Case No. 922/2677/25 dated 06/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the distribution of legal costs, namely the recovery from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff of the amount of the court fee paid for filing a cassation appeal, which was not resolved in the main court decision.
The court was guided by the provisions of Article 244 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which grants the right to render an additional decision if the issue of legal costs was left unaddressed by the court. The key argument was adherence to the principle of reimbursement of legal costs to the party in whose favor the decision on the merits of the dispute was rendered. The court examined the case materials and confirmed the fact that the plaintiff paid the court fee for filing the cassation appeal through the “Electronic Court” system. When calculating the amount subject to reimbursement, the court applied a reduction coefficient of 0.8, provided by law for submitting documents in electronic form. Having established that the amount actually paid complies with the requirements of the legislation, the court found the plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement of these expenses at the defendant’s expense to be justified. In summary, the court partially granted the application, determining the exact amount of costs to be recovered.
The court ordered the recovery from Limited Liability Company “Axioma” in favor of the Kharkiv City Council of UAH 157,255.10 in court fee expenses.
Case No. 910/2908/25 dated 29/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Repossession by the territorial community of the city of Kyiv of non-residential premises from the unlawful possession of LLC “Rouge-Cosmetic” and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights to them.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that the disputed property was removed from communal ownership illegally, and the previous transactions involving it, including its contribution to the authorized capital of the defendant, were aimed at creating the appearance of a bona fide acquisition. A key factor was that the director of LLC “Rouge-Cosmetic” was aware of the existence of the court decision in case No. 757/27707/17-c, by which the same property had already been repossessed from the previous owner. The court emphasized that the use of a legal entity structure to legalize property that had left the owner’s possession against their will constitutes bad faith conduct. At the same time, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of prejudice rules, noting that the prosecutor filed a new lawsuit, not a request for the enforcement of a previous decision. The court also emphasized that a person who knew or could have known about the illegality of the alienation of property cannot be considered a bona fide acquirer.In conclusion, the cassation court recognized that the appellate court had correctly applied the substantive law regarding vindication, and that the appellant’s procedural objections did not constitute grounds for overturning a lawful decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Rouge-Cosmetic” and upheld the resolution of the appellate court.
Case No. 911/1552/23 dated 05/20/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is a prosecutor’s claim to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot by canceling the state registration of property rights to non-residential buildings and ordering their demolition, based on allegations of unauthorized construction on water fund lands.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts failed to ensure a comprehensive and full examination of the circumstances of the case, which is critical for resolving the dispute. In particular, the courts did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments that the constructed facility is a port complex (a water transport facility), for which legislation provides a special legal regime that excludes the establishment of coastal protective strips. The court also pointed to the necessity of verifying the legality of the defendant’s actions when acquiring the land plot in 2002, taking into account available evidence that the courts ignored or evaluated superficially. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not substantiate why they gave preference to certain evidence (inspection acts) over others without examining them in their entirety. Furthermore, the courts failed to consider the requirements regarding the proportionality of interference with property rights in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result of these procedural violations, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances, the decisions of the lower instances cannot be considered lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 925/1124/24 dated 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the recovery of costs for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 30,000, incurred by a party during the consideration of an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the review of a case based on newly discovered circumstances is a separate stage of the process, which provides for a party’s right to reimbursement of attorney fees. The court established that the plaintiff complied with all procedural requirements: they timely declared their intention to recover costs.during the court hearing and submitted evidence of their incurrence within five days after the decision was rendered. The defendant’s arguments regarding the disproportionality of the legal fee amount were rejected, as the defendant failed to provide proper evidence of the unreasonableness of the expenses, and the issue of assessing their amount falls within the court’s discretion. The court also emphasized that the appellant’s references to other cases are irrelevant, as the factual circumstances and the scope of work performed by the attorney are unique in each case. Furthermore, the court underscored that the absence of a preliminary estimated calculation is not an unconditional ground for refusal of reimbursement, provided that this did not violate the adversarial principle.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the supplementary ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 917/1865/25 dated 04/08/2026
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:** A prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the territorial community with a claim to recognize its ownership rights to a non-residential building, which the prosecutor considers an object of unauthorized construction located on a municipal land plot.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts mistakenly focused only on the fact of the registration of ownership rights by the defendant, ignoring the need to verify the status of the real estate object itself.
* The court stressed that the registration of ownership rights to unauthorized construction does not automatically legalize it; therefore, the status of a “bona fide purchaser” does not exempt one from the obligation to prove the legality of the building’s construction.
* The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of establishing whether the requirements of the legislation regarding the allocation of the land plot and the availability of permit documentation at the time of construction were complied with.
* The court also noted that the previous conflicting information regarding the year of construction of the object (1959, 1967, or 2009) requires thorough investigation, as the applicability of the legal norms in force at that time depends on it.
* The lower courts did not provide a proper assessment of the questionable circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the exchange agreement through which the defendant acquired ownership rights.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that upon a new trial, it is necessary to evaluate the defendant’s conduct: whether the defendant exercised sufficient due diligence in verifying the legality of the property’s origin and the existence of rights to the land.
* The Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, confirmed the right of a land plot owner to file a claim for the recognition of ownership rights to unauthorized construction directly against the current acquirer of such property, departing from the approach that limited liability only to the initial developer.3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Poltava Region for the full establishment of factual circumstances.
Case No. 918/1209/25 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief legal analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a lessee of rental payment arrears for a plot of land under communal ownership, which arose as a result of a change in the amount of the normative monetary valuation (NMV) of the land.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to calculate and pay rent based on the current normative monetary valuation rests specifically with the lessee, who must independently monitor changes in legislation and regulatory acts of local self-government bodies. The Court stressed that current legislation does not establish an exclusive list of evidence to confirm the NMV, therefore an extract from the State Land Cadastre is not the only possible evidence. The appellate court erroneously dismissed the claim solely due to the absence of certain documents, whereas the decisions of the village council approving the technical documentation for land valuation available in the case materials constitute proper evidence. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the lessee cannot claim ignorance of the NMV change, as this is their direct tax obligation. Thus, the cassation instance concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law and violated procedural rules regarding the evaluation of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims of the village council were satisfied in full.
Case No. 916/1969/24 dated 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief and professional overview of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The lessee (PE “Lira”) attempted through the court to invalidate a sale and purchase agreement for communal property concluded as a result of an auction, and to recognize its right to redeem this property as a lessee who had made non-separable improvements.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the chosen method of protection must be effective, and the plaintiff failed to prove that it possessed a legal right to privatization specifically by way of redemption.
– The Court established that the disputed legal relations are governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property,” and not by the obsolete norms to which the plaintiff referred.
– It was confirmed that the primary object, regarding which the plaintiff had intentions for privatization[…], in 2007, effectively ceased to exist as a result of its division into new real estate properties.
– The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the privatization procedure provided for by the current legislation, and his actions over many years were contradictory (attempts to recover the cost of improvements in parallel with demands for redemption).
– The Court also pointed out that a decision of the local council to amend the list of objects for privatization is not an “administrative act” within the meaning of the Law “On Administrative Procedure,” since the local self-government body acted as a property owner, not as a public administration body.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a purchase and sale agreement concluded following an auction with a bona fide purchaser cannot be declared invalid solely due to the disagreement of a lessee who failed to exercise their right of first refusal in the prescribed manner.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the Odesa City Council, the Department of Communal Property, and the purchaser, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the lawsuit filed by PE “Lira.”
Case No. 756/6766/24 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your materials:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
An employee challenged her dismissal for absenteeism, demanding that the wording of the dismissal be changed to “voluntary resignation” due to alleged mobbing committed against her, and seeking to recover the corresponding payments.
**2. Court arguments:**
* The Court established that the plaintiff did not provide any proper evidence of systematic psychological or economic pressure (mobbing) on the part of the employer.
* All organizational changes and the deprivation of bonuses were justified by the results of an internal audit, which revealed losses for the enterprise and improper performance of job duties by the employee herself.
* The employer officially refused to dismiss the employee under Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (due to violations of labor legislation), as the facts of the violations were not confirmed, of which the employee was duly notified.
* After receiving the refusal, the plaintiff arbitrarily stopped coming to work without valid reasons and without submitting a new resignation application under the general rules.
* The Court emphasized that an employer’s requirements regarding the proper performance of duties do not constitute mobbing, and absence from the workplace without valid reasons is a classic case of absenteeism.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the burden of proving the fact of mobbing lies with the employee, while the burden of proving the legality of the dismissal lies with the employer; in this case, the employer fully fulfilled its duty by providing evidence of absenteeism.
**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld[the court] upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances without changes, recognizing the dismissal for absenteeism as lawful, and the claims as groundless.
Case No. 753/10685/20 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional summary for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the results of electronic auctions for the sale of his apartment, as well as the documents derived therefrom (the sale certificate and the certificate of ownership).
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the procedure for the sale of property at electronic auctions is a type of purchase and sale agreement; therefore, it is this transaction that must be challenged, rather than individual documents accompanying it.
* Claims for the invalidation of the auction protocol, the sale certificate, or the certificate of ownership are improper and ineffective methods of protecting violated rights.
* The court noted that the parties to the agreement concluded at the auction are the enforcement service (as the seller) and the auction winner (as the buyer); however, the plaintiff failed to involve the proper defendants in the case.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that even in the presence of prejudicial facts (established in other cases regarding the illegality of the enforcement officer’s actions), the court cannot satisfy the claim if an incorrect method of protection is chosen.
* The court does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence and only verifies the correctness of the application of legal norms; therefore, interference with the factual circumstances of the case was limited.
* Ultimately, the court concluded that the claims are not subject to satisfaction precisely due to the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective mechanism for restoring their rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 522/2624/25 dated 06/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The legality of the court’s return of an employee’s counterclaim for the recovery of wages in a case concerning the employer’s initial claim for the recovery of a penalty for breach of contract terms.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that in order to accept a counterclaim for joint consideration, two conditions must be met: the interconnection of the claims and the expediency of their joint consideration.
* The Supreme Court highlighted that these requirements are mandatory in nature, and therefore the court has no discretion regarding their consolidation if the conditions are not met.
* In this case, the court established that although both claims are based on the same contract, they pertain to different legal relationships: disciplinary liabilityliability (fine) and remuneration.
* The application of a disciplinary sanction for breach of contract terms does not exempt the employer from the obligation to pay wages for the time actually worked.
* Since the subject matter of proof for these claims is different, and the satisfaction of a counterclaim does not affect the possibility of satisfying the initial claim, there are no grounds for their consolidation.
* The court also noted that the return of a counterclaim does not constitute a violation of the right to access to justice, as the employee has the right to file a separate lawsuit under the general procedure.
* The appellant’s arguments regarding procedural economy were rejected, as the joint consideration of unrelated claims would only complicate the process and would contradict the principle of legal certainty.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 363/1304/23 dated 08/07/2026
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Resolution of the issue of securing a claim by attaching the defendant’s monetary assets within the framework of a case on the division of joint matrimonial property.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate instance, noting that attachment is a preventive measure intended to guarantee the actual enforcement of a future court decision in the context of a prolonged property dispute. The court emphasized that requiring the plaintiff to prove the daily current balance of the defendant’s accounts over several years is the application of an excessive standard of proof, which effectively nullifies the institution of securing a claim. The panel of judges recognized the attachment of funds recorded as of the date of cessation of joint household management as proportionate, as this prevents the bad-faith dissipation of assets. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding “doubling” of the encumbrance, pointing to the absence of proper evidence of the transit origin of funds in different accounts. The presence of an overdraft (negative balance) in an account is not an obstacle to attachment, as such a measure blocks the receipt of future funds, which is a lawful way to protect the plaintiff’s interests.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 154/653/25 dated 08/06/2026
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Establishment of the fact of cohabitation as a family by a man and a woman without marriage registration for the purpose of obtaining the status of a family member of a missing person.missing status of a serviceman for the purpose of exercising the right to monetary support.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that to recognize the fact of cohabitation as a single family, a combination of evidence is required: joint residence, shared household management, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses.
* The lower courts concluded that the submitted evidence (witness testimony, photographs, money transfers) is contradictory and does not confirm the stability of the relationship, as the plaintiff and the serviceman frequently conflicted, and prior to mobilization, the latter lived separately at his place of registration for a long period.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that witness testimony and joint photographs in themselves are not a sufficient basis to establish such a fact without proof of a shared household and budget.
* The court rejected the arguments regarding the necessity of considering the case in separate proceedings, as there is a real dispute between the plaintiff and the sister of the missing serviceman regarding the right to receive monetary payments.
* It was also noted that the determination of defendants is the right of the plaintiff, and the court finds no grounds to overturn the decisions due to an improper composition of parties, as the dispute over the right to payments between the parties is evident.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the courts of first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case without committing violations of substantive or procedural law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim unchanged.
**Case No. 370/1679/24 dated 08/07/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Below is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court of first instance leaving a prosecutor’s claim for the restitution of land plots without consideration due to non-compliance with the requirement to deposit the value of the property into the court’s deposit account.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, indicating that the obligation to deposit funds according to Article 390 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (as amended by Law No. 4292-IX) applies exclusively to cases of restitution of property from a bona fide purchaser. Since the prosecutor in the claim referred to the bad faith of the defendants and justified the claims under Article 387 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the issue of the purchasers’ good faith is a matter of proof during the consideration of the case on its merits. The court emphasized that at the stage of initiating proceedings or leaving a claim without movement, the court cannot *a priori* consider the purchaser as bona fide. Accordingly, the requirement for paymentdeposit of funds until the dispute is resolved on the merits is premature and unfounded. The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of new rules regarding compensation depends on the grounds for the lawsuit, which must be examined in a court session. Thus, the procedural actions of the court of first instance to leave the lawsuit without consideration were recognized as erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which overturned the decision to leave the lawsuit without consideration and remanded the case to the court of first instance for further proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 755/16397/25 dated 08/06/2026
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:** Resolution of the issue regarding the issuance of a restraining order against a co-owner of an apartment in connection with alleged domestic violence committed during a conflict over the use of housing.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that a restraining order is a preventive measure; therefore, for its application, it is necessary to prove a real risk of the continuation or repetition of violence, rather than merely the fact of a conflict.
* The courts of previous instances reasonably established that the evidence provided by the applicant (medical certificate, excerpt from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations) does not confirm the mechanism of the bodily injuries occurring specifically as a result of the actions of the interested person.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of a property dispute between co-owners does not exclude the possibility of domestic violence; however, a conflict in itself is not an automatic basis for issuing an order without proof of the fact of violent actions.
* The court noted that the presence of children during a dispute between adults does not create an automatic presumption of domestic violence unless illegal behavior by the abuser toward them is proven.
* It was also clarified that the participation of the guardianship and custody authority is not mandatory in every case concerning a restraining order if the children’s interests are properly represented by one of the parents.
* Ultimately, the cassation court concluded that the appellant’s arguments boil down to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation, and the lower courts provided a proper assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the refusal to issue a restraining order unchanged.
Case No. 607/20829/24 dated 08/03/2026
Here is a professional analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of material and moral damages from a medical institution caused by the death of a minorof a child as a result of improper medical care provided by the doctors of this institution.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the improper performance by the doctors of their professional duties, which has a direct causal link to the child’s death, was confirmed by the findings of a commission forensic medical examination. The court emphasized that the closure of criminal proceedings against the doctors due to the expiration of the statute of limitations is a non-exonerating ground, which does not refute the fact that they committed unlawful actions and does not exempt the healthcare institution from civil liability as an employer. The Supreme Court emphasized that in medical malpractice cases, the burden of proving the absence of fault lies with the medical institution, as the patient does not possess specialized knowledge. The court also recognized the amount of non-pecuniary damage of UAH 2,000,000 as justified, taking into account the depth of the mother’s mental suffering due to the irreparable loss of her child and the requirements of reasonableness and justice. The court of cassation noted that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been duly examined by the courts of lower instances.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal — unsatisfied.
Case No. 501/3166/21 dated 06/05/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is an individual’s claim for the removal of obstacles in the use of residential premises by moving into an apartment that the new owner purchased after the plaintiff had acquired the right to use it on legal grounds.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the right to housing is fundamental, and its limitation must be proportionate and justified. The Supreme Court emphasized that the transfer of ownership of an apartment to another person is not an automatic ground for depriving persons who had previously moved in on legal grounds of the right to use it. The court established that the new owner did not exercise due diligence when purchasing the real estate, as they did not take into account the presence of a registered person who was not a party to the contract. The lack of other housing for the plaintiff makes their eviction an excessive burden, which violates Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The court stressed that in such cases, it is necessary to always seek a fair balance between the property right of the new owner and the right to respect for the home of the person residing therein. Given the absence of evidence regarding the plaintiff’s possession of other housing, the interests of the latter in this situation outweigh the interests of the owner.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming the plaintiff’s right to move into the disputed apartment.Case No. 569/21724/25 dated 07/08/2026
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:** Challenging the refusal of lower courts to appoint a second guardian for an incapacitated person upon the application of the current guardian.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that although the law allows for the appointment of several guardians, this is not an automatic procedure and requires proof of the objective necessity of such a step. The courts established that the current guardian continues to properly perform their duties, and advanced age in itself is not an unconditional basis for involving an additional person. The submission of the guardianship and custody authority was deemed insufficiently substantiated, as it did not contain a clear distribution of duties between the guardians or evidence of the candidate’s actual ability to provide constant care. The court also noted that the absence of the ward’s lawyer in the appeal proceedings does not constitute a violation, since the status of incapacity had already been established previously and was not being determined in this process. Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly assessed the evidence and did not commit any violations of procedural law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 160/2292/26 dated 07/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the actions of military units regarding the calculation of a serviceman’s monetary allowance without taking into account the current subsistence minimum, and the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the statute of limitations for filing claims for a certain period.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for the application of the three-month period for filing a claim with the court, provided for by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, it is critically important to establish the moment when a person received reliable information about the amount of sums accrued to them. The court noted that the order on removal from personnel lists is not, by itself, proper written notification of the sums accrued and paid upon dismissal, as it does not contain a breakdown of payments. The appellate court mistakenly linked the commencement of the statute of limitations exclusively to the date of issuance of such an order, without verifying whether the plaintiff had access to documented information regarding the composition of their monetary allowance. The Supreme Court stressed that the court must determine the date on which the serviceman received specific written notification (for example, a monetary certificate or a calculation)
