Case No. 120/16674/25 of 07/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court leaving a statement of claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal against a decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (QDCB).
2. The court proceeded from the priority of special legal norms over general ones, emphasizing that the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Practice of Law” is a special act that clearly defines the time limit for appealing QDCB decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that although the plaintiff has an alternative — to appeal the decision either to the Higher QDCB or to the court — in both cases, the legislator has established a limited 30-day period for exercising this right. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the application of the general six-month period provided for by the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine (CAJU), as the special law takes precedence. It was also noted that procedural time limits exist to ensure legal certainty; therefore, missing them without valid reasons is an absolute ground for leaving a claim without consideration. The court found no objective and insurmountable circumstances that would have prevented the plaintiff from applying to the court in a timely manner. As a result, the position of the courts of lower instances was recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 643/8803/23 of 07/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, as well as the refusal of the courts of lower instances to recognize persons as civil plaintiffs and to resolve the issue regarding the distribution of procedural costs.
The Supreme Court, in analyzing the case materials, emphasized that the lower courts committed significant violations of the norms of criminal procedural law. Firstly, the appellate court groundlessly returned the appellate complaint to the civil plaintiffs, as they, according to the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, have the right to appeal a court decision in the part concerning their civil claim. Secondly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of distributing procedural costs in criminal proceedings must be resolved directly within the framework of the criminal case, even if a person is released from liability on non-exonerating grounds. The court of first instance mistakenly left the civil claim without consideration, failing to distinguish between expenses related to the criminal proceedings and expenses related to the civil claim. The appellate court, in turn, did not rectify these errors and failed to provide a proper assessment of the appellants’ arguments, thereby violating their right to access justice. Thus, the courts ignored the established practice of the Supreme Court thaton the mandatory nature of resolving the issue of procedural costs upon the conclusion of case proceedings.
The Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 922/3791/25 dated 07/22/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 922/3791/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lessee’s claim for the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease contract as concluded for a new term, in the wording proposed in the second application to the lessor.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the exercise of the pre-emptive right to renew a lease contract requires consistent and good-faith conduct by the lessee during the negotiation process. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the city council three times, with the second and third applications containing draft additional agreements that differed in content, which effectively demonstrated the lessee’s withdrawal of its previous proposal. The Supreme Court emphasized that since the lessee voluntarily changed its intent and initiated new terms, it cannot demand that the court compulsorily conclude the contract in a wording that it had itself abandoned. The court noted that references to Supreme Court practice regarding the lessor’s duty to negotiate are unfounded, as in those cases the lessee’s conduct was consistent, whereas here the lessee itself interrupted the negotiation process. Consequently, the actions of the city council cannot be qualified as an abuse of right, and the impossibility of concluding the agreement is a result of the plaintiff’s own inconsistency.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim and closed the cassation proceedings regarding the allegation of failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, due to the lack of similarity in the legal relations.
Case No. 201/12349/18 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the situation:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the substitution of a plaintiff (procedural succession) in a case concerning the foreclosure on mortgaged property following the assignment of rights of claim under a loan agreement.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is not absolute and must be exercised in compliance with procedural deadlines and the principle of legal certainty.
* The court established that the appellate court had groundlessly restored the time limit for filing an appeal without providing convincing reasons for the validity of a delay lasting more than two years.
* Special attention was drawn to the fact that the appellant (PERSON_2) was involved in the case back in 2025, but filed the appeal only six months later, which was not properly justified.
* The court noted that the appellate instance failed to clarify whether the legal representative of the minor was aware of the court decision earlier, which is critical.but is important for assessing the validity of the reasons for missing a deadline.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that a formal reference to the lack of status as a participant in the case at the time of the decision does not relieve the court of the duty to verify the applicant’s conduct after they became aware of the case.
* As a result of an incomplete examination of the circumstances regarding the deadlines, the appellate court committed a violation of procedural law, which made it impossible to correctly resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
* Thus, the appellate decision was overturned due to the lack of proper motivation regarding the reinstatement of a procedural deadline, which constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling and the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for a new resolution of the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 314/4851/24 dated 07/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute was the establishment of the fact that a woman and a man cohabited as a single family without registering a marriage, for the purpose of obtaining the status of a family member of a deceased serviceman to arrange for relevant benefits and assistance.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the applicant provided sufficient evidence which, in the aggregate, confirms the existence of stable family relationships characteristic of spouses. In particular, the fact of cohabitation, running a joint household, having a joint budget, and mutual financial support was proven. The court took into account the testimony of eyewitnesses who confirmed the shared daily life, as well as official documents where the deceased, during his lifetime, listed the applicant as his common-law wife. The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of such facts must be based on a balance of probabilities, and not just on individual pieces of evidence. At the same time, the cassation instance stressed that it does not have the authority to reassess evidence that has already been properly examined by the lower courts. The arguments of the Ministry of Defense regarding the insufficiency of evidence were rejected, as the lower courts acted within the scope of their authority and correctly applied the norms of substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance, recognizing the fact of cohabitation as a single family as proven.
Case No. 753/11522/20 dated 07/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the division of immovable property acquired during the parties’ registered marriage and the recognition of the former wife’s ownership right to a 1/2 share of this property.
**2. Court arguments**
The court was guided by the presumption of joint marital property, established by Articles 60 and 70 of the Family Codeof Ukraine, according to which property acquired during marriage belongs to both spouses in equal shares, regardless of whose name it is registered under. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that its period begins not from the moment of divorce, but from the day when the person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right, which the defendant failed to prove in this case. The court also rejected the legal successor’s arguments regarding the actual termination of marital relations in 2008, emphasizing that establishing the fact of cohabitation as a single family without a registered marriage is impossible if one of the partners was in another official marriage at the time, as this contradicts the principle of monogamy and the moral principles of society. Regarding procedural violations, the court found that the legal successor was properly joined to the case and had the opportunity to exercise their rights, and the return of the response to the claim was justified due to the failure to meet the time limits established by the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that a legal successor is bound by the procedural actions taken prior to their entry into the case and has no grounds for the reinstatement of time limits that were missed by the previous defendant. In conclusion, the court reached the conclusion that the challenged decisions are based on the correct application of substantive law and a full examination of the circumstances of the case.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 521/19438/22 dated 07/22/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiffs’ claim to recognize their right to use additional premises (sheds) with a total area of 21.63 sq. m, which, in their opinion, were erroneously not included in the district administration order of 2003.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the right to apply to the court arises only in the event of a real violation, non-recognition, or contestation of a person’s rights, which was not proven in this case. It was established that the 2003 order clearly defined the list of premises transferred for use, and the case files contain no evidence of permission being granted to use other sheds (with an area of 21.63 sq. m). The court emphasized that the use of the plural (“sheds”) in the document fully corresponded to the actual state of the objects, which had been converted into a single utility room; therefore, there was no “technical error” in the order. The plaintiffs did not provide any title documents confirming the legality of their use of the disputed sheds. Since the defendant did not perform any actions aimed at depriving the plaintiffs of the right to use the property already granted, there are no grounds for judicial protection. The court also emphasized that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the method of protection chosen by the plaintiffs is not effective in the absence of the fact of a violation of a right itself.
3. The Supreme Court left without[and] the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 910/8323/25 dated 07/22/2026
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 matter of the dispute:** Invalidation of a contract for the sale of a share in the authorized capital of a company and the documents derived therefrom due to the lack of notarized consent of the other spouse for the alienation of joint property.
2. **Court’s argumentation:**
* The court proceeded from the premise that a share in the authorized capital acquired during marriage is an object of the right of joint marital property, which requires obtaining the consent of the other spouse for its alienation.
* A key factor was the establishment of the bad faith of the acquirer of the share, who knew about the seller’s marital status, since the parties had been co-founders of the same company for a long time.
* The court emphasized that the presumption of the other spouse’s consent to the disposal of property applies only in favor of a bona fide acquirer, and in this case, this presumption was rebutted by evidence of the buyer’s awareness of the absence of such consent.
* Regarding the power of attorney referred to by the defendant, the court noted that the presence of broad powers for a representative does not replace the mandatory expression of will by the other spouse as a co-owner of the property.
* The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the “contradictory behavior” of the plaintiff, indicating that the issuance of a power of attorney is not an automatic consent to the alienation of joint property without the knowledge of the other spouse.
* Finally, the court emphasized that a transaction involving the alienation of corporate rights is not a minor household transaction and therefore requires proper execution of the other spouse’s consent.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the share purchase and sale agreement and the acceptance-transfer act were declared invalid, and the entries in the Unified State Register were cancelled.
Case No. 354/591/15-ц dated 07/22/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the distribution of court costs, namely the recovery of the court fee paid by the prosecutor for filing a cassation appeal in a case concerning the recovery of a land plot from illegal possession.
The court was guided by the provisions of Article 270 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which grants the court the right to adopt an additional decision if the issue of court costs was not resolved during the main proceedings. According to Article 141 of the same Code, court costs are imposed on the parties in proportion to the size of the satisfied claims. Since the Supreme Court in the previous decision overturned the appellate court’s resolution and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the state, the prosecutor essentially won the case. The court established that the prosecutor documented the payment of a court fee in the amount of 6,056 UAH for filing the cassation appeal. Therefore,since the prosecutor’s claims were satisfied, the obligation to reimburse these costs is imposed on the defendant, who lost the dispute. Thus, the adoption of an additional decision is procedurally necessary to fully restore justice regarding the distribution of court costs.
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s application and ordered the recovery of UAH 6,056 in court fees from the defendant in favor of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
Case No. 692/372/25 of 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the procedure for the participation of a father residing abroad in the upbringing of and communication with his minor son, as well as the removal of obstacles to such communication.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the priority of the best interests of the child, which require maintaining an emotional bond with both parents, regardless of their place of residence.
– The courts of lower instances did not establish facts of actual obstruction by the mother, therefore they denied the claims for “removal of obstacles.”
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the child traveling abroad must be resolved according to the special algorithm provided for in Article 157 of the Family Code of Ukraine, rather than through a mandatory obligation for the mother to hand over the child to third parties.
– Regarding the mother’s presence during meetings, the court noted that a restriction in the form of the mandatory presence of another person (the mother) is an exceptional measure that must be justified by risks to the child.
– Since the case materials did not contain evidence of the father’s negative influence on the child, the Supreme Court deemed it inappropriate to impose the mother’s presence during visits.
– The court emphasized that the existence of a conflict between the parents should not become an instrument for restricting the child’s rights to communicate with the father if it does not harm their development.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the lower courts by excluding the requirement for the mandatory presence of the mother during personal meetings and remote communication between the father and the child.
Case No. 727/5281/24 of 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Vindication of immovable property (an apartment) from another’s illegal possession by the lawful owner, whose ownership right was reinstated as a result of the reversal of the execution of a previous court decision.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the apartment left the plaintiff’s possession against their will, as the initial decision on debt collection, on the basis of which the property was alienated, was based on a forged promissory note.
– Since the plaintiff’s ownership right was reinstated by the courtdecision, subsequent transactions (an agreement on the satisfaction of the mortgagee’s claims and a deed of gift) were concluded by persons who had no legal grounds to do so.
– The Court emphasized that the defendant (the mother) was aware of the illegality of the alienation, as she participated in previous judicial proceedings concerning this property.
– Regarding the acquirer (the son), the court found him to be in bad faith, as he received the property gratuitously (under a deed of gift), and the very scheme of alienation (rapid change of owners between related parties) is indicative of bad faith.
– The Supreme Court underscored that the interference with the acquirer’s right of ownership is proportionate, as it protects the rights of the original owner who lost the property due to the fraudulent actions of third parties.
– The Court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the necessity of staying the proceedings, noting that other court cases (concerning legal incapacity or division of property) do not refute the fact of the unlawful dispossession of the plaintiff’s property.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was satisfied and the apartment was vindicated from the unlawful possessor in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 757/1863/25-cv dated 22/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt from a spouse under a loan agreement concluded by her deceased husband, as a joint and several debtor.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court proceeded from the presumption of the common interests of the spouses: since the funds were received during the marriage with the wife’s notarized written consent, they are considered an object of common joint property.
– The defendant did not refute the presumption that these funds were used in the interests of the family, which is a key factor for the emergence of a joint and several obligation.
– The wording in the notarial consent “on the terms and at his discretion” does not mean that the funds were received for the husband’s personal needs, but merely grants him the right to determine the terms of the agreement.
– The death of the borrower husband does not terminate the joint and several obligation of the other spouse, which is directly provided for by the norms of civil legislation.
– The Court emphasized that the burden of proving that the funds were used not in the interests of the family lies specifically on the spouse who denies joint and several liability.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal boil down to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the appellate court on the recovery of funds unchanged.
Case No. 755/3942/24 dated 22/07/2026
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:**
PrThe subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a real estate purchase and sale agreement executed through out-of-court foreclosure on a mortgage asset, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights, and the vindication of property from unlawful possession by another party.
**2. Court’s Arguments:**
The court established that the mortgagee (LLC “Megainvest Service”) violated the out-of-court foreclosure procedure by failing to send a written notice to remedy the breach of the principal obligation to the owner of the mortgage asset, who, at the time the disputed legal relations arose, was a person other than the debtor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to notify both persons — the debtor and the mortgagor — is an imperative statutory requirement that ensures the owner’s right to protect their property. Furthermore, the court recognized the absence of an independent property valuation report at the time of alienation as a critical violation, which is a mandatory condition for the legality of an out-of-court sale of mortgage property. The court also rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence, noting that the courts did not establish the guilt of persons in criminal proceedings but merely evaluated compliance with civil law procedures. Regarding procedural issues, the court concluded that LLC “Alfheim” had been duly notified of the case proceedings and its representative had effectively participated in the process; therefore, there were no grounds for overturning the decisions due to alleged lack of notice. Ultimately, because the foreclosure procedure was conducted with gross violations, the property left the owner’s possession against their will, providing legal grounds for its vindication.
**3. Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which granted the claim for the vindication of the apartment in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the impossibility of acquiring ownership rights through a procedure that violates the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages.”
**[Case No. 757/52615/21-ts of 08/07/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138464640)**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decision for you. Here is the essence of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, inflation losses, and three percent per annum, as well as the issue of procedural consequences of a case being heard by the court in the absence of a participant who submitted a motion to adjourn the hearing.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the right to participate in a court hearing is not absolute, and procedural legislation does not guarantee personal presence if a party has been duly notified of the time and place of the hearing. The Grand Chamber emphasized that the mandatory cancellation of a decision is possible only if a participant was not notified of the hearing at all. If a participant was notified, but the court did not consider their motion to adjourn, this is not an automatic ground for overturning the decision. The court must assess whether such a violation led to the deprivation of a person’s right to effective defense and whether…placed it in a substantially disadvantageous position compared to the opponent. In this case, the court determined that the defendant had been duly notified, and his numerous motions for adjournment due to illness appeared dubious and formalistic. Consequently, the absence of the party did not affect the legality of the judgment on the merits, and formal procedural violations cannot serve as grounds for overturning a correct decision.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 953/10853/24 of 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute involves establishing the fact of cohabitation as a single family without marriage registration and recognizing the right of ownership to an apartment under the rules of intestate succession as a fourth-degree heir.
2. In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence which, in its entirety, confirms the fact of cohabitation, the maintenance of a joint household, and the existence of mutual rights and obligations with the decedent. In particular, the courts took into account a certificate of registration at the same address, contracts for renovation work in the apartment concluded by the plaintiff, as well as consistent witness testimony confirming the duration and nature of the couple’s relationship. The court emphasized that a mandatory condition for fourth-degree succession is specifically cohabitation for at least five years prior to the opening of the succession, which was proven by the case materials. The Supreme Court highlighted that evidence must be evaluated in its entirety rather than in isolation, which is exactly what the lower courts did. Furthermore, the argument of the City Council regarding the inadmissibility of certain pieces of evidence was rejected, as they did not refute the overall picture of the family relations. Ultimately, the court of cassation indicated that the appellant was effectively attempting to seek a re-evaluation of evidence, which exceeds the powers of a cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv City Council and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 754/13965/23 of 07/22/2026
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**
The subject of the dispute concerns claims by former employees and heirs of deceased employees of SE “Ukrtelefilm” for the recovery of compensation for unused leave, lost portions of wages, average earnings for the period of delayed final settlement upon dismissal, and compensation for moral damages.
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The court established that the right to recover average earnings for the period of delayed final settlement, compensation for leave, and lost income does not form part of the estate if these sums were not accrued or awarded to the decedent.and during their lifetime.
* Regarding the claims for compensation for unused vacation days, the court deemed the certificate provided by the plaintiffs to be improper evidence, as it did not bear the enterprise’s seal, and the original source documents were absent.
* The court emphasized the principle of good faith, noting that filing claims with the court five years after termination is contrary to the criteria of reasonableness and fairness.
* Regarding compensation for the loss of a portion of wages, the court pointed to the plaintiffs’ failure to prove the amount of arrears and the periods of delay, which made it impossible to perform a correct calculation.
* Regarding the average salary for the period of delay in final settlement, the court applied the new version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (effective from July 19, 2022), limiting the payment to a six-month period, as the legal relationship is of a continuing nature.
* Claims for moral damages were denied due to the lack of evidence of new suffering, as similar claims had already been satisfied by the court in previous cases.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the plaintiffs’ cassation appeal.
[Case No. 757/22701/13-ц dated 07/08/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138464639)
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances in connection with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) establishing that Ukraine violated the right to a fair trial due to inadequate reasoning of court decisions in a case concerning the invalidation of lease agreements and eviction from an apartment.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the ECHR judgment in the case “Kryvchenko and Oliynyk v. Ukraine” directly points to a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention, as national courts did not provide a proper assessment of the applicant’s key arguments. Specifically, the lower courts erroneously conflated two different lease agreements, extending the effect of a settlement agreement regarding one contract to another, which was not the subject of that agreement. The court noted that national courts did not explain why the closure of proceedings regarding the contract of June 5, 2008, precluded the consideration of the lawsuit regarding the contract of May 28, 2008. This resulted in the applicant’s claims effectively not being considered on their merits. The Grand Chamber emphasized that for the restoration of violated rights (*restitutio in integrum*), a retrial of the case is necessary, as the previous decisions were not well-reasoned. The court also took into account that the lack of proper justification calls into question the legality of the outcome of the court proceedings in this part.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the application, set aside the decisions of the lower courts in the relevant part, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1384](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1384)64534″>Case No. 464/1275/25 of 07/17/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Judicial establishment of the fact of divorce due to the impossibility of obtaining the relevant certificate because the registry records are located in temporarily occupied territory.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the current legislation, in particular the Rules for Making Amendments to Civil Registry Records, provides for a clear extrajudicial procedure for restoring lost records through Civil Registry Office (DRATS) authorities.
– The presence of a mark (stamp) of divorce in the applicant’s passport is sufficient grounds for applying to the justice authorities for the purpose of restoring the registry record, and not grounds for applying to a court.
– The court emphasized that applying to a court for the purpose of establishing a legal fact is possible only when the applicant has no other possibility (extrajudicial) to obtain or restore the document, which was not proven in this case.
– The Supreme Court noted that the courts of lower instances should have closed the proceedings in the case due to the existence of an administrative procedure for resolving the issue, however, overturning the decisions solely on formal grounds would be inexpedient (“legal purism”).
– The court indicated that the absence of the original certificate is not an obstacle to the extrajudicial restoration of the record, as the mark in the passport is proper evidence for the Civil Registry Office authorities.
– Any refusal by an administrative body to restore a record can be challenged in court, which is the correct way to protect the applicant’s rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances — unchanged.
Case No. 9901/492/21 of 07/21/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a citizen’s challenge to the legality of the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 203/2021 regarding the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) against him.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the issue of applying sanctions falls within the sphere of discretionary powers of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and the President of Ukraine, who act within the framework of ensuring national security. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed that the procedure for adopting such decisions complies with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions,” and judicial control in such cases is limited to verifying compliance with the procedure and the existence of legal grounds for issuing the act. The court pointed out that assessing the expediency or reasonableness of applying sanctions on the merits goes beyond the competence of an administrative court, as this is a political and legal decision of the head of state. It was also emphasized that the plaintiff’s lack of a right to prior notification regarding the consideration of the issue of applying sanctions does not constitute a violation of his rights, as the specifics of this mechanism involve expediency and confidentiality. Ultimately, the courtconcluded that the challenged Decree was adopted within the scope of the President’s authority and in compliance with the procedure established by law.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 904/1347/25 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the lessor (BGS Rail LLC) against the lessee (Metallurgtrans LLC) for the compulsory return of 33 railway carriages, which remained in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine after the expiration of the lease agreement.
### 2. Court Arguments
* The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim, reasoning that due to martial law and the occupation of the territories where the carriages are located, the enforcement of the court decision in kind is objectively impossible, and therefore, the chosen method of protection is ineffective.
* The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, disagreed with the conclusion regarding the “ineffectiveness” of the method of protection; instead, it applied a contractual approach to the assessment of force majeure circumstances.
* The Court established that the parties to the agreement had clearly regulated the procedure for actions during force majeure, in particular, by providing that the term for the fulfillment of obligations is proportionally extended for the duration of such circumstances.
* Since the defendant properly notified the plaintiff of the occurrence of force majeure and obtained the relevant certificates from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the demand for the return of the carriages at this stage is premature.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not establish the fact of property destruction based on evidence that only confirms the logistical impossibility of its relocation, as this matter falls outside the scope of evidence in this dispute.
* The Court also noted that the appellant’s references to previous Supreme Court resolutions are not relevant, as the factual circumstances of those cases (contracting, energy market) differ significantly from lease legal relations concerning movable property under wartime conditions.
### 3. Court Decision
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the lower courts (replacing the argument regarding the “ineffectiveness of the method of protection” with the argument regarding the “premature nature of the claims due to force majeure”), but upheld the operative part regarding the denial of the claim.
Case No. 639/2634/20 dated 07/23/2026
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 of the Dispute:** Determination of the procedure for the use of joint shared ownership of a residential building, removal of obstacles in its use through eviction/moving in, and challenging the certificate of the right to inheritance.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Court established that the plaintiff is a lawful co-owner of a 1/2 share of the house
