Case No. 750/16333/23 dated 04/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the results of the electronic auction for the sale of a mortgaged apartment and to recover it for the benefit of her minor daughter, who is an heir of the deceased mortgagor.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that a mortgage is a specific type of security that remains in effect even in the event of a change in property ownership, including through succession.
* Since the apartment was the subject of a mortgage, the death of the mortgagor did not terminate the encumbrance, and the heirs acquire the rights and obligations under the mortgage agreement in full.
* The court established that the public auction procedure was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law, and the purchaser of the property is a bona fide purchaser.
* A key factor for invalidating an auction is not only the presence of procedural violations but also proving that these violations actually affected the outcome of the auction and violated the subjective rights of the plaintiff.
* In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove the fact of any procedural violation that would lead to the invalidity of the transaction, or the violation of the heir’s rights, as the foreclosure on the mortgaged property was carried out on the basis of an effective court decision.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence if the courts of lower instances have already provided an appropriate assessment thereof and have not committed procedural violations.
* Arguments regarding the failure to take into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected because the circumstances in the cases cited by the applicant differed significantly from the circumstances of this dispute.
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. 685/423/13-ts dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by the defendants of the appellate court ruling on the refusal to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appealing the court decision of the first instance, rendered back in 2013.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access a court is not absolute and must be proportionally limited to ensure the principle of legal certainty.
– The court established that the applicants had been aware of the existence of enforcement proceedings against them for many years, which indicates their awareness of the existence of the court decision itself.
– The appellate court lawfully applied the provisions of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the appeal was filed 12 years after the decision was rendered., which significantly exceeds the statutory annual preclusive period.
– The Court noted that the applicants failed to provide convincing evidence to support objective and insurmountable reasons for missing the deadline, and instead, their arguments regarding the non-receipt of documents were based solely on assumptions.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that parties are obliged to exercise their procedural rights in good faith, and the passive behavior of debtors over a long period cannot be a basis for the restoration of time limits.
– In summary, the cassation instance upheld the position of the court of appeal, indicating that there are no grounds for interfering with the court’s discretionary powers regarding the assessment of the validity of reasons for missing a deadline.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 521/18811/21 dated 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to cancel a certificate of ownership for a residential house and a decision of the city council on transferring the land plot to the defendant’s ownership, claiming that he had rights to this property through his participation in its reconstruction.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence of the conclusion of a joint activity or joint construction agreement that would have created an ownership right to the house for him. The Court emphasized that participation in repairs or reconstruction without proper legal registration does not grant a right to a share in the real estate, but only provides a right to demand reimbursement of expenses, provided they were not gratuitous. Since the defendant acquired ownership of the house and the land in the manner prescribed by law, and the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim. The Court also rejected references to previous court decisions that had been overturned and emphasized that the plaintiff’s arguments were based solely on assumptions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been duly examined by the lower courts.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 336/5984/17 dated 05/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the bank’s demand to remove obstacles in the exercise of ownership rights by evicting a former borrower and their family members from a residential house that passed into the bank’s ownership through the procedure of foreclosure on the mortgage asset.
2. The Court proceeded from the fact that the bank d[Plaintiff] acquired ownership of the house legally, on the basis of a mortgage clause, and the defendants refuse to vacate the premises, thereby violating the owner’s rights. The court established that the defendants registered in the house only after the mortgage agreement was concluded and without the bank’s consent, which constitutes a breach of the terms of the agreement. An important argument was that some of the defendants own other real estate; therefore, eviction does not create an excessive burden for them and will not lead to them becoming homeless. The court emphasized that the guarantees of Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine cannot be used as a tool for abuse of rights if the debtor has other housing or is attempting to evade the fulfillment of obligations. At the same time, the court took into account the principle of proportionality, obliging the bank to provide other housing only to the borrower, since the house was not acquired with credit funds, whereas it ordered the eviction of other residents without the provision of housing. The court also took into account the martial law, suspending the execution of the eviction decision until its termination.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, by which the bank’s claim was partially satisfied: the borrower was evicted with the provision of other housing, and the other residents — without the provision of such.
Case No. 495/10181/24 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Establishing the legal fact of a person’s permanent residence in the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, for the subsequent acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship and obtaining a passport.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court confirmed that establishing such a fact in separate proceedings is a lawful way to protect a person’s rights when no other extrajudicial procedure for obtaining documents exists.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the migration service’s objections regarding evidence do not create a “dispute over rights” within the meaning of civil procedure; therefore, the case was lawfully considered in separate proceedings.
– The lower courts properly assessed the totality of the evidence (excerpts from household registers, witness testimonies), applying the “balance of probabilities” standard, which is sufficient for civil proceedings.
– The cassation appeal of the migration service essentially amounted to a demand to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation.
– The court emphasized that the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are not universal templates but must be applied taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.
– Reference to previous Supreme Court practice in case No. 654/3462/17 was not recognized as relevant, as the lower courts acted within their powers regarding the assessment of evidence and did not violate legal norms.
3. **Court’s decision:** InThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Migration Service and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 759/1983/24 of 05/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** An employee filed a lawsuit seeking to establish the fact of mobbing (harassment) by the gymnasium administration, citing systematic psychological pressure, changes to the work schedule, and unjustified disciplinary actions.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 2-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, mobbing consists specifically of systematic and intentional actions aimed at humiliating the dignity of an employee, rather than any conflict or disagreement with an employer’s decisions.
– The lower courts established that the administration’s actions regarding the establishment of an individual work schedule and the distribution of workload were dictated by organizational needs rather than the intent to harass.
– The examined correspondence in the Viber messenger, although containing sharp remarks, was not qualified by the court as creating a hostile environment within the meaning of mobbing legislation.
– The court noted that the fact that some of the employer’s orders (e.g., regarding downtime) were previously cancelled by a court does not automatically serve as proof of mobbing as a whole.
– The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to confirm the systematic and intentional nature of the employer’s actions aimed specifically at demeaning her business reputation or professional dignity.
– The court also emphasized that an employer’s requirements regarding the proper performance of labor duties cannot be considered mobbing.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence and did not commit any violations of procedural law; therefore, there are no grounds to overturn the decisions.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim unchanged.
Case No. 545/1998/25 of 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s suspension of proceedings in a case regarding the substitution of a party in enforcement proceedings (a debtor with their heirs) until the resolution of another case in which the legality of a notary’s writ of execution is being challenged.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the suspension of proceedings is justified only when there is an objective impossibility of hearing the case without establishing circumstances in another legal proceeding.
– The court underscored that a notary’s writ of execution is a basis for opening enforcementof the proceedings; therefore, the issue of its legality directly affects the possibility of substituting a party (the debtor) in these proceedings.
– It was taken into account that in another case (No. 554/10814/25), the issue of declaring an enforcement endorsement as not subject to execution was being resolved, which is of prejudicial significance for the case regarding legal succession.
– The court noted that a premature substitution of a party without a final resolution on the validity of the enforcement document could lead to the unjustified collection of funds from the heirs.
– The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court acted within its discretionary powers, ensuring a balance of interests and preventing negative consequences for the heirs.
– It was also taken into account that at the time the case was considered in the cassation instance, the decision in the other case had already been rendered but had not yet entered into legal force, which confirms the correctness of the appellate court’s position regarding the necessity of a stay.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the stay of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 916/3837/24 dated 06/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the additional decision of the court of first instance and the appellate court’s resolution regarding the allocation of court costs in a case concerning the protection of the intellectual property rights of LEGO Holding A/S.
2. When considering the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of finality of judicial decisions and the limits of case review in the cassation instance, as defined by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court analyzed the appellant’s arguments regarding the accuracy of the allocation of expenses for professional legal assistance and concluded that the lower courts acted within their authority. The reasoning was based on the fact that the expenses claimed for reimbursement must be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided, which was duly assessed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court did not find any violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged judicial acts. Consequently, there were no grounds for re-evaluating evidence or changing the conclusions regarding the allocation of costs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LEGO Holding A/S and left the additional decision and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 910/6131/25 dated 06/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is a claim by an individual entrepreneur to invalidate a certificate for a mark for goods and services and to compel the relevant authorities to perform certain actions in the field of intellectual property.
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and a comprehensive examination of the case materials that were subject to review in the courts of first and appellate instances. The SupremeThe Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law, finding no violations that could serve as grounds for overturning the previous judicial acts. The panel of judges concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the legal position set forth in the challenged decisions and do not contain sufficient grounds for a merits review of the case. The Court confirmed that the legal relations between the parties were regulated in accordance with the current legislation on intellectual property. It was also taken into account that the courts of lower instances duly assessed the evidence submitted by the participants in the proceedings and provided it with appropriate legal qualification. Consequently, the cassation instance found no grounds to amend or overturn the decisions that have already entered into legal force.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 910/11426/25 dated 06/08/2026
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Small Private Enterprise “Hermes S” to invalidate and cancel the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, as well as to compel the authority to perform certain actions.
The Supreme Court, in verifying the legality of the lower courts’ decisions, analyzed their compliance with substantive and procedural law when assessing the actions of the Antimonopoly Committee. The panel of judges concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, providing a proper legal assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. The Court confirmed that the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee was adopted within the scope of its authority and in compliance with the procedure prescribed by the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the illegality of the Committee’s actions were deemed groundless, as they do not refute the established facts of the violation. The Supreme Court did not identify any violations of law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged judicial acts. Thus, the cassation instance upheld the position of the lower courts, recognizing it as well-founded and consistent with the requirements of the law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv City and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 908/914/26 dated 07/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging interim measures in a case concerning the invalidation of a real estate sale and purchase agreement and the cancellation of state registration of ownership rights.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of interim measures is a preventive mechanismaimed at preventing situations where the enforcement of a court judgment becomes impossible due to the alienation of property by the defendant.
– The court noted that in order to impose an attachment on property, it is not necessary to prove the fact of active sales actions taken by the defendant — the mere existence of a legal possibility to freely dispose of assets, which creates a real risk for the plaintiff, is sufficient.
– At the same time, the court applied the principle of proportionality: the attachment of property was recognized as justified, as it only restricts the right of disposal without blocking the actual use of the objects.
– Conversely, the court deemed the prohibition on conducting any construction work on the entire land plot (with an area of 10 hectares) to be excessive and disproportionate, as the area of the disputed objects is only 18.1 sq. m.
– Thus, the total ban on construction was regarded as a disproportionate interference with the enterprise’s business activities, which upsets the balance of the parties’ interests.
– The court of cassation emphasized that interim measures should be aimed exclusively at preserving the legal status of the property until the dispute is resolved on its merits, without blocking business processes that are not directly related to the subject of the claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the appellate court regarding the refusal to attach property (leaving the attachment in force) and upholding the appellate decision regarding the lifting of the prohibition on construction work.
**Case No. 904/6682/25 dated 08/05/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of a penalty from a contractor for violating intermediate deadlines for the performance of specific types of work defined by the calendar schedule to a state contract for the construction of fortification structures.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the calendar schedule is an integral part of the contract, and therefore the deadlines specified therein for the performance of specific types of work are legally binding for the contractor.
– The Supreme Court interpreted the contract clause regarding liability, noting that the use of the conjunction “and” does not imply the necessity of simultaneous violation of both intermediate and final deadlines, but establishes two independent grounds for accruing a penalty.
– The court emphasized that the specifics of construction objects allow the customer to demand liability for the delay of each individual type of work, as this does not constitute double jeopardy for a single violation, but is a sanction for the non-fulfillment of specific stages.
– An inspection report of the construction site, drawn up unilaterally by the customer, was recognized as proper evidence, as the contract did not contain a requirement for the mandatory presence of the contractor pin such a review.
– The Court emphasized that unilateral termination of a contract does not release the contractor from liability for breaches committed while the contract was in effect.
– Regarding procedural issues, the Court clarified that presenting new legal arguments or methods of interpreting contract terms in a response to an appellate appeal does not constitute a change in the grounds of the claim; therefore, the appellate court had full authority to consider them.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Relevante” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the collection of a penalty.
Case No. 909/1237/24 dated 08/06/2026
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:** Collection of debt under a purchase and sale (supply) agreement for construction materials, as well as a penalty, fine, and inflation losses.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Court established the fact of the supply of goods based on expenditure invoices, which contained all necessary requisites and were certified with the defendant’s seal, confirming the latter’s participation in the business transaction.
* The defendant did not provide evidence that its seal had left its possession against its will (e.g., was stolen or lost); therefore, the use of the seal on documents is considered lawful.
* Regarding the expert’s conclusion, who could not categorically confirm or refute the director’s signature on the documents, the Court noted that this does not negate the evidentiary value of the invoices, as the presence of the seal is the key factor.
* The Court deemed the use of internal accounting documents (account cards, journal-ledgers) as derivative evidence to be lawful, which, in conjunction with the invoices, confirms the reality of the business transaction and the reflection of the debt in the accounting records.
* The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the impossibility of supply due to the absence of tax invoices, as at that time the plaintiff was on a simplified taxation system and was exempt from the duty to register them.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that ordering a re-examination is a right, not an obligation of the court, and in this case, there were no grounds for conducting it, as no doubts regarding the correctness of the initial conclusion arose.
* The cassation proceedings were partially closed because the court decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the appellant pertained to legal relations that are not similar to the circumstances of this case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in dissimilar cases, and in the remaining part, it dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the invalidation of parts of construction contracts regarding the inclusion of Value Added Tax (VAT) in the price of works and the recovery of unjustifiably received funds from the contractor, as these works, in accordance with tax legislation, should have been exempt from taxation.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court confirmed that operations involving the construction of housing using state funds fall under the exemption provided for in Clause 197.15 of Article 197 of the Tax Code of Ukraine and are not subject to VAT.
* The court emphasized that the concept of “construction” in the context of this exemption also covers capital repairs, as this is the result of construction works that correspond to the design and estimate documentation.
* The panel of judges rejected the defendant’s arguments that the recovery of these funds would lead to double recovery, pointing to the existence of a clear procedure for returning overpaid taxes.
* The court also emphasized that VAT is not a contractual price that the parties can freely change; therefore, its unjustified inclusion in the cost of works entitles the customer to demand the return of these funds on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (unjust enrichment).
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that for the application of the exemption, it is necessary to prove additional conditions, whereas the provision of the Tax Code is clear and requires only the fact of financing by state funds.
* The Supreme Court noted that the invalidity of a part of a legal transaction regarding the inclusion of VAT exists from the moment of its conclusion, regardless of the subsequent performance of obligations.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court cancelled the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim of the Bucha City Council was fully satisfied.
Case No. 910/8248/25 dated 05/08/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum from PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “Poltavaenergozbut” due to the untimely payment for services to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that there was an agreement between the parties, according to which the defendant was obliged to pay for the provided services in a timely manner after their approval by the Regulator (NEURC).
* The defendant did not deny the fact of service provision, however, it cited the lack of funds due to payment delays by other market participants and claimed that it was not at fault for the delay.
* The court rejected these…arguments, noting that the debtor’s financial difficulties do not exempt it from fulfilling a monetary obligation.
* The court also emphasized that the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is a compensatory mechanism applied regardless of the debtor’s fault.
* The court dismissed the defendant’s reference to the absence of a Supreme Court conclusion regarding the application of legal norms as unfounded, since judicial practice on these issues is already settled and established.
* It was established that the service acceptance certificates were signed by the parties without objections, which confirms the emergence of a clear monetary obligation for “Ukrenergo.”
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of funds.
Case No. 910/3020/23 of 08/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the legality of excluding an administrative building in the city of Lviv from the list of municipal property and the subsequent registration of ownership rights to it by a trade union organization.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for reviewing a case based on newly discovered circumstances is not a tool for correcting judicial errors or re-evaluating evidence that has already been examined.
* The court established that the archival documents referred to by the Federation of Trade Unions are not “newly discovered circumstances” but merely new evidence that could have been obtained earlier with proper procedural diligence.
* The appellate court, when reviewing the case, effectively exceeded its authority by re-evaluating evidence that had already been the subject of examination during the adoption of the previous ruling.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the transfer of property “to the balance sheet” in 1949 is not synonymous with the acquisition of ownership rights, which is a settled position in judicial practice.
* The court noted that the applicant did not prove the objective impossibility of obtaining the archival documents during the initial consideration of the case, therefore there are no grounds for reviewing the decision.
* Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court groundlessly cancelled its previous decision, which was lawful and well-founded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s ruling of 04/21/2026 and upheld the appellate court’s ruling of 10/02/2024, by which the prosecutor’s claim was satisfied.
Case No. 910/15099/24 of 08/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of 1,577,041.86 US dollars under credit obligations between a banking institution and a groupof the defendants.
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that the courts of lower instances committed significant violations of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. In particular, the court of cassation pointed to the incompleteness of the examination of evidence submitted by the parties to substantiate their claims and objections. It was also emphasized that there is a need for a more thorough assessment of the legal nature of the relationships between all defendants, as the scope of their liability to the bank depends on this. The Court stressed that justice cannot be considered served if the lower courts have not provided a proper legal assessment of the parties’ key arguments. As a result of the identified deficiencies in the collection and assessment of the evidence base, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to render a new decision without a retrial of the case on the merits. Thus, to ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, the mechanism of remitting the case materials for a new trial to the court of first instance was applied.
The Court decided to set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances and remit the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 904/5724/24 dated 06/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalty sanctions from the company in the amount of 4,642,000 hryvnias for breach of contract terms, initiated by the prosecutor in the interests of the state represented by a military unit.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the prosecutor had failed to prove the existence of grounds for representing the interests of the state in this case. The key argument was that the body authorized to exercise state functions in the disputed legal relations should have independently taken measures to protect its interests, but failed to do so without objective reasons. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s office cannot substitute for a state body that has the authority and resources to file a corresponding lawsuit with the court. Since legal grounds for representation were absent, this makes it impossible to consider the claim on its merits. Therefore, procedural law requires that the statement of claim be left without consideration if the lawsuit is filed by a person who lacks the procedural authority to do so. Thus, the Court focused on strict compliance with procedural requirements regarding the representation of state interests.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances and rendered a new decision leaving the prosecutor’s statement of claim without consideration.
Case No. 914/3219/24 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring invalidprovisions of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on the imposition of a fine on LLC “Amila” for committing anti-competitive concerted practices that led to the distortion of tender results.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the consideration of a case on the violation of competition legislation begins from the moment of the adoption of the relevant order by the AMC and ends with the adoption of a decision, and not from the moment of active procedural actions (sending requests). The Court rejected the position of the appellate instance, which mistakenly calculated the statute of limitations for liability, linking it to the dates of sending requests to banking institutions. It was confirmed that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended for the entire period of the case consideration by the AMC body; therefore, the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations for a portion of the tenders is legally erroneous. The Court also emphasized that the new legislative provisions (Article 37-1 of Law No. 2210-III), which entered into force in 2024, do not have retroactive effect on cases initiated earlier. In summary, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the AMC’s evidence, in aggregate, proves the fact of concerted behavior of the tender participants. Consequently, the AMC’s decision was recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claims of LLC “Amila”.
Case No. 910/5529/25 dated 08/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The “last resort” supplier (State Enterprise “Ukrinterenergo”) applied to the court with a demand to recognize as unlawful the actions of system operators regarding the allocation of consumed electricity volumes to it after the expiration of the 90-day supply period, and to oblige them to correct commercial metering data.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that after the expiration of the special Order of the Ministry of Energy No. 148, which was in effect during martial law, the general 90-day limitation on electricity supply by the “last resort” supplier was restored.
– The Court found the conclusion of the lower instances that notification of the completion of supply necessarily had to be carried out exclusively through the DATAHUB system to be erroneous, as the current legislation does not contain such an imperative requirement.
– It was established that the special rule for the “last resort” supplier is subparagraph 8 of clause 9.6.3 of the Retail Electricity Market Rules (PRREE), which provides for written notification of the system operator 20 days in advance, which the plaintiff performed in a proper manner.
– The Court emphasized that after the expiration of 90 days, the consumer’s power supply must be terminated by the system operator, and if it…this did not happen — consumption volumes must be attributed to the System Operator’s losses, rather than the supplier’s balancing group.
– The Supreme Court also rejected the position of the lower courts regarding the ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection, noting that a separate lawsuit for the adjustment of commercial metering data is an appropriate instrument for eliminating the root cause of financial charges.
– Importantly, the court took into account its own practice in similar disputes, in particular the resolution in case No. 910/5447/25, which confirms the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s claims regarding the adjustment of data.
– The lower courts did not properly examine the evidence regarding each metering point and did not evaluate the actions of each of the defendants, which became the grounds for overturning their decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
****
In this decision, the Court effectively departs from the previous position held in other Supreme Court decisions (and lower court decisions relying on them) regarding the fact that disputes over the adjustment of commercial metering data are ineffective if there are parallel debt collection cases, and regarding the mandatory use of the DATAHUB system exclusively for notification of termination of supply.
Case No. 911/2396/24 dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor attempted to reclaim land plots from private ownership, claiming that they had been illegally alienated from state ownership as forest land.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The court concluded that the prosecutor did not provide proper evidence that the disputed plots had the status of forest land at all and were transferred for permanent use to the relevant state enterprise. A key point was the absence of decisions by authorized bodies to grant these lands for use and the absence of evidence of the approval of forest management materials, which the prosecutor referred to. The court emphasized that even the documents present in the case materials (minutes of forest management meetings) directly indicated the absence of forest management materials from previous years. Since the prosecutor did not prove the fact of the initial granting of the lands for use to a state forestry enterprise, the application of Clause 5 of the Final Provisions of the Forest Code of Ukraine was deemed impossible. The court also noted that the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances, therefore it agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the lack of proof of the claims.
3. **Decision of the co
