2025
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to interpret a will for the purpose of correcting an error in the address of the real estate, which preventedinheritance registration.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the interpretation of a will is an instrument for clarifying the true intent of the testator, rather than a means of changing its content. The Court established that at the time of drafting the will, the testator owned only one house, and the address specified in the document was a technical error (a clerical error), which was confirmed by a linguistic expertise. The Court rejected the argument of the lower courts that the testator had the opportunity to correct the error during her lifetime, as there was no evidence of her awareness of such an inaccuracy. The Supreme Court stressed that a literal interpretation of the will, which results in the impossibility of realizing the deceased’s will (since the bequeathed house did not belong to her), constitutes a distortion of that will. Therefore, the Court applied a systemic approach to interpretation, taking into account the testator’s intentions and the factual circumstances of property ownership. It is important that the Court distinguished this case from other judicial precedents, noting the difference in factual circumstances, which allowed for a decision in favor of the heir.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision granting the claim, interpreting the will as relating to the house actually owned by the testator.
Case No. 676/4014/25 of 06/29/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lifting of an attachment on real estate (an apartment), erroneously imposed within the framework of criminal proceedings, and the recognition of ownership rights to this property by the heir.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property by way of inheritance, and the existence of the attachment, imposed due to an error in the writ of execution (an incorrect apartment number), violates her right of ownership. The Supreme Court confirmed that in cases where the attachment of property was imposed to secure confiscation in favor of the state, the proper defendant is the territorial body of the State Tax Service. The Court rejected the tax authority’s arguments that it is not a proper defendant, as it is this specific body that is vested with fiscal functions and powers in the field of executing confiscation decisions. It was also noted that the ground for termination of the encumbrance is the judicial decision itself, which obligates the relevant authorities to take action. The Court emphasized that the lower courts correctly established the circumstances of the case, and the arguments of the cassation appeal essentially boil down to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance. The Supreme Court stressed that its conclusions are consistent with established judicial practice; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service was denied.
