Case No. 910/1971/25 of 07/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The Main Office of the Pension Fund of Ukraine attempted to compel the Individual Deposit Guarantee Fund through the court to include it in the register of creditors of a liquidated bank for the purpose of collecting funds that payers of the pension insurance contribution had deposited through the bank’s cash desk, but which were not credited to the budget due to the introduction of temporary administration in the bank.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that a payment transaction is considered completed only at the moment the funds are credited to the recipient’s account, which did not occur in this case. Since the funds of individuals were “stuck” on the bank’s transit account, they did not become the property of the Pension Fund, but remained the funds of the payers. Special legislation on the deposit guarantee system clearly stipulates that such funds are subject to return specifically to the payers (individuals), and not to the payment recipient. The Court emphasized that the Pension Fund did not acquire the status of a creditor of the bank, as it is not a party to the legal relations regarding the deposit or payment transaction within the meaning of the Law “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals.” The Court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the new Law “On Payment Services” changes the approach to this situation, noting that the legal nature of the completion of a transfer has remained analogous to the previous regulation. Therefore, the claims of the Pension Fund were found to be groundless, as the mechanism for protecting rights in this situation is provided exclusively for individual payers.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, by which the satisfaction of the Pension Fund’s claims was completely denied.
Case No. 334/10515/24 of 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief and professional overview for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation review of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a citizen of Ukraine was convicted of high treason (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) for transmitting intelligence data about the deployment of Armed Forces of Ukraine units to a representative of the special services of the Russian Federation.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that information from open sources (websites, messengers) is admissible evidence if it is recorded by an investigator in an inspection protocol in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and evaluated in conjunction with other evidence.
– The Court emphasized that the crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code has a formal composition, therefore, to qualify the act, it is not necessary to prove the occurrence of specific grave consequences (for example, a successful missile strike); the very fact of voluntary transmission of data to the enemy is sufficient.
– Regardingregarding the subjective element, the court noted that the systematic transmission of coordinates of military facilities under martial law rules out the version of “oppositional views” and indicates direct intent to assist the enemy.
– The Supreme Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the lack of technical recording of the hearings, clarifying that modern digital links to recordings in a centralized repository constitute proper compliance with the legal requirements for recording proceedings.
– The court emphasized that the appellate instance is not obliged to re-examine evidence if the defense party has not provided compelling grounds to doubt its reliability or has not filed a corresponding motion.
– In summary, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of lower instances adhered to the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, and the collected evidence (correspondence, expert reports, data from military command) forms a coherent picture of the convicted person’s guilt.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel — unsatisfied.
Case No. 333/9365/24 dated 07/14/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the suspension of criminal proceedings by the court of first instance in connection with the accused’s conscription for military service, and the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings upon an appeal against such a decision.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, proceeded from the fact that a ruling on the suspension of proceedings based on Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine is not subject to separate appellate review, as it is not included in the list of decisions defined by Article 392 of the CPC. The court emphasized that the conscription of an accused for military service during mobilization is an imperative ground for suspending proceedings, and the law does not provide for exceptions depending on the person’s ability to participate in hearings. The cassation instance stressed that the suspension of proceedings is merely a temporary break, not a final decision that obstructs the further progress of the case. The court also noted that an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of the victim in such cases is not appellate review, but the exercise of continuous judicial control over the justification and duration of the suspension. In particular, the victim has the right to file motions with the court of first instance for the resumption of proceedings if the circumstances that served as the basis for the suspension have changed. Ultimately, the actions of the appellate court judge regarding the refusal to open proceedings were recognized as entirely lawful and in compliance with procedural norms.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the victim’s representative unsatisfied and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 990/351/25 dated 07/16/2026Analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A candidate for the position of judge challenging decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of a qualification exam and refusal to admit the candidate to the next stage of the competition due to the lack of element-by-element assessment of the practical assignment.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the HQCJ is a collegial body acting within the scope of its discretionary powers, and the methodology for assessing the practical assignment does not provide for the mandatory display of scores for each individual element of the work.
– The Grand Chamber confirmed that Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24 are of an auxiliary (instructive) nature for members of the examination commission, rather than an imperative requirement regarding the detailing of the assessment in the final decision.
– A key argument was the guarantee of the anonymity of the qualification exam: disclosing element-by-element assessments or re-evaluating the work of a specific candidate would violate the principles of equality and objectivity in relation to other competition participants.
– The Court noted that the assessment of the practical assignment is carried out based on the inner conviction of the commission members, and the recording of scores occurs for the assignment as a whole, which complies with current legislation.
– The plaintiff failed to prove that the challenged HQCJ decisions were arbitrary or lacked the grounds for adoption, as required by Article 88 of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.”
– The Court also indicated that the demand for re-assessment is disproportionate, as it is not provided for by law and effectively requires the court to substitute itself for the powers of the HQCJ.
– The Grand Chamber emphasized that the established judicial practice on this issue is consistent, and no grounds for departure from it have been established.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, confirming the lawfulness of the HQCJ’s actions.
[Case No. 686/6647/24 of 07/15/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138362895)
Analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of damages, penalties, and moral damages in connection with a breach of deadlines for commissioning a real estate object under a contract for the sale of property rights.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Court confirmed that a contract for the sale of property rights is specifically a contract of sale, not a contract for the performance of works or provision of services; therefore, the provisions of the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights” regarding the recovery of a 3% penalty for each day of delay do not apply to it.
– Regarding damages (rent), the Court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove a direct causal link between the construction delay and the need to rent housing, and therefore denied this claim.
– Concerning moral damages, the Court pointed out that a violation of consumer rights is an independent ground for compensation, and the unlawfulness of the…of the seller in such legal relations is presumed.
* The court emphasized that the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage arises from Articles 16 and 23 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, even if this is not explicitly stipulated in the contract.
* The Supreme Court highlighted the consistency of its practice, confirming that a seller of property rights does not bear liability as a “contractor”, and therefore a penalty under the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights is not accrued.
* Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the requirements of reasonableness, the court independently determined the amount of non-pecuniary damage at UAH 3,000, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts in this part.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the refusal to compensate for non-pecuniary damage, and rendered a new decision to collect it, while leaving the remaining claims unsatisfied.
Case No. 646/1660/20 dated 07/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of spousal property, in particular, determining the ownership regime of vehicles and resolving the issue of the division of debt obligations incurred in connection with their repair and transportation.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court established that the vehicles were acquired and restored during the marriage; therefore, they are objects of joint common ownership, regardless of whose name they were registered in.
* The appellate court reasonably took into account the fact that one of the cars was alienated by the defendant without the plaintiff’s consent after the filing of the lawsuit, which became the basis for awarding monetary compensation instead of partitioning the property in kind.
* Regarding the debts, the court noted that although they were incurred in the interests of the family, their automatic division in equal shares would be unfair.
* The court drew attention to the significant depreciation of the vehicles after their repair and the defendant’s prolonged personal use of the property after the dissolution of the marriage.
* Since the plaintiff was not a party to the cases in which the debts were collected from the defendant, she was deprived of the opportunity to protect her interests regarding the amount of these obligations.
* Taking into account the principles of justice and equality of the parties, the court concluded that imposing half of these debts on the plaintiff would be unjustified.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of previous instances correctly evaluated the evidence and did not commit violations of substantive law, rejecting the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to revalue the property and debts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the defendant’s claims regarding the division of debt obligations.
Case No. 334/8800/24 dated 07/20/2026The subject of this dispute is the consideration of the accused’s motion for a change of territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings, namely, the transfer of the case from one appellate court to another.
When considering this matter, the Supreme Court was guided exclusively by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly regulate the grounds for referring criminal proceedings from one court to another. The judges analyzed the accused’s arguments regarding the necessity of changing jurisdiction and verified them for compliance with the requirements of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. During the proceedings, it was established that there were no objective circumstances that would hinder the consideration of the case in the respective appellate court or indicate an inability to ensure objective justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to change jurisdiction is not absolute and must be supported by compelling procedural arguments, which, in this case, were not proven. Consequently, the panel of judges concluded that there were no grounds for granting the motion, as this would violate the principles of territorial jurisdiction enshrined in criminal procedural law.
The Supreme Court ruled to deny the accused’s motion to refer the materials of the criminal proceedings to another appellate court.
**Case No. 910/6133/22 dated 07/16/2026**
The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 910/6133/22:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of average earnings from JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” for the time of forced absenteeism and delay in the execution of the court decision on reinstatement.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court of cassation instance pointed out that the lower instances did not fulfill the instructions of the Supreme Court provided during the previous overturning of decisions in this case. In particular, the courts did not properly examine evidence as to whether a real reduction of the plaintiff’s position had occurred, or if it was merely a formal renaming without a change in functional duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the legality of changes in labor organization and the distinction of functional duties in a new position lies with the employer. Furthermore, the court recognized the application of the procedure for the restitution of enforcement regarding legal aid expenses as erroneous, since the cancellation of previous additional decisions did not imply a denial of the right to such reimbursement, but rather required a new allocation of expenses based on the results of the case consideration. The lower courts reached contradictory conclusions regarding the presence or absence of the plaintiff’s position in the staffing table, which made it impossible to correctly calculate the average earnings taking into account salary increase coefficients. Consequently, the Supreme Court identified a violation of procedural law norms (Articles 73–79, 86 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine) due to improper examination of evidence.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned[the court] upheld the decisions of the lower courts in the part regarding the refusal of the claim and the restitution of the enforcement of court decisions, remitting the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/9701/25 dated 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff applied to the court with a claim to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting of the Condominium (OSBB) “ZhK Mykytska Sloboda,” citing violations in the procedure for convening, conducting, and documenting the voting results.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that the Condominium duly notified the co-owner about the meeting by sending a registered letter, which fully complies with the requirements of the law and the association’s charter.
* The fact that the meeting was held and the written survey procedure were confirmed by proper evidence: the registration list of participants, survey sheets, and the minutes, which the plaintiff failed to refute with admissible evidence.
* The court emphasized that the plaintiff was personally present at the meeting and exercised their right to vote, therefore, their claims regarding the violation of rights are groundless.
* Regarding the arguments about the falsification of the minutes and the holding of the meeting at “night time” in the basement, the court noted that these statements are based only on assumptions, and the testimonies and screenshots from messengers provided by the plaintiff are not sufficient evidence, as they do not allow for the identification of the authors and the content of the events.
* The court also clarified that the general meeting of a Condominium may consist of an in-person part and a written survey as a single procedure, which does not contradict the legislation.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to reassess evidence that has already been thoroughly examined by the lower courts and found no grounds to overturn the decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the legality of the decisions adopted at the Condominium meeting.
Case No. 759/15590/24 dated 07/15/2026
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 dispute concerns the legality of an employee’s dismissal due to staff reduction and the employer’s failure to fulfill the obligation regarding the proper placement of the employee in vacant positions.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for dismissal due to staff reduction cannot be merely formal, and the employer’s obligation regarding job placement continues from the moment of notice of dismissal until the actual date of termination of the employment contract. The court established that the employer repeatedly offered vacancies but effectively refused to transfer the employee to them, citing a lack of qualification, which requires a…of detailed court review. The appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments that the employer did not offer all available vacancies that arose during the entire notice period, in particular, a vacancy that appeared on the eve of the dismissal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts did not compare the employee’s actual education and experience with the requirements for vacant positions, limiting themselves to a formal approach. It was also noted that ignoring a party’s arguments regarding a violation of the employment procedure constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Ultimately, due to the failure to examine all circumstances of the case and an incomplete assessment of the evidence, the appellate court’s decision was deemed premature.
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.
Case No. 161/3017/20 of 07/15/2026
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:** Cassation appeal of the verdict and ruling of the appellate court, by which a person was convicted of committing a robbery (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), on the grounds of alleged inadmissibility of evidence and a violation of the procedure for appointing the prosecutor.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish factual circumstances of the case, limiting itself solely to verifying the correctness of the application of legal norms. The Court found the defense’s claims regarding the lack of authority of the prosecutor to be groundless, as the original resolution on the appointment was provided to the court and contained all necessary particulars. Regarding the arguments on the inadmissibility of evidence, the court noted that they had been duly examined and assessed by the lower courts in their entirety, which excludes reasonable doubts as to the guilt of the convicted person. The court also emphasized that the appellate court’s refusal to re-examine the evidence was lawful, as the defense did not provide reasonable grounds for such necessity, but merely expressed disagreement with the assessment of the evidence. It was separately noted that the defense’s reference to the Supreme Court’s practice regarding the absence of signatures in prosecutors’ resolutions is irrelevant, as in this case, the fact of signing the document was confirmed by the original. Ultimately, the court concluded that the rights of the parties were observed during the proceedings, and the conclusions of the lower courts are lawful and reasoned.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 641/1628/21 of 07/20/2026
The subject of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to invalidate a loan agreement which, in her conviction, in factwas not entered into and under which no funds were transferred.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the established case law of the Supreme Court, according to which it is impossible to invalidate a transaction that was not performed (not entered into) at all. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff is entitled to an effective method of protection, and the selection of an erroneous method of protection is an independent ground for the dismissal of a claim. In this case, the plaintiff chose “invalidation,” whereas, in the event of disputing the very fact of the existence of a contract, the proper method is to apply to the court with a demand to recognize the contract as not entered into. Since the loan agreement was not provided to the court, and the circumstances of the case indicate the absence of the fact of the transfer of funds, the courts of lower instances quite rightly pointed out the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective method of protection. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal consequences of the invalidity of a transaction do not apply to contracts that have not arisen within the legal framework. Thus, the cassation appeal contained no grounds for overturning the decisions, as the courts correctly applied the norms of substantive law regarding the methods of protection of civil rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances, dismissing the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 914/3261/24 of 07/14/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of a lease agreement for an architectural monument of national significance (“Powder Tower”) and an obligation for the tenant to return the property due to a violation of the contract conclusion procedure and the ineffective use of municipal property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Court established that the lease agreement for the architectural monument was entered into without prior approval from the cultural heritage protection authority, which is an imperative requirement of the law.
* The rent was set without conducting a proper independent valuation of the property, which led to an understatement of local budget revenues.
* The Court confirmed the prosecutor’s right to represent the interests of the state, as the local self-government body (the property owner) had not taken effective measures for a long time to eliminate violations and protect the economic interests of the community.
* The appellant’s arguments regarding the lack of grounds for representation by the prosecutor were rejected, as the prosecutor proved the passive behavior of the competent authority, which is a sufficient ground for the subsidiary intervention of the prosecutor’s office.
* The Court also noted that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 12/03/2025 regarding the limitation of the prosecutor’s powers does not apply to legal relations that arose and continue until the moment this decision enters into force (01/01/2027).
* It was established that the use of a portion of the premises for non-intended purposes (housing a café) further confirms the tenant’s improper performance of the terms of the contract.
3. **Re****Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the invalidation of the contract and the return of property.
[**Case No. 607/3150/14-k dated 07/16/2026**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138363105)
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of the former head of the State Land Agency Department for official negligence (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which resulted in the illegal allocation of land plots and caused grave consequences for public interests.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the convicted person, holding personal responsibility for the department’s activities, performed his duties improperly by approving land management projects without properly verifying the compliance of the plot locations with urban planning documentation.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the official had access to the national cadastral system and the public cadastral map, which allowed him to detect violations (in particular, the location of plots within a settlement or in coastal protection strips) prior to signing the documents.
* The court rejected the defense’s arguments that the liability lies with the documentation developers, noting that it was the signature of the department head that was final and mandatory for the approval of the projects.
* Regarding references to civil court decisions, the court indicated that they do not have prejudicial significance for the criminal proceedings, as they concerned different legal relations, rather than an assessment of the official’s actions.
* The court also found the reclassification of the defendant’s actions from Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power) to Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code (official negligence) to be lawful, as the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a mercenary motive or intent to act in the interests of third parties.
* Procedural costs for expert examinations were recovered from the convicted person lawfully, as they served as the basis for proving guilt within the framework of the conviction.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
[**Case No. 641/4705/19 dated 07/21/2026**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138363186)
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of territorial jurisdiction for the review of an appeal in criminal proceedings due to the impossibility of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal to administer justice.
2. The court was guided by the provisions of Articles 31 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the issue of changing the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings. The primary ground for satisfying the motion was the need to ensure the expediency and efficiency of the judicial review under conditions, towhen the appellate court, to whose jurisdiction the territory of the committed offense belongs, cannot hear the case. The Supreme Court evaluated the circumstances set forth in the motion and concluded that the transfer of materials to another court is justified and complies with the requirements of procedural law. Such a mechanism allows for avoiding delays in case proceedings and guarantees the observance of the rights of participants in the process to access justice. The Court took into account that a change of jurisdiction in this case is an exceptional measure aimed at ensuring the objectivity and impartiality of the judicial process. As a result, the panel of judges deemed the arguments of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal sufficient to refer the proceedings to another court of appeal.
3. The Court granted the motion of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and transferred the case materials for consideration to the Poltava Court of Appeal.
Case No. 990/156/23 dated 09/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim against the High Council of Justice to recognize as unlawful the inaction regarding the non-payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism and to recover the corresponding funds.
The Court, having analyzed the circumstances of the case, concluded that the fact of the plaintiff’s forced absenteeism during the specified period has been proven, which creates a direct obligation for the defendant to make the appropriate payments. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court established that the previous refusal of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim was erroneous, as it did not take into account the legal grounds for receiving compensation for the time during which the person was deprived of the opportunity to exercise their professional powers through the fault of a state body. The Court clearly distinguished the periods for which payment is due, relying on the norms of labor legislation and special norms regulating the status of members of the High Council of Justice. At the same time, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims regarding the recovery of earnings for the period of non-admission to the performance of duties, since the legal grounds for such accruals in the stated volume were not confirmed by proper evidence. As a result, the court ensured the protection of the violated right to remuneration by determining the specific amount of compensation to be recovered, taking into account mandatory tax deductions.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and adopt a new one, partially satisfying the claim, recognizing the inaction of the High Council of Justice as unlawful and ordering the recovery in favor of the plaintiff of 1,744,741.84 UAH in average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
Case No. 751/6009/25 dated 17/07/2026
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:** Establishment of the legal fact of a father independently raising and supporting two minor children to obtain groundsfor discharge from military service.
2. **Court’s Rationale:**
– The Court emphasized that parental responsibilities are inalienable, and the fact of a mother residing abroad does not, by itself, indicate evasion of parental duties.
– To satisfy the claim, it is necessary to prove a combination of two circumstances: the actual upbringing and the actual maintenance of the children; however, in this case, the mother pays alimony, which refutes the argument regarding her lack of participation in maintenance.
– The Court stressed that the separate residence of parents and the determination of the children’s place of residence with the father do not automatically confirm “independent upbringing” as defined by the mobilization law.
– The Supreme Court noted that proving such facts must be based on evidence of the mother’s evasion of duties, rather than merely on the fact of her absence from the children’s place of residence.
– The Court indicated that since parents have equal rights and duties, their termination is possible only in cases directly provided by law (e.g., deprivation of parental rights), which did not occur in this case.
– The cassation instance confirmed that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of lower courts, and in this case, the appellate court duly assessed the lack of evidence of the mother’s intentional evasion of duties.
– The Supreme Court also remarked that the desire to be discharged from military service is not an independent ground for satisfying a claim if the factual circumstances provided by law have not been proven.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, refusing to establish the legal fact.
Case No. 758/13555/21 dated 14/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Below is a summary of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff (a People’s Deputy) filed a lawsuit for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, demanding the refutation of information disseminated on a Telegram channel regarding his alleged family ties to a person involved in corruption scandals.
2. **Court’s Rationale:**
– The Court established that the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed information caused real harm to his business reputation or led to negative consequences, such as the loss of voter trust.
– The appellate court reasonably rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding a hidden negative subtext, noting that the assertion of family ties does not contain a direct accusation of facilitating corruption, and the plaintiff’s conclusions are merely his subjective assumptions.
– The Court emphasized that the disputed information was based on details that had already been disclosed in open sources and had not been refuted in the established manner.
– The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of analyzing the context of the publication: since the post generally concerned other persons and political events, it was not saimed specifically at discrediting the plaintiff.
– The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence to refute the fact of family ties; however, even without this, the decision on the merits remains lawful, as no violation of personal non-property rights has been proven.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly applied the standards of proof and the principles of balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim.
Case No. 186/1054/25 dated 07/15/2026
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:** Recovery of moral damages from the employer (PJSC “DTEK Pavlohradvuhillya”) caused to an employee as a result of an industrial accident, which led to the establishment of a permanent disability.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of moral damages must be commensurate with the physical and mental suffering of the victim and should not depend solely on the date the disability was established. The court stressed that the appellate instance groundlessly exceeded the scope of the defendant’s appeal, who had essentially admitted the claim in the amount of 50,000 UAH, by arbitrarily reducing the sum to 8,000 UAH. The Supreme Court noted that since the disability was established permanently, the consequences of the injury are ongoing, and therefore the argument regarding the “lack of relevance” of the distress due to the passage of time is legally untenable. Established judicial practice in similar cases was also taken into account, where courts award significantly higher compensation amounts for similar degrees of loss of work capacity. The court indicated that when determining the amount of damages, one must be guided by the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness, rather than formal time frames. Ultimately, the Supreme Court recognized the decision of the court of first instance, which awarded 160,000 UAH, as lawful and well-founded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to recover 160,000 UAH of moral damages in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 686/3625/23 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of an individual for justifying and disseminating materials containing the glorification of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine (Part 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court stated that the factual circumstances of the case were properly established by the lower courts, and the evidence (in particular, the conclusions oflinguistic examination and protocols of inspection of internet resources) are admissible and sufficient to confirm guilt.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that sincere repentance is not a formal admission of guilt, but a critical attitude towards one’s behavior, which must be confirmed by real actions, which was not established in this case.
* Regarding procedural violations, the court noted that the remote consideration of the case via video conference during martial law is legal, and the absence of the interrogation of the accused in the appellate instance is not a violation if the party did not file motions for re-examination of evidence.
* The court acknowledged that the imposition of an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property was erroneous, since the crime under Part 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code is not a self-serving crime, and the sanction of the article does not provide for mandatory confiscation of property under such circumstances.
* The panel of judges confirmed that the imposition of an actual term of imprisonment is fair given the gravity of the crime against the peace and security of mankind.
* The court also indicated that the absence of a pre-sentence report by the probation authority in this specific situation does not affect the legality of the verdict.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amending the court decisions by excluding the additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property; in the remaining part, the verdict was left unchanged.
Case No. 157/806/25 dated 07/13/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute in the cassation instance was the legality of the appellate court’s verdict, which increased the punishment for a convict for committing a traffic accident while in a state of alcoholic intoxication (Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
* The court confirmed that the imposition of a penalty is a discretionary power of the court, which must be based on the principles of justice and the rule of law.
* The appellate court had the full right to clarify the factual circumstances of the case, in particular regarding the degree of severity of bodily injuries and the state of intoxication, as this did not go beyond the scope of the charges brought.
* The panel of judges emphasized that when imposing a penalty for a “drunk” traffic accident, the court is obliged to take into account the increased public danger of the act, even in the presence of mitigating circumstances.
* The Supreme Court recognized as well-founded the appellate court’s conclusion that the penalty in the form of probationary supervision (imposed by the first instance) was too lenient given the 3 per mille of alcohol in the convict’s blood and the severity of the consequences for the victims.
* The court noted that the restriction of liberty imposed by the appellate court is proportionate and corresponds to the goals of correcting the convict and preventing new crimes.
* The defense’s arguments that the appellate court did not take into account the identity of the convict (young age, assistance to family) were rejected, as these circumstances had already been subject to assessthe court, which selected a fair measure of punishment within the sanctions of the article.
3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Volyn Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense attorney — unsatisfied.
Case No. 922/499/24 dated 07/15/2026
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:** A farm attempted to review a court decision refusing to recognize an additional agreement to a land lease contract as concluded based on newly discovered circumstances, citing the receipt of a tax benefit that was granted after the court decision had already been rendered.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court clearly distinguished between the concepts of “newly discovered circumstances” and “new evidence,” noting that for a case to be reviewed, the circumstance must have existed at the time of the dispute resolution but been unknown to the applicant.
* Since the order granting the tax benefit was adopted by the defendant only in 2025 (i.e., after the final decision in the case was made), it cannot be considered a newly discovered circumstance, but is merely new evidence.
* The court emphasized that at the time the tenant submitted the request for renewal of the contract in 2023, the debt for rental payments did indeed exist, as there was no corresponding decision regarding the benefit at that time.
* Granting the benefit later does not cancel the fact of the existence of the debt as of the date of the application, which was key to the refusal to renew the lease contract.
* The Supreme Court indicated that a review based on newly discovered circumstances is not a mechanism for correcting judicial errors or re-evaluating evidence, but is aimed exclusively at establishing the truth through circumstances that objectively could not have been taken into account earlier.
* The court also referred to the practice of the ECHR, emphasizing that the right to review a decision arises only when there is evidence that was not previously available and could have fundamentally changed the outcome of the case, which did not occur in this instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the impossibility of reviewing the case under such conditions.
Case No. 910/9954/25 dated 07/21/2026
The subject of this dispute is the collection of debt in the amount of 2,441,612.26 UAH, which arose between an energy supply company and an electricity transmission system operator.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of mandatory fulfillment of contractual obligations by the parties in accordance with the terms of the concluded contract and the norms of current legislation regulating the electric energy market. The panel of judges analyzed the case materials and concluded that the lower courts correctly established the factual circumstances, having provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Supreme Court confirmed that the argumThe complainant’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of substantive law were not substantiated during the cassation proceedings. The Court also drew attention to the fact that the procedural violations cited by the applicant did not affect the legality and validity of the decisions rendered. As a result, it was determined that there were no grounds for the reversal of the judicial acts, as provided for by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Thus, the legal position of the courts of first and appellate instances was recognized as compliant with the requirements of the law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 522/18576/23 dated 07/20/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of cohabitation as a single family without marriage registration and the division of property (an apartment), which the plaintiff considered to be common joint property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to recognize property as common in actual marital relationships, it is necessary to prove not only the fact of cohabitation but also the maintenance of a common household, the existence of a common budget, and mutual rights and obligations.
– The lower courts found that the plaintiff’s evidence (witness testimonies, social media photos, correspondence) was contradictory or insufficient to confirm the maintenance of a common household and budget.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence if the lower courts did not violate procedural norms during its examination.
– Regarding the apartment, the court established that the property rights to it were acquired by the defendant’s mother and transferred to him prior to the registration of the marriage, which excludes this property from the common joint property of the spouses.
– The plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence that her own funds or the funds of her mother were actually spent on the purchase of this particular real estate.
– The court also took into account that the status of this apartment as the defendant’s personal private property had already been established in another judicial case.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim.
Case No. 686/22548/25 dated 07/20/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages caused, in his opinion, by the excessive duration of the pre-trial investigation in a specific criminal proceeding.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff had repeatedly filed similar lawsuits regarding the same criminal proceeding; therefore, a portion of the claims for previous periods had already been the subject of…
