Case No. 910/2840/25 dated 07/28/2026
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of over 1.2 billion UAH from JSC “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of PrJSC “NPC “Ukrenergo,” which arose within the framework of commercial legal relations between energy market entities.
In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the necessity to verify the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law norms by the lower courts when calculating the debt amount. In particular, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the issue of recovering inflationary losses in disputes of this category requires a more detailed examination of evidence and legal grounds, which were not properly assessed by the appellate court. The panel of judges concluded that the lower courts committed violations of procedural law norms, which rendered it impossible to establish factual circumstances significant for the correct resolution of the case regarding inflationary charges. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of completeness and comprehensive examination of the case circumstances, especially when significant debt amounts are involved. Therefore, to eliminate the identified shortcomings and ensure the legality of the decision, the case had to be remanded for a new trial in this part. Such an approach will ensure a fair balance of the parties’ interests and avoid errors in the final determination of the amount of monetary obligations.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution regarding the recovery of inflationary losses, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 9901/177/21 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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:** A legal entity’s appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on enacting the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) regarding the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) against it.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that sanctions under the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” are not a form of legal liability, but a preventive instrument for protecting national security; therefore, establishing a person’s guilt is not mandatory for their application.
– The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous narrow position regarding the limitation of judicial review, noting that courts are obliged to verify the existence of a sufficient factual basis for the application of sanctions, rather than only compliance with the procedure.
– The Court emphasized that the discretionary powers of the President and the NSDC in the sphere of national security are not unlimited and are subject to judicial review for the absence of arbitrariness.
– It was established that the plaintiff’s activity related to obtaining special pesubsoil use permits without auctions and the alienation of state assets, created potential threats to the economic and energy security of Ukraine.
– The Court recognized that the interference with the plaintiff’s right of ownership is proportionate, as it pursues a legitimate aim of protecting the state under conditions of armed aggression and does not deprive the person of the right of ownership, but merely restricts its exercise.
– The Court noted that the existence of a mechanism for reviewing sanctions (the possibility of their cancellation in the event of a change in circumstances) ensures a balance between public interests and the rights of the individual.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s appeal only regarding the amendment of the reasoning part of the court of first instance’s decision (for the purpose of clarifying the standards of judicial review), but left unchanged the operative part, by which the claim for the cancellation of sanctions was denied.
Case No. 296/9297/25 dated 07/20/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of whether a probation authority has the right to file an appeal against a ruling of a court of first instance, which denied a motion to cancel a suspended sentence.
**** When rendering this decision, the Court was guided by the legal position established by the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which officially departed from the previous conclusions of other chambers of the Supreme Court. The key argument was that probation authorities are not included in the list of persons defined by Part 1 of Article 393 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine who have the right to appeal decisions made in the course of sentence execution. The Court emphasized that the current procedural law does not grant subjects, whose competence includes the execution of a court decision, the right to appeal rulings issued as a result of the consideration of their own petitions or motions. The law grants the right to such an appeal only to the convicted person, their defense attorney, legal representative, and the prosecutor. Consequently, the Supreme Court emphasized that the previous judicial practice, which allowed for appeals by probation authorities, is no longer valid. As a result, the Court concluded that the appellate court rightfully returned the appeal of the probation authority due to the latter’s lack of procedural right to such an appeal.
The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the head of the probation authority was dismissed.
Case No. 9901/529/19 dated 07/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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:** A judge’s challenge to decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) regarding the qualification assessment procedure, in particular, the procedure for the entry into force of a decision on suitability for the position held and the acceptance for consideration of a conclusion[continued] …of the Public Integrity Council.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court confirmed that the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) does not have the authority to leave a conclusion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) unconsidered, as such a conclusion is part of the judge’s dossier, which is subject to mandatory examination.
* The Grand Chamber noted that although the evaluation procedure for “incumbent” judges (appointed before 2016) has its own specific features, it must be carried out in the manner prescribed by the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.”
* The key factor was the application of the second paragraph of Part 1 of Article 88 of the Law, which requires that a decision confirming a judge’s ability to administer justice in the presence of a negative conclusion from the PIC must be adopted by the HQCJ exclusively in a plenary composition (by at least 11 votes).
* The Court emphasized that, to ensure uniform evaluation standards, this approach (regarding the plenary composition) also extends to the procedure for evaluation of suitability for the occupied position, provided for by the “transitional” provisions of the law.
* Therefore, the HQCJ acted lawfully by determining the procedure for the entry into force of the decision through the plenary composition, as this complies with the legal requirements for overcoming a negative conclusion of the PIC.
* The Court also emphasized that the right to judicial protection does not depend on whether a person continues to hold the position at the time of the case review, provided that the dispute arose during the period of their service.
* **Precedent:** In this case, the Court directly refers to its previous position set forth in the ruling of January 15, 2026, in case No. 990/62/24, confirming the consistency of its approach regarding the mandatory plenary composition of the HQCJ when there is a negative conclusion from the PIC.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the appeal of the HQCJ, overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the satisfaction of the claim, and adopted a new decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 740/6120/18 of 07/22/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the correct qualification of the convicted person’s actions, specifically whether the infliction of bodily injuries in a public place constitutes hooliganism (Part 4 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) or a crime against a person based on personal animosity (Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that the key criterion for distinguishing hooliganism from other crimes is the motive: hooliganism requires the presence of “clear disrespect for society” and a desire to defy those around, whereas in this case, the conflict was caused by specific personal animosity. The Court established that the accused acted with intent toward a specific person, rather than choosing the object of the attack randomly, which excludes a hooligan motive. The Court of Appeal analyzed in detail the video recordings and witness testimonies, which confirmed the existence of a prior conflict between the parties, thereby refuting the version of a groundless disturbance of public order. The Supreme [Court…]The Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new facts, as this is the prerogative of the lower courts. The panel of judges concluded that the courts of the previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law, fully examined the evidence, and provided them with a proper assessment. Thus, the prosecutor’s cassation arguments regarding the need to reclassify the actions under a more severe article were deemed groundless.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 520/12661/16-ts dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor, acting in the interests of the Odesa City Council, attempted to vindicate a land plot from the possession of a bona fide purchaser, claiming its illegal withdrawal from municipal ownership based on a 2007 court decision.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the disputed plot was withdrawn from community ownership not through a transaction, but on the basis of a court decision that had entered into legal force and had not been overturned. The court established that the City Council had been duly notified of the case proceedings in 2007 but did not exercise its procedural rights in a timely manner. The Supreme Court emphasized that the property rights of a person who acquired property based on a valid court decision must be protected, and the state must act consistently, without creating an excessive burden for a bona fide owner. The ECtHR practice regarding the “good governance” principle and the necessity of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the state and a private owner was also taken into account. The court of cassation recognized that the court of appeal had groundlessly overturned the lawful decision of the local court, as no violation of the territorial community’s rights that would justify interference with the current owner’s property rights had been proven.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the prosecutor’s lawsuit.
Case No. 205/4192/23 dated 07/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of the court of appeal’s application of the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving a sentence with a probation period) to a person convicted of illegal possession of narcotic drugs for the purpose of distribution (Part 1 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal failed to comply with the instructions of the cassation instance provided during the previous overturning of the ruling and did not provide new compelling evidence that would justify the exemptionexemption of the convicted person from actual service of the sentence.
* The court pointed out that a notarized statement regarding the care of a person with a disability is not sufficient evidence, as a notary certifies only the signature, not the veracity of the facts stated; moreover, the convicted person does not hold the official status of a guardian or assistant.
* Regarding the reference to the status of a self-employed individual (FOP), the court noted that the existence of registration does not prove the fact of actual engagement in business activities, receipt of income, and payment of taxes, which could have indicated social adaptation.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that formal admission of guilt and “remorse” at the appellate stage cannot be considered sincere if the convicted person had previously denied intent to distribute and attempted to mislead the court.
* The court also noted that the state of health of the convicted person is not critical and does not prevent the service of the sentence, and the reference to the absence of new crimes during the application of preventive measures is baseless, as this is a direct consequence of the preventive measure, not an internal reorientation of the individual.
* Ultimately, the court stated that the appellate instance failed to prove how exactly the exemption from the sentence would contribute to the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes, which is a mandatory condition for the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 185/9955/22 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to terminate the parental rights of her ex-husband due to his avoidance of raising the children and non-payment of alimony.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the termination of parental rights is an exceptional and extreme measure, applied only when it is impossible to change the father’s behavior.
* A key condition for such a decision is proving the father’s culpable behavior and conscious neglect of his duties, which in this case the plaintiff failed to properly substantiate.
* The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires the observance of a fair balance between the interests of the child and the parents, where the interests of the child are paramount.
* It was emphasized that the mere fact of arrears in alimony payments or the dissolution of marriage is not an automatic ground for the termination of parental rights.
* The court noted that the termination of parental rights should not be a formal measure but must be based on a thorough examination of all circumstances, including the personality of the father.
* Since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the father is consciously avoiding upbringing, the courts of lower instances rightfully refused to satisfy the claim.
* InThe Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence and did not commit any violations of substantive or procedural law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first instance and the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the plaintiff — unsatisfied.
Case No. 907/1086/24 dated 07/22/2026
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:** Resolution of the issue regarding the grounds for termination of bankruptcy proceedings due to the existence of parallel proceedings concerning the same debtor in another commercial court.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court was guided by the principle of concentration of bankruptcy cases, which provides for the consideration of all claims against one debtor within the framework of a single proceeding.
– It was confirmed that territorial jurisdiction is determined as of the date of filing the first application, and the subsequent change of the debtor’s location has no legal significance for changing jurisdiction.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the case opened first in time has priority, and proceedings opened later in another court do not create legal consequences that would hinder the consideration of the original case.
– The courts rejected the debtor’s reference to other judicial practice, finding it irrelevant due to the difference in the factual circumstances of the cases.
– The debtor’s actions in initiating parallel proceedings after changing the address were assessed by the court as potentially bad faith and aimed at abusing procedural rights.
– The court also terminated the cassation proceedings upon the appeal of the liquidator, as he lost his procedural status due to the cancellation of the court decision in the parallel case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the termination of the proceedings in the case, confirming the priority of the bankruptcy case opened first in time.
Case No. 740/3106/24 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 detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the verdict convicting an individual for intentional damage to property by arson (Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), in light of the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence due to procedural violations during their recording.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to provide a comprehensive and reasoned response to every argument of the defense, especially if they relate to the admissibility of key prosecution evidence.
* In this case, the defense pointed out significant discrepancies in the crime scene inspection report: the text did notthere was a mention of the packaging of the attachment (fingerprints) into a package, which was subsequently handed over to the expert.
* The Court noted that the appellate instance took a formalistic approach to the examination of these arguments, failing to duly investigate the circumstances of the seizure and packaging of the evidence, which calls its reliability into question.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that to resolve the issue of the admissibility of such evidence, it was necessary, in particular, to interrogate the investigator, the specialist, and the attesting witnesses who participated in the investigative action.
* Since the appellate court did not provide an assessment of these contradictions, it violated the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which constitutes a significant violation of procedural law.
* The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court must review these issues, guided by the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated April 3, 2023 (case No. 537/984/20), which concerns standards of proof and the assessment of procedural violations.
* Since the court of cassation does not have the authority to independently examine evidence and establish new circumstances, the case must be remanded for a new trial to the appellate instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 910/14122/24 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 910/14122/24:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit for the termination of a land lease agreement and an order for the lessee to return it to the territorial community due to non-fulfillment of construction conditions and systematic failure to pay rent.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Court established that, according to the General Urban Plan, the leased plot belongs to a green space zone, which objectively makes it impossible to erect capital structures on it as provided for by the agreement.
* Based on prejudicial circumstances established in the previous case No. 910/6668/19, the court stated that the lessee’s failure to meet construction deadlines was caused by the prolonged inaction of the Kyiv City Council, which failed to take measures to change the functional purpose of the land.
* According to Part 6 of Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a lessee is released from paying for property if they were unable to use it due to circumstances for which they are not responsible, which in this case is confirmed by the inaction of the lessor.
* Although the Supreme Court recognized as erroneous the lower courts’ conclusion that the repayment of debt during the proceedings automatically nullifies the grounds for terminating the agreement, it upheld the decision to dismiss the lawsuit on the merits.
* The Court emphasized that since the lessee was deprived of the opportunity to use the plot through the fault of the lessor, they had legal grounds not to pay rent for that period.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to reassess the evidencewhich had already been comprehensively examined by the courts of lower instances, and therefore left their decisions unchanged.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the refusal of the claim unchanged.
Case No. 990/282/24 dated 02/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the review was the plaintiff’s appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to establish judicial control over the execution of a court decision, which had ordered the President of Ukraine to consider the submission of the High Council of Justice regarding the plaintiff’s appointment to the position of a judge.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the execution of a court decision is an integral component of the right to a fair trial, and the institution of judicial control is an effective mechanism for preventing the “illusory nature” of justice.
* The Court distinguished between the stages of judicial control: at the stage of considering an application for the establishment of control, the court must only verify the fact of non-execution of the decision, and not evaluate the reasons for such non-execution or the actions of the debtor.
* The conclusion of the court of first instance that the plaintiff should have first exhausted the procedures of compulsory execution through the enforcement service was recognized as erroneous, as the law does not set this as a condition for establishing judicial control.
* The Court emphasized that correspondence with the Office of the President does not constitute execution of a court decision, and references to the workload of the Head of State do not exempt him from the duty to ensure the execution of a court decision.
* The Grand Chamber noted that setting a deadline for submitting a report is not a “new deadline for execution,” but rather a procedural tool for informing the court about the status of execution.
* The Court also indicated that since the President of Ukraine is not included in the list of debtors subject to compulsory execution by the State Enforcement Service bodies, judicial control is a particularly important means of ensuring the execution of the decision.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and adopted a new decision, granting the plaintiff’s application and ordering the President of Ukraine to submit a report on the execution of the court decision within three months.
Case No. 916/4487/23(766/11119/21) dated 21/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged his dismissal from the position of director of a municipal enterprise, demanding the cancellation of the orders on termination of powers, reinstatement in the position, and recovery of the average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court established that sinceThe dismissal was carried out on the basis of Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 41 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, as the position of director of a communal enterprise involves the performance of organizational, administrative, and economic functions.
– The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the village council secretary to sign orders, since at the time of their adoption, the secretary was performing the duties of the head in accordance with the requirements of the law.
– The fact of the subsequent judicial cancellation of the council’s decision on no-confidence in the village head does not automatically result in the invalidity of orders issued while such a decision was in effect.
– The courts of lower instances properly examined the evidence confirming that the employer had taken all necessary measures to notify the plaintiff of the dismissal and to invite them to collect their employment record book.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s reference to other judicial practice is groundless, as the legal relations in the cases cited are not similar to the circumstances of this case.
– The court underscored that it does not have the authority to reassess evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of first and appellate instances, as it acts exclusively as a court of law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 917/1923/25 dated 07/27/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Declaring invalid and cancelling decisions of the board of a non-governmental organization, formalized by the minutes of a meeting held via videoconference, due to a violation of the convening procedure and the governing body acting beyond its powers.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court established that the board meeting was convened and held in gross violation of statutory requirements, since the president of the organization, who has the exclusive right to convene meetings, did not initiate the online format and was not properly notified of it.
– The lack of evidence that the plaintiff (the president) was informed of the time, method of conducting, and agenda of the Zoom meeting deprived them of their right to participate in the management of the organization.
– The court emphasized that the organization’s board did not have the authority to unilaterally terminate the president’s powers, as this falls under the exclusive competence of the supreme body — the Congress.
– The appointment of the vice-president, heads of departments, and the executive director was carried out by the board without the mandatory nominations of the president, which directly contradicts the provisions of the statute.
– The court critically assessed the defendant’s evidence (screenshots from messengers and email), noting that they do not confirm proper notification of the participants and do not contain reliable information about the date and content of the communication.
– The Supreme Court emphasized thatthe appellant’s arguments regarding the “blocking of the body’s activities” were not confirmed, and attempts to re-evaluate evidence fall outside the jurisdiction of the cassation court.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim, without changes.
Case No. 727/6125/23 dated 07/23/2026
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 the essence of the case and the legal position of the highest judicial authority:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (the construction developer) attempted to protect their rights to non-residential premises in a newly constructed building by seeking to invalidate sale and purchase agreements concluded between other persons (a rescissory claim).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Grand Chamber emphasized that the construction developer, who holds the rights to the land plot, is the original holder of property rights to the object under construction.
– The Court clarified that declaring sale and purchase agreements invalid is an ineffective method of protection, as it does not lead to the automatic restoration of ownership rights or the return of property to the plaintiff’s possession.
– Instead, the proper and effective method of protecting property rights in such cases is a vindicatory claim—the recovery of property from another person’s unlawful possession.
– The Court emphasized that for vindication, it is not necessary to cancel the entire chain of previous transactions, as this violates the principle of legal certainty and the rights of bona fide purchasers.
– It was also noted that if property-law protection becomes impossible, a person has the right to demand compensation for construction expenses within the framework of obligational relations.
– **Conclusion:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court officially departed from its previous conclusions (in particular, in the resolutions dated July 23, 2024, and October 19, 2023), where declaring agreements invalid (a rescissory claim) was mistakenly considered a proper method of protection in similar disputes.
– Ultimately, the Court noted that since the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection, the claim should be denied, even if the plaintiff’s rights had been violated.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court modified the reasoning part of the appellate court’s resolution, while upholding the decision to deny the claim due to the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection.
Case No. 583/2187/24 dated 07/27/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of adjudicating a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by a criminal offense within the framework of criminal proceedings involving the State Treasury Service of Ukraine as the administrator of budget funds.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the issue of compensation for damages, where the defendant is the state represented by theof the relevant authority (in particular, a military unit or the Treasury), has its own specifics that require strict adherence to procedural norms. The Court drew attention to the fact that a civil claim in criminal proceedings cannot be a tool for resolving complex issues of budget reimbursement without proper involvement of all parties and compliance with the rules of jurisdiction. Since the courts of previous instances did not ensure the proper procedural order when resolving claims against the State Budget, this led to a violation of the rights of the participants in the process. The Supreme Court pointed out that such disputes must be considered in the order of civil proceedings, where the procedure for examining evidence and determining the scope of state liability is more adapted. Thus, the cassation instance stated the impossibility of resolving this civil claim within the framework of the criminal process. This decision is aimed at unifying judicial practice regarding the delimitation of jurisdictions when recovering funds from the State Budget.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the civil claim, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance in the order of civil proceedings.
Case No. 916/3890/25 dated 07/28/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s demand to invalidate an additional agreement to a public works procurement contract and to recover a penalty from the contractor, LLC “Eurodor”.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor did not prove the existence of legal grounds for interfering in the contractual relations between business entities. In particular, the courts of previous instances established the absence of violations of public procurement legislation that would entail the invalidity of the contested additional agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed that the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the groundless change of essential terms of the contract were not substantiated during the consideration of the case. The Court emphasized that the parties to the contract acted within the scope of their granted powers, and the evidence provided by the prosecutor’s office does not indicate that damage was caused to the interests of the state. It was also taken into account that there are no grounds for recovering the penalty, as the fact of breach of obligations by the defendant was not proven by proper evidence. Thus, the cassation instance concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/1717/23 dated 07/28/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the suspension by a state enforcement officer of the recovery of debt, penalties, and inflationary charges.
