Case No. 686/2322/21 of 07/29/2026
Greetings. Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the confiscation of a laptop as material evidence in criminal proceedings that were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability.
2. The Supreme Court established that the courts of lower instances committed significant violations of the criminal procedural law when determining the fate of the property. Firstly, the prosecution’s narrative completely lacked information regarding the use of the said laptop as an instrument of a crime; therefore, there were no grounds for its confiscation under Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Secondly, the court of appellate instance groundlessly attempted to justify the confiscation by referring to norms that were not applied by the court of first instance, which created an internal contradiction in the court decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the confiscation of property that is neither the object of a crime nor an instrument of its commission is unlawful. Since the laptop was not recognized as an instrument of a crime, and the information that was the object of the crime is not the laptop itself, there were no grounds to deprive the person of their right of ownership. Consequently, the Court of Cassation concluded that it was necessary to cancel the confiscation decision and return the property to the owner.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amended the decisions of the lower courts, and ordered the return of the laptop and its charger to its owner.
Case No. 466/6070/25 of 07/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of death of a military serviceman who went missing during combat operations, for the purpose of obtaining a death certificate and processing social benefits.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized the clear distinction between the procedures of “establishing the fact of death” and “declaring a person dead,” which have different legal grounds and consequences.
– The Court noted that the establishment of the fact of death (pursuant to clause 8 of part 1 of Article 315 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) is possible only if there is indisputable evidence that reliably confirms the death of a person at a specific time and under specific circumstances.
– In this case, the provided materials of the official investigation and reports from combat operations, in the Court’s opinion, testify only to a high probability of death rather than a proven fact of death, which excludes the possibility of applying the aforementioned article.
– The Court clarified that in cases of disappearance during hostilities, the proper method of protecting the applicant’s rights is to submit an application to declare the person dead (Article 46 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), as this is a procedure specifically provided for situations where there is only a presumption of death.
– The courts of lower instances mistakenly equated a presumption of death with a proven fact, which led to an incorrect…of application of substantive law.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the refusal to satisfy the current application does not deprive the applicant of the right to apply to the court again, but with a correctly chosen method of protection — declaring the son dead.
– The decision is based on the established practice of the Supreme Court, which ensures the uniformity of approaches in resolving similar categories of cases.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision refusing to satisfy the application for establishing the fact of death.
Case No. 464/1582/25 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The applicant filed an application with the court for the adoption of an adult, justifying this by the existence of stable family relationships and the need to care for him as a person with a disability.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of adoption of an adult under Article 208 of the Family Code of Ukraine is exceptional in nature and requires proof of two mandatory facts: the absence of parents (or the deprivation of their care before the age of majority) and the existence of exceptional circumstances that cannot be resolved otherwise.
– The Court established that the adoptee was not an orphan, as he had a mother, and his biological father died when the son was already an adult.
– The Supreme Court agreed with the position of the lower instances that martial law and mobilization cannot be recognized as those “exceptional circumstances” that justify the adoption of an adult.
– The Court clearly noted that the institution of adoption cannot be used as a legal tool for evading the performance of the constitutional duty of military service.
– The applicant failed to prove that adoption is the only possible way to protect his interests, as there are other mechanisms (for example, formalizing care, which had already been done, or a will).
– The Court also emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive law without committing violations of procedural order.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 755/6771/23 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Termination of a life maintenance agreement due to improper performance of obligations by the recipient and the return of ownership of the apartment to the alienator.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court proceeded from the fact that a life maintenance agreement is an obligation that requires proper performance, and its breach is grounds for thetermination by court decision.
– The defendant did not provide convincing evidence that she actually provided the plaintiff with the necessary care, food, and medical assistance, as required by the terms of the contract.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving proper performance of obligations lies specifically with the acquirer, who must maintain corresponding records of expenses and care.
– Regarding the counterclaim for reimbursement of expenses, the court noted that it was left without consideration by the court of first instance due to the expiration of procedural deadlines, and this decision was not appealed in the appellate procedure.
– The appellate court lawfully set aside the decision of the first instance solely due to procedural violations (failure to notify the parties), yet it independently examined the case on its merits and confirmed the validity of the plaintiff’s claims.
– The court of cassation instance emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the material breach of contract terms are lawful and reasoned.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the termination of the contract and the return of ownership of the apartment to the plaintiff.
Case No. 215/4342/21 dated 07/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 215/4342/21:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of real estate (a café) by means of its vacation by the new owner, who acquired ownership through the foreclosure on mortgage collateral, and counterclaims for declaring the assignment of claims agreements invalid.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed property is valid, as previous court decisions in case No. 214/1429/16 confirmed the legality of the mortgage legal relations. Regarding the counterclaim, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the proper composition of participants in the proceedings. Since the plaintiff in the counterclaim challenged the assignment of claims agreements but did not include the other party to these agreements (Standard Finance Group LLC) in the case, this became an independent ground for denying such claims. The court emphasized that it is impossible to declare a transaction invalid without the participation of all its parties. Arguments regarding the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal and the court exceeding the scope of the claims were also rejected, as the fact of the defendant’s name change was established. As a result, the Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s conclusion on the legality of the plaintiff’s ownership, but clarified the grounds for denying the counterclaim due to the procedural imperfection of the composition of defendants.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the appellate court’s judgment regarding the counterclaim, but upheld the decision to mandate the vacating of the café premises.
**Case No. 686/18206/21 dated 07/30/2026**
The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s judgment regarding the conviction of an individual for committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules).
When reviewing the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court focused on verifying the appellate court’s compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the adoption of the challenged decision. The panel of judges concluded that significant violations of procedural law occurred during the appellate proceedings, which prevented the issuance of a lawful and reasoned decision. The court of cassation established that the appellate court failed to provide a proper assessment of all arguments set forth in the convicted person’s appeal, which is mandatory for ensuring the right to a fair trial. Since the identified deficiencies cannot be remedied directly by the court of cassation, it became necessary to re-examine the case in appellate proceedings. Thus, the decision was overturned due to the non-compliance of the review procedure with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which necessitates a new examination of the case materials.
The court ruled to partially satisfy the convicted person’s cassation appeal, set aside the judgment of the appellate court, and remand the case for a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 581/82/20 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of a state deed for the right of ownership to a land plot due to an overlap of the defendant’s plot boundaries with the land plot where the plaintiff’s immovable property is located.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of a residential building, which is actually located on the land plot that was unlawfully transferred into the ownership of the defendant.
– The key evidence was the conclusion of a forensic construction-technical and land-technical expertise, which confirmed the fact of the overlap of land plot boundaries and the location of the plaintiff’s building within the defendant’s plot.
– The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the expertise, as the expert provided exhaustive explanations and the research methodology met the requirements of the law.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the invalidation of a state deed is an effective method of protecting property rights if such a deed violates another person’s right to use the land under their real estate.
– The court noted that the inability to question a specialist (land surveyor) due to his mobilization does not negate the reliability of the expert report, as the case file contains sufficient evidence to reach a decision.
– The court of cassation found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the lower instances, as they are based on a complete and comprehensive examination of the evidence.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme [Court]The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 466/5810/20 of 07/29/2026
The subject of this dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the accusation of an individual for aiding and abetting fraud and forgery of documents.
The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, focused on verifying the appellate court’s compliance with the norms of criminal procedural legislation when rendering its decision. The panel of judges analyzed the prosecutor’s arguments regarding potential violations committed by the appellate court and compared them with the materials of the criminal proceedings. The Court concluded that the appellate court acted within the scope of its authority and provided a proper assessment of the circumstances of the case without committing any material violations of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that could serve as grounds for overturning the ruling. The Court’s reasoning is based on the fact that the decision of the appellate instance is reasoned, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not contain convincing grounds for a review of the case on its merits. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the appellate court’s conclusions, recognizing them as consistent with the requirements of the law.
The Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and leave the ruling of the Ternopil Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 759/16993/24 of 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recognition of the termination of a mortgage and the removal of encumbrances from real estate in connection with the full performance of the primary obligation under a loan agreement.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that a mortgage is derivative in nature from the primary obligation; therefore, upon full repayment of the debt under the loan agreement, the mortgage is subject to termination.
– A key argument was that the performance of an obligation by third parties with the debtor’s consent is lawful, as the loan agreement explicitly provided for such a possibility and did not contain a requirement for personal performance exclusively by the borrower.
– The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the performance of the debt by third parties led to a substitution of the creditor, pointing out that in this case, it was the termination of the obligation by performance, rather than an assignment of claims.
– The appellate court correctly established the fact that funds were received in the creditor’s account in full, which is confirmed by bank receipts clearly indicating the purpose of the payment—the execution of the court decision on debt collection.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the proper defendant in a dispute over the termination of a mortgage is the mortgagee; therefore, joining third parties who assisted with the payment as co-defendants was not required.
– The court emphasized that after the debt has been paid in full, any furtherencumbrances on property become unfounded and violate the owner’s right to dispose of the property.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which satisfied the claim to declare the mortgage terminated and ordered the removal of all encumbrances from the apartment.
Case No. 686/24066/17 dated 07/29/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which terminated criminal proceedings against a person accused of committing an especially grave crime under Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production or distribution of narcotic drugs).
2. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not fully comply with procedural guarantees and failed to provide a proper assessment of the prosecution’s arguments, which led to a premature conclusion regarding the necessity of terminating the proceedings. In particular, inconsistencies were identified between the appellate court’s findings and the factual circumstances of the case, as well as the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the reasoned nature of judicial decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of all evidence and compliance with the principles of adversarial proceedings when deciding on the termination of criminal proceedings. Since the appellate court committed errors that could not be rectified through the cassation procedure, the case was remanded for a new trial to the appellate court to correct the committed violations.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 635/4484/24 dated 07/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of living as a single family and the fact that an adult daughter was a dependent of her deceased father, who was a military serviceman, for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary payment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the applicant provided sufficient evidence (in particular, bank statements regarding systematic monetary transfers from her father), which confirm that the father’s assistance was her constant and primary source of livelihood.
– The fact of cohabitation at the same address and maintaining a common household was confirmed, which meets the criteria for family relations defined by the Family Code of Ukraine.
– The court emphasized that the establishment of such facts in the order of special proceedings is lawful, as there is no dispute of right between the applicant and the Ministry of Defense, and the establishment of the fact is a necessary condition for exercising the right to social protection.
– The arguments of the Ministry of Defense regardingthe absence of evidence (joint photographs or expenses for repairs) was rejected, as the courts assessed the totality of the provided evidence, including witness testimony, as sufficient to confirm the reality of the family relationship.
– The Court emphasized that the state’s obligation regarding the social protection of family members of deceased military personnel is a priority, and the establishment of a legal fact in court is the only way for the applicant to receive the appropriate assistance.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive law and did not commit any violations of procedural order; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances without changes.
Case No. 756/18831/21 dated 07/30/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a real estate gift agreement concluded between a debtor and her son, on the grounds that it was executed to the detriment of the creditor’s interests (a fraudulent transaction).
2. The Court proceeded from the fact that the debtor, being aware of the existence of significant debt obligations, gratuitously alienated her only valuable property in favor of a close relative, which directly indicates the bad faith of her actions. The Supreme Court emphasized that both onerous and gratuitous agreements can be recognized as fraudulent if their purpose is to avoid fulfilling obligations to a creditor. The Court noted that the absence of other property held by the debtor to repay the debt after the gifting confirms the intent to cause harm to the creditor’s property interests. At the same time, the fact that the agreement was concluded before the official maturity date for the debt repayment does not exempt the debtor from liability, as she acted in bad faith, being aware of the existence of the debt. The Court also indicated that there is no exhaustive list of signs of fraudulence; therefore, the qualification of a transaction is carried out by the court in each specific case based on standards of proof. Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of law, having assessed the totality of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 487/3171/21 dated 08/03/2026
The subject of this dispute is the verification of the legality of the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding procedural issues in criminal proceedings, which were appealed by the representative of the victim.
The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the lower courts. The court of cassation instance established that the previous court decisions do not correspond tomeet the criteria of lawfulness and substantiation, which precluded a correct resolution of the case on its merits. In particular, compliance with the procedural rights of the victim and the correctness of the application of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine during the issuance of the challenged rulings were analyzed. The panel of judges concluded that in order to ensure the right to a fair trial, it is necessary to rectify the errors made by way of a retrial of the case. Thus, the Supreme Court recognized the position of the victim’s representative as well-founded and subject to satisfaction.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/8802/25 dated 07/30/2026
Greetings. As a specialist 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:** Recovery of a penalty and fine from a supplier for violation of delivery deadlines under a procurement contract.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court confirmed that the reduction of the amount of the penalty (interest and fine) is a discretionary right of the court, which is exercised based on an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case.
* When resolving the issue of reducing sanctions, the court is obliged to maintain a balance of interests of the parties, taking into account the principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness.
* The courts of previous instances lawfully took into account exceptional circumstances, in particular: full performance of the obligation to supply the goods, the insignificant share of the overdue goods, the absence of losses for the plaintiff, and objective reasons for the delay (martial law, illness of the director).
* The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no universal “maximum” or “minimum” threshold for reducing a penalty, as each case is individual in nature.
* The appellant’s reference to previous Supreme Court practice does not indicate a violation thereof, as these resolutions only confirm the court’s right to reduce sanctions, rather than establishing mandatory criteria for such reduction.
* Regarding the procedural issue, the court acknowledged that although the case is not formally considered a minor case based on the claim amount, this is not grounds for overturning the decisions, as the courts of first and appellate instances considered the case on its merits in compliance with the norms of law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 712/3494/25 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the procedure for the grandfather and grandmother to participate in the upbringing of and communication with their minor grandson due to obstacles created by the child’s mother.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court was guided by the priority of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Family Codeof Ukraine, which provides for the child’s right to communicate with close relatives.
* It was established that the right to “family life” encompasses not only parents but also grandparents; therefore, the state must ensure the preservation of these ties, if they exist.
* The Court emphasized that in cases of this type, a formalistic approach is impermissible, and any visitation schedule must take into account the child’s age, daily routine, and emotional state.
* Regarding the opinion of the child, who expressed a negative attitude toward the relatives, the Court noted that at the age of 8, a child is vulnerable to the influence of adults; therefore, a decision may be made contrary to the child’s wishes if their interests so require.
* Regarding the procedural issue of staying the proceedings due to the defendant’s military service, the Court indicated that the individual’s active participation in the judicial process (filing complaints, engaging a representative) demonstrates the absence of objective obstacles to defending their rights; therefore, there are no grounds for staying the case.
* The Court of Appeal reasonably adjusted the visitation schedule by reducing the number of overnight stays with the grandparents, which allowed for a fair balance to be struck between the rights of the relatives and the stability of the child’s life with the mother.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts (as amended by the appellate court).
[Case No. 686/8962/24 dated 07/30/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138681026)
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery by the prosecutor, in the interests of the territorial community, of an agricultural land plot from the illegal possession of a natural person and the use of a legal entity, who acquired it as a result of a violation of the free privatization procedure.
**2. Court Arguments**
* The Court established that the previous owner of the land plot had already exercised their right to the free privatization of plots of similar intended use; therefore, the acquisition of the disputed plot was illegal.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that a vindication claim (recovery of property) is an appropriate method for protecting the ownership rights of the territorial community, as it allows for the return of the property to communal ownership and the entry of corresponding changes into the State Register of Proprietary Rights.
* Regarding the good faith of the acquirer, the Court noted that the defendant should have exercised reasonable diligence before purchasing the land, and the state’s interference with the right of ownership is proportionate, as it pursues a legitimate goal of protecting national wealth.
* The Court emphasized that the defendant is not deprived of the right to protect their interests by filing claims for damages against the person from whom they purchased this plot.
* Regarding the procedural aspect, the Court supported the position of the appellate court on closing the proceedings regarding the claims against the legal entity (PE “Cherevychnyk”), as disputes concerning land ownership involving legal entitiespersons are subject to consideration under the rules of commercial, rather than civil, procedure.
* The decision is based on the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the delineation of jurisdiction and the protection of an owner’s rights through vindication.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which had satisfied the claim against the natural person and closed the proceedings regarding the legal entity.
Case No. 947/34358/24 dated 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the determination of the amount of child support and the legality of considering all bank receipts into the payer’s account as their income.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that when determining the amount of child support, the court is obliged to carefully investigate the nature of each monetary receipt in the payer’s accounts, rather than simply summing them up. The appellate court made an error by automatically equating all credits to the defendant’s cards with their income, failing to account for the fact that some funds could have been transfers from relatives, transit payments, or debt repayments. The Court stressed that the concept of “income” for the purposes of child support collection requires an individual analysis in each case, rather than a formalistic approach. Furthermore, a certificate regarding the defendant’s official salary—a key piece of evidence in assessing financial capacity—was ignored. Since the appellate court did not assess the legal nature of these funds, it failed to establish the factual circumstances necessary for a fair resolution of the dispute. Consequently, the decision was deemed premature and failing to meet the requirements of legality and substantiation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the collection of child support and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 208/12461/24 dated 07/30/2026
The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the accusation of a person for committing intentional grievous bodily harm that caused the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation established that the appellate court failed to properly fulfill its procedural duties, which led to the illegality of the decision it rendered. In particular, a discrepancy between the court’s conclusions and the actual circumstances of the case or procedural violations that prevented the rendering of a lawful and well-founded decision were identified. Given the severity of the incriminated crimeand the necessity of ensuring the proper procedural conduct of the accused, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to set aside the appellate ruling. Concurrently, to prevent the risks of absconding from the court, it was decided to impose a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention in custody. This approach ensures a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of justice until the case is reheard in the appellate instance.
The Court granted the cassation appeals, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, while imposing a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention in custody.
Case No. 686/14708/21 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an agricultural land plot from another’s illegal possession in favor of the territorial community due to its illegal alienation from state ownership.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the disputed land plot was transferred into private ownership in violation of legal requirements, as it belonged to the collective ownership lands of a former collective agricultural enterprise (KSP), which, since 2019, have automatically transitioned into the communal ownership of the territorial community. The court established the fact that the boundaries of the disputed plot overlapped with the lands of collective ownership, which is confirmed by the relevant land management documentation. Since the property left the possession of the owner (the territorial community) against its will as a result of an illegal order by a state body, the owner has the right to recover it from a bona fide purchaser on the basis of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that for the protection of property rights in such a case, a vindication claim (recovery of property) is the effective remedy, rather than challenging all previous decisions or transactions. Furthermore, the court concluded that the buyer did not exercise due diligence when purchasing the plot, which allows for its recovery even from a bona fide purchaser.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution on the recovery of the land plot in favor of the territorial community, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 576/1845/20 dated 07/28/2026
The subject of this dispute is the claim of the owner of a portion of a house to compel a neighbor to dismantle an unauthorized roof renovation that led to damage to the plaintiff’s property.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle of proportionality and the effectiveness of the remedy for the violated right, emphasizing that demolition or dismantling of an object is an extreme measure of influence. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to established practice, the application of such a measure is possible only when all other ways of eliminating violations have been exhausted, and the reconstruction of the object is technically impossible or the owner refuses to carry it out. InIn this case, the judicial construction and technical expertise clearly established that moisture penetration into the plaintiff’s apartment can be eliminated by carrying out repair works to restore the drainage system, which does not require the complete dismantling of the roof. Since the plaintiff did not file claims requiring the defendant to perform such reconstruction, and also failed to prove that the defendant refuses to perform these works, the court found no grounds to satisfy the claim for dismantling. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate instance that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is excessive and does not meet the criterion of necessity. Thus, the decision is based on the premise that the protection of a right must be effective, but not excessive, if less burdensome ways of eliminating harm exist.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which denied the claim for the dismantling of the roof.
Case No. 146/345/25 dated 07/28/2026
The subject of this dispute is the establishment of the fact of paternity of a deceased serviceman regarding two minor children in the order of separate proceedings for them to receive the corresponding benefits.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
1. Legislation clearly distinguishes between separate proceedings (for establishing facts that are not in dispute) and adversarial proceedings (for resolving disputes over rights).
2. The establishment of the fact of paternity cannot take place in separate proceedings if there is a dispute over a right, which is confirmed by the objections of the deceased’s mother, who does not acknowledge the paternity of her son.
3. The mother of the deceased was not involved in the proceedings in the court of first instance, which is a violation of her procedural rights and deprived her of the opportunity to express her position.
4. The presence of objections regarding the reliability of the conducted DNA examination (which was based on samples from the grandfather, and not the deceased himself) indicates the existence of a conflict of interest that requires a full judicial review.
5. The Supreme Court emphasized that the concept of “dispute over a right” must be interpreted broadly, and any contradiction between interested parties regarding the origin of children precludes the possibility of considering the case in a simplified order.
6. The appellate court acted lawfully by leaving the application without consideration and clarifying to the applicant her right to apply to the court with a lawsuit on general grounds, where all evidence will be verified in an adversarial process.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, confirming that in the presence of a dispute over a right, the case must be considered exclusively in the order of adversarial proceedings.
Case No. 755/21681/24 dated 07/31/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a claim with the court to cancel the seizure of 1/3 of an apartment, which was mistakenly imposed by an investigator in 2010 within the framework of a criminal case.regarding another person with an identical surname and initials.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff was not a party to the criminal proceedings, and the attachment (seizure) was imposed on the property of a person whose personal data (date of birth) does not match the data of the plaintiff.
* Since the criminal case was concluded, but the attachment continued to restrict the plaintiff’s right of ownership, the court recognized such a measure as arbitrary and violating Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that disputes regarding the release of property from attachment imposed under the rules of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure, where the owner was not a party to the proceedings, are subject to consideration specifically under the procedure of civil proceedings.
* Regarding the proper defendant, the court noted that after the liquidation of the militia (police) bodies, their functions were transferred to the National Police; therefore, the Main Directorate of the National Police in the city of Kyiv is the proper defendant in this case.
* The court emphasized that the right of ownership is inviolable, and the state is obligated to ensure an effective legal remedy against groundless interference with this right.
* The cassation appeal of the police was dismissed, as the applicant’s arguments amounted to a request for re-evaluation of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to satisfy the claim and cancel the attachment on the immovable property.
Case No. 202/5220/22 dated 07/31/2026
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:** Consideration of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, by which a review of the judgment refusing the claim based on newly discovered circumstances was denied.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that a legal position of the Supreme Court, formed after a decision has been rendered, does not constitute a newly discovered circumstance, as it is a result of legal interpretation, not a legal fact that existed at the time of the case consideration.
* The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the principle of legal certainty (*res judicata*), which prohibits the review of final decisions solely for the purpose of a new hearing of the case.
* The court noted that the applicant is effectively attempting to conduct a re-evaluation of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.
* Regarding the arguments about discrepancies in the court session protocol, the court indicated that these issues had already been resolved by the appellate court previously and do not affect the legality of the challenged ruling.
* The court also clarified that the wording in the operative part regarding “upholding” the appellate court’s resolution complies with the requirements of procedural law and does not imply the restoration of previously canceled parts of the decision.
* Ultimately, the court concluded that the challenged ruling is well-reasoned and there are no grounds for its cancellation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court —without amendments.
Case No. 396/949/24 dated 31/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the unilateral termination of a land lease agreement by a village council due to the tenant’s alleged systematic failure to make rental payments.
The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, noting that the grounds for termination determined by the village council were not substantiated during the court proceedings. The Court emphasized that in the event of a dispute regarding the amount or procedure for rental payments, the lessor must file a lawsuit to collect the debt rather than terminate the agreement unilaterally. An important argument was that systematic non-payment as a ground for termination (Art. 141 of the Land Code of Ukraine) implies total non-payment, whereas in this case, the tenant made payments, albeit in violation of the schedule. The Court also drew attention to the principle of good faith, noting that the village council had not expressed any complaints regarding the method of payment for a long time, and therefore its sudden decision to terminate was contradictory conduct. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of transferring the plot for use by third parties was not a ground for the council’s challenged decision and therefore could not be considered by the courts. Ultimately, the court confirmed that termination of an agreement is an extreme measure that should be applied only in the presence of a material breach that deprives the lessor of the expected results of the agreement.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which satisfied the tenant’s claims and overturned the village council’s decision to terminate the agreement.
Case No. 761/13179/20 dated 29/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order to suspend the director of a subsidiary from performing their official duties and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. The court of cassation instance pointed out that the courts of lower instances incorrectly applied labor law provisions (Art. 46 of the Labor Code of Ukraine) to the disputed legal relations, failing to take into account the corporate nature of the relations. The Supreme Court emphasized that removing the head of an executive body from exercising their powers on the basis of Part 3 of Art. 99 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is a corporate action, not a disciplinary suspension of an employee. The courts did not examine the respondent’s constituent documents in effect at the time of the order’s issuance, which was critically important for determining the powers of the governing body and the jurisdiction of the dispute. Furthermore, it was not established whether this dispute falls under the exceptions regarding labor disputes within the framework of corporate relations. Due to these gaps in establishing the factual circumstances, the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances were deemed premature. As a result, for a correct resolution of the case, it is necessary to determineto clarify the legal nature of the relationship between the parties at the time of suspension.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial.
Case No. 688/2611/25 dated July 22, 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 matter of the dispute:** Deprivation of parental rights of a father and mother regarding a minor child and the recovery of child support from them for the child’s maintenance.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the parents deliberately removed themselves from performing parental duties, leaving the child in dangerous conditions, which led to the child’s removal and placement in a foster family.
– The child’s mother refused social support and took no measures to return her son, and her whereabouts were unknown for a long period.
– The child’s father, despite acknowledging paternity, did not participate in upbringing, did not show interest in the child’s health, and committed intentional criminal offenses that led to his imprisonment.
– The court rejected the father’s argument regarding the impossibility of performing his duties due to his being in custody, as this was a consequence of his own unlawful conduct, rather than objective circumstances.
– The court emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is a necessary measure to grant the child a legal status that will allow the child to find a new form of family upbringing, as foster care is only a temporary measure.
– Considering the best interests of the child, the court concluded that the parents’ behavior was culpable and indicated their conscious neglect of their duties.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which deprived the parents of their parental rights and ordered the recovery of child support from them for the child’s maintenance.
Case No. 127/12323/22 dated July 29, 2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the review of the legality of the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of an individual for committing criminal offenses against sexual freedom and sexual integrity of an individual, as well as crimes related to child pornography.
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of the conviction were unfounded, and that the classification of the convicted person’s actions in the main part was correct. The court confirmed the legality of the court of first instance’s judgment, recognizing the evidence of guilt as relevant and admissible. At the same time, while reviewing the appellate court’s decision, the cassation instance identified a legal inaccuracy in the classification of one of the episodes. Specifically, the court established that the reference to the qualifying feature of “repetition” regarding the episode of June 26, 2018, was erroneous, as it did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the requirements of criminal law. In this regard, the SupremeThe Court decided to rectify this error by excluding the relevant reference from the reasoning part of the appellate judgment. In other respects, the decisions of the lower courts were found to be lawful and well-founded, which resulted in them being upheld.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, and partially modified the appellate court’s judgment by excluding the reference to the repeat commission of a crime regarding one of the episodes.
Case No. 757/3672/15-ts dated 07/31/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a bank in favor of a depositor of the deposit amount, accrued interest, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum in connection with the bank’s failure to fulfill its obligations under a bank deposit agreement.
2. The Court proceeded from the fact that the conclusion of the agreement and the deposit of funds into the account were proven, and the bank failed to fulfill its duty to return them upon the client’s request. A key argument was that for the transfer of the bank’s debt to another financial company (Finilon FC LLC), the consent of the depositor is mandatory, which was not provided in this case. The Court emphasized that the bank failed to provide evidence to refute the existence of deposit obligations to the plaintiff. The Court also rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff applied to the court in a timely manner, and the lengthy consideration of the case is not grounds for refusing to protect rights. Regarding the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum, the Court found them lawful, as the bank was in delay of fulfilling a monetary obligation after the termination of the agreement. Ultimately, the Court noted that the bank’s arguments amounted to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is not grounds for overturning lawful decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of funds in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 522/2774/24 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 breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal against the judgment and the appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of an individual for the illegal acquisition and possession of psychotropic substances in particularly large amounts for the purpose of distribution (Part 3, Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence, in particular, the search protocols and expert conclusions, which collectively prove the guilt of the convicted person.
– Regarding the defense’s arguments about the illegality of the personal search, the Court noted that in this specific case, it was conducted lawfully during the detention of the person caught directly in the commission of the crime.
– The Court emphasized that the urgent search of the dwelling was conducted in compliance with the requirements of Art.. Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and its subsequent legalization by the investigating judge was carried out within the procedure provided by law.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that not every procedural violation automatically renders evidence inadmissible; it is important to establish whether fundamental human rights were violated, which was not established in this case.
– Regarding the confiscation of property, the court indicated that since the crime is particularly grave and was committed for mercenary motives, the application of an additional penalty in the form of confiscation is fully justified and complies with the sanction of the article.
– The Court also noted that the appellate court had duly examined all arguments of the defense and provided exhaustive responses to them; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 183/7165/23 of 08/03/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of an individual’s conviction for unauthorized absence from a military unit or place of service under martial law (Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the issue of the possibility of exempting such an individual from criminal liability.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, primarily drew attention to the necessity of complying with the requirements of the criminal law regarding the possibility of exemption from liability for committing military crimes. The Court analyzed the case files and concluded that the lower courts made errors in the application of substantive law norms governing the grounds for the termination of proceedings. The panel of judges took into account the existence of legal grounds, provided for by Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allow for the exemption of an individual from criminal liability in this specific case. The Court also weighed the defense’s arguments regarding the circumstances of the commission of the offense and the proportionality of the coercive measures to the purpose of the criminal proceedings. As a result, the Supreme Court determined that the continued detention of the convicted person and the continuation of the criminal prosecution were groundless. Thus, the cassation instance corrected previously committed violations, ensuring the correct application of the law on criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturned the previous court decisions, exempted the convicted person from criminal liability, and terminated the criminal proceedings with the immediate release of the individual from custody.
Case No. 727/10471/25 of 08/03/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict by which an individual was convicted for committing robbery under martial law (Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, while verifying the arguments of the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, analyzed the criminal proceedings files regarding the compliance of lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law. T
