Case No. 912/3132/24 dated 13/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
The subject matter of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Agrogran” to invalidate certain provisions of a land cultivation services agreement, which established the contractor’s obligation to ensure crop yields at the regional average level.
**2. Arguments of the Court**
The court proceeded from the fact that the disputed terms of the agreement are essential, as they determine the quality of the services and the legal nature of the mixed agreement (containing elements of a work/services contract). The Supreme Court emphasized that invalidating such essential terms is impossible without invalidating the agreement as a whole, which is contrary to the plaintiff’s interests. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the claim for invalidation of the agreement is an ineffective method of protection if it is not combined with a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction (restitution), which the plaintiff did not do. The court also drew attention to the bad-faith conduct of the plaintiff, who, after signing the agreement and acknowledging the fact of improper performance of obligations, attempted to avoid liability for damages through the court. It was established that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks regarding crop yields, confirming its ability to fulfill the terms of the agreement at the time of its conclusion. Therefore, there are no grounds for invalidating the provisions of the agreement, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of legal norms were not confirmed.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged, and the cassation appeal of LLC “Agrogran” — unsatisfied.
Case No. 918/1274/25 dated 13/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery from a state forestry enterprise of damages caused to the natural environment as a result of illegal logging on the territory under its control.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that a permanent forest user bears civil liability for a tort, since it is obliged to ensure the protection and preservation of forests from illegal logging. The court emphasized that the unlawful inaction of the forest user consists ofin failure to perform duties regarding the control and preservation of forest plantations, which led to the infliction of damage to the state. To impose liability, it is not mandatory to identify the specific persons who carried out the logging, as the determining factor is the fact of improper performance of official duties by the forest user. The court also emphasized that the duty to protect the forest is imperative, and its non-fulfillment creates a causal link between the inaction of the enterprise and the occurrence of losses. The appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of fault were rejected, as the function of state forest protection is vested specifically in the forest user. Ultimately, the court reaffirmed the consistency of its practice regarding the liability of forest users for permitting illegal logging on lands under their jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the forestry enterprise.
Case No. 910/2415/24 dated 08/13/2026
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:** Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the recognition of the plaintiff’s actions as anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of bidding results, and the imposition of a fine.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that at the time the disputed relations arose (before 01/01/2024), the legislation did not set clear time limits for the duration of investigations into antitrust cases; therefore, the duration of the review in itself is not an unconditional ground for overturning the decision.
– The duration of the investigation was caused by objective factors: a significant volume of evidence, reorganization of territorial branches of the AMC, quarantine restrictions, and the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation.
– The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove a real violation of its property rights or the emergence of an “excessive burden” as a result of the prolonged investigation.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of the duration of the review must be individual, not formal, and in this case, the AMC did not commit inaction that would indicate procrastination.
– The court noted that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous conclusions of the Supreme Court are groundless, as those conclusions were based on different factual circumstances, whereas in this case, the courts duly assessed the evidence and the behavior of the parties.
– The court also pointed out that…challenging of the AMC decision must be logically consistent with the defense strategy, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that would refute the Committee’s conclusions regarding the existence of anti-competitive concerted practices.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Gas Construction Company LLC and upheld the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 910/8158/24 dated 08/13/2026
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:** Allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in a case regarding the recovery of material damages from state authorities.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that when allocating legal costs, the key criteria are their reality, justification, reasonableness, and proportionality to the complexity of the case.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that contractual relations between an attorney and a client are not binding on the court when determining the amount to be reimbursed at the expense of the other party.
– The lower courts established the fact that certain services listed in the invoices submitted by the plaintiff were duplicated, which indicated an inflation of the claimed amount of expenses.
– The court noted that the recovery of expenses should not turn into a means of excessive enrichment of a party; therefore, reducing the reimbursement amount is a lawful mechanism for protection against an unjustified financial burden.
– The Supreme Court indicated that the appellant was effectively attempting to seek a re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance, as the courts of first and appellate instances had already provided a proper assessment of the scope and cost of the services rendered.
– The panel of judges emphasized that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of procedural law, taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the necessity of reimbursing only those expenses that were actual and unavoidable.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Customs Service and upheld the additional decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court without changes.
Case No. 449/231/25 dated 08/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate judgmentof the Supreme Court regarding the conviction of an individual for violence against a law enforcement officer, particularly in terms of compliance with the right to defense and the correctness of crediting the period of pre-trial detention and house arrest.
2. The Supreme Court established that the appellate court committed significant violations of criminal procedural law by hearing the case without the participation of a defense attorney, even though available medical documents indicate that the convicted person has mental disabilities, which makes the participation of a lawyer mandatory under Clause 3, Part 2, Article 52 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance failed to properly verify the state of health of the convicted person, despite the existence of relevant conclusions and new medical certificates submitted to the cassation instance. Furthermore, the appellate court ignored the requirements of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by failing to credit the time the convicted person spent in custody and under 24-hour house arrest toward the term of the sentence. These violations are fundamental as they directly affect an individual’s right to a fair trial and the lawfulness of the imposed sentence. The Supreme Court emphasized that upon a new trial, the appellate court is obligated to rectify these deficiencies and ensure full compliance with the procedural rights of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 910/1859/25 dated 13/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The state-owned enterprise “Seaport ‘Chornomorsk'” attempted to judicially invalidate and cancel a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, by which the port was fined for abuse of a monopoly position in the stevedoring services market.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee have discretionary powers regarding the determination of the boundaries of commodity markets, and courts should not assume these functions, but only verify the legality of the decisions made. It was established that the port effectively held a 100% share in a highly specialized market of services (handling automotive vehicles at a specific terminal), where there are no competitors and no interchangeable services. The court emphasized that the establishment by the port of discriminatory criteria for counterparties in the “Policy for concluding contracts”[…of] thieves” created artificial barriers to market access, which constitutes a direct abuse of a dominant position. The court also noted that the fact that the violation ceased during the consideration of the case does not exempt from liability but may only be taken into account when determining the amount of the fine. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the failure of the lower courts to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected, as each case involving a violation of competition law is individual and depends on specific evidence collected by the AMCU. As a result, the court concluded that the AMCU’s decision is well-founded and the procedure for its adoption complied with the requirements of the law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the port’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance without changes.
Case No. 910/12688/24 dated 08/13/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the refusal by the National Intellectual Property Authority (IP Office of Ukraine) to grant additional protection for rights to an invention (the medicinal product “Darzalex®”) and the plaintiff’s demand to compel the authority to carry out such registration.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that at the time of obtaining the authorization for the use of the medicinal product in Ukraine (April 2020), there were norms in effect that did not provide for strict time limits regarding the submission of an application in Ukraine within one year after the first registration in the world.
* The court recognized the application of new legislative requirements (which entered into force in August 2020) to legal relations that arose earlier as a violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of laws in time, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff could not have foreseen future changes in legislation, therefore imposing an obligation on the plaintiff to perform actions in the past is an unacceptable narrowing of their rights.
* Regarding the procedural issue, the court confirmed that the IP Office of Ukraine is the proper defendant as the functional successor to Ukrpatent, which refutes the appellant’s arguments regarding the improper composition of parties.
* The court also noted that the instructions given by it during the previous cassation review were fully complied with by the lower courts.
* As a result, the court concluded that the authority’s refusal was groundless, as the plaintiff had complied with all requirements in effect at the time their right arose.
