Case No. 144/1508/19 dated 08/24/2026
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:** Division of property acquired by spouses during marriage, and counterclaims to recognize this property as the personal private property of one of the spouses.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court was guided by Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which establishes a presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, regardless of whose name it is registered under.
– The burden of proof that the property was purchased with personal funds (e.g., funds gifted by parents) lies entirely with the spouse asserting it.
– The court determined that the receipts for the receipt of funds from parents provided by the defendant are not proper evidence to rebut the presumption of common joint property.
– Witness testimony, even if confirming the fact of the transfer of money, cannot be an independent basis for changing the legal regime of property acquired during marriage.
– The court emphasized that the reassessment of evidence and the establishment of new circumstances are not within the powers of the cassation instance; therefore, the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the equality of the spouses’ shares were upheld.
– The absence of evidence unequivocally confirming the exclusively personal nature of the funds used to purchase the real estate and vehicle led to the dismissal of the counterclaim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the legitimacy of dividing the property between the spouses in equal shares.
Case No. 697/697/25 dated 08/19/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a vehicle gift agreement as fraudulent (entered into for the purpose of avoiding the confiscation of property in criminal proceedings).
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court confirmed the prosecutor’s right to apply to the court in the interests of the state as an independent plaintiff, as the dispute is directly related to criminal proceedings in which the prosecutor’s office supports the prosecution, and there is no other authorized body to protect these interests.
* A key factor in recognizing the transaction as fraudulent was the fact that the agreement was concluded between close relatives (spouses) on a gratuitous basis specifically during the period between the suspect’s receipt of a summons to the pre-trial investigation body and the imposition of a seizure on the property.
* The court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid the execution of a future court judgment on the confiscation of property, which constitutes an abuse of civil rights and a violation of the principle of good faith.
* The Supreme Courtnoted that for a transaction to be qualified as fraudulent, it is not necessary to have a conviction already rendered; it is sufficient to establish that the parties’ actions were aimed at concealing assets from potential recovery.
* The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence, pointing out that in the event of an acquittal, the ownership rights to the vehicle will remain with the owner, therefore no rights have been violated.
* It was also confirmed the position of the appellate court that the cancellation of the state registration of a vehicle is not an appropriate method of protection, since registration does not have a law-creating nature, and the invalidation of the contract itself is sufficient.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts (in the part concerning the invalidation of the contract).
Case No. 282/241/25 dated 08/26/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of an individual under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service during mobilization).
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal, analyzed the correctness of the application of criminal law norms in sentencing the convicted person. The Court concluded that although the fact of the crime was proven and the qualification of the convicted person’s actions was correct, the courts of lower instances did not fully take into account the possibility of the person’s correction without serving an actual sentence. The panel of judges assessed the personality of the convicted person, the circumstances of the case, and the possibility of applying the institution of release from serving a sentence with probation. Considering the requirements of the law regarding the individualization of punishment, the Court deemed it possible to apply the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This decision is aimed at achieving the purpose of punishment, which consists not only of retribution but also of the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new offenses. Thus, the Court adjusted the type of punishment by replacing the actual term with a probationary one, while establishing appropriate duties for monitoring the behavior of the convicted person.
3. The Court dismissed the cassation appeal in the part challenging guilt, however, it amended the judgment of the appellate court by releasing the convicted person from serving the primary sentence with probation and setting a probationary period of 2 years.
Case No. 627/33/25 dated 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of land lease transactions and obliging the lessee to return them to the owner due to the lack of the lessor’s will to conclude them.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that a transaction is a voluntary act, and if the signature on the document was not made by the ownercom, and by another person, it indicates the absence of intent to conclude it. The Court emphasized that the conclusion of a forensic handwriting examination obtained within the framework of criminal proceedings is proper and admissible evidence in a civil case to confirm the fact of signature forgery. Since a land lease agreement is by its nature a fixed-term paid use, the lack of the owner’s consent to its conclusion makes the emergence of lease legal relations impossible. In such cases, when the owner is deprived of the right to use the property due to an invalid legal transaction, the most effective method of protection is a negatory action — a demand for the return of the land plot. The Court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court are groundless, as the circumstances of this case differ significantly from those referred to by the appellant. Finally, the court confirmed the legitimacy of the recovery of costs for professional legal assistance, recognizing their amount as justified and proportionate.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which obliged the tenant to return the land plot to the owner, and resumed the execution of this decision.
Case No. 646/5128/23 dated 08/19/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An employee filed a lawsuit with the court to stop mobbing (harassment) in the workplace, protect honor, dignity, and business reputation, and to compensate for moral damages.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that for actions to be qualified as mobbing, a combination of signs is required: systematic nature, duration, intent, and the actions being directed specifically at humiliating a particular employee.
– It was established that the plaintiff’s dismissal took place due to staff reduction, which is an organizational measure that affected not only him but also other employees, and therefore cannot be considered an instrument of harassment.
– The plaintiff’s evidence (audio recordings) did not contain signs of threats or humiliation, and the payslips confirmed the absence of economic pressure, as bonuses and additional payments for hazardous working conditions were accrued to the employee.
– The Court noted that the employer’s ordinary managerial requirements aimed at the performance of labor duties do not constitute mobbing, and the plaintiff’s references to violations of safety regulations were not documented in the case files.
– The Court also took into account the prejudicial significance of another court decision, which confirmed the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal, which excludes the possibility of recognizing this dismissal as a form of mobbing.
– Regarding the motions for the retrieval of evidence, the court found them groundless, as they did not relate to the subject of the dispute regarding the termination of mobbing and could not influence the correct resolution of the case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courtsof the instances — upheld without changes.
Case No. 201/11613/24 dated 08/12/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit by the Dnipro City Council for the reclamation of an apartment from unlawful possession, which had been alienated on the basis of a court decision that was subsequently overturned.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the good faith of an acquirer is presumed, and a purchaser of real estate has the right to rely on information from the State Register of Proprietary Rights without being obligated to verify the entire history of ownership transfers.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the defendant acted reasonably: they consulted a realtor, verified the absence of encumbrances with a notary, and at the time of purchase, the court decision on the basis of which the seller acquired title was in force and executed.
* The court noted that the overturning of a court decision, which served as the basis for the registration of ownership rights, does not automatically deprive a bona fide purchaser of the right to property unless it is proven that they were aware of the illegality of such registration.
* An important aspect was the application of ECHR practice: the state cannot correct its own errors (in this case, an erroneous court decision) at the expense of bona fide private individuals by imposing an excessive burden on them.
* The court pointed out that the appellate instance groundlessly imposed on the purchaser the duty to verify the lawfulness of previous property transfers, which goes beyond the scope of reasonable diligence.
* Interference with the property rights of a bona fide purchaser in this situation was deemed disproportionate, as the risk of error by state authorities must be borne by the state itself, not a third party.
* Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had incorrectly applied the provisions of Articles 330 and 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, groundlessly refuting the presumption of the purchaser’s good faith.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied the City Council’s claim.
Case No. 202/2039/24 dated 08/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (a military serviceman) demanded compensation from the bank for moral damages due to systematic telephone calls and messages demanding payment of a non-existent debt, which had previously been the subject of judicial proceedings and closed by a court ruling.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to recover moral damages, the plaintiff is obligated to prove the presence of all elements of a civil tort: unlawful conduct, the existence of damage, and a causal link.and the fault of the defendant.
– The courts of lower instances established that the bank did not receive the ruling on the closure of the proceedings in the case; therefore, the actions of the bank’s representatives regarding debt reminders were not recognized as intentionally unlawful.
– Examination of the audio recordings of the conversations established that the communication of the bank’s representatives with the client was polite, without threats or insults, which excludes the fact of humiliation of dignity.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of a military serviceman does not change the general civil-law grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, since the dispute arose from the contractual relations of an individual with the bank.
– The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal effectively boil down to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence, and the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been duly examined by the courts of first and appellate instances.
– Since the plaintiff did not prove the fact of unlawful conduct by the bank that would have caused mental suffering, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances on the refusal of the claim unchanged.
Case No. 450/3827/26 dated 08/31/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense attorney’s motion to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings and transfer the case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different courts of appeal.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the provisions of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly defines the exclusive grounds for the transfer of criminal proceedings for consideration to another court. The panel of judges analyzed the arguments of the defense and concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient and convincing evidence that would justify the impossibility of considering the case in the court determined by the rules of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the right to change jurisdiction is not absolute and should be applied only in exceptional cases to ensure the promptness and effectiveness of criminal proceedings. The provisions of Part 9 of Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the specifics of the administration of justice under martial law or other extraordinary circumstances, were also taken into account. As a result, the court did not find objective grounds for satisfying the motion, as the current jurisdiction does not violate the accused’s right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court.
Case No. 508/1044/15-k dated 08/31/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of the convicted person’s motion to change jurisdiction (transfer of criminal proceedings materials from one appellate court to another) during the appellate review of the first-instance court ruling.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the provisions of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedureof the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly defines the exclusive grounds for changing the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the convicted person and concluded that they do not contain reasonable legal grounds provided by law for transferring the case to another court of appeal. The panel of judges proceeded from the principle of the proper administration of justice and the necessity of adhering to the procedure for reviewing appeals established by law. The Court did not find objective circumstances that would hinder the consideration of the case in the court of appeal to whose jurisdiction it belongs according to the rules of jurisdiction. Therefore, the absence of legal grounds for granting the motion became the decisive factor for its dismissal.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the convicted person’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings materials to another court of appeal.
Case No. 206/1528/24 dated 26/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the judgments of the first and appellate instance courts in criminal proceedings concerning the accusation of a person of committing premeditated murder out of hooligan motives (clause 7, part 2, article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, reached the conclusion that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the court of appeal. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal did not ensure a proper review of the verdict, which made it impossible to render a lawful and substantiated decision. Since the cassation appeal was partially satisfied, this indicates that the defense’s arguments regarding the incompleteness or inaccuracy of the appellate findings were partially confirmed. The Supreme Court did not re-evaluate the evidence on its merits, but focused on the procedural correctness of the appellate review procedure. As a result, it was deemed necessary to re-examine the case in the appellate order to rectify the identified shortcomings. The court also chose a preventive measure in the form of detention to ensure the accused’s further participation in the new consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeal and ordered a new consideration in the court of appeal, while choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for the accused.
Case No. 920/604/23(920/1147/23) dated 27/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A creditor of the debtor (Advocates’ Association) attempted to invalidate a suretyship agreement concluded between the debtor and the bank, claiming that this transaction is fraudulent (committed to the detriment of creditors) and fictitious.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that the mere fact of concluding an agreementof suretyship outside the “suspicious period” does not deprive the creditor of the right to contest it; however, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an intent by the parties to cause harm. The courts established that real business and lease relationships existed between the guarantor and the borrower, which confirms the presence of a business purpose for concluding the agreement, rather than merely an intent to siphon off assets. The court also noted that at the time of signing the agreement, the guarantor was a profitable enterprise and showed no signs of insolvency. Although the court recognized certain conclusions of the lower courts as erroneous (in particular, regarding the moment of emergence of tax debt and the prejudicial nature of decisions), this did not affect the overall result. The Supreme Court emphasized that to recognize an agreement as fraudulent, it is necessary to prove a combination of factors: lack of economic expediency, deterioration of financial standing, and intent to avoid the performance of obligations, which the plaintiff failed to do in this case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the decisions of the lower courts (correcting the legal argumentation), but left their final conclusion on the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.
Case No. 920/1528/24 dated 08/27/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the Buryn City Council during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to reimbursement of legal assistance costs is one of the fundamental principles of commercial litigation, aimed at ensuring effective protection of the parties’ rights.
2. The court verified compliance with procedural deadlines and established that the application for the recovery of costs was filed by the respondent in a timely manner, within five days after the adoption of the resolution on the merits of the dispute.
3. The panel of judges analyzed the evidence provided (the agreement, service acceptance certificates, payment instructions, and a detailed description of work) and confirmed the fact of the actual provision of legal services by the attorney, in particular, the preparation of a response and participation in court hearings.
4. The court applied criteria of proportionality and reasonableness of costs, assessing the scope of work performed, the complexity of the case, and the correspondence of the claimed amount (UAH 20,000) to the services actually provided.
5. It was emphasized that although the agreement between the client and the attorney is the basis for payment, the court is not limited by these arrangements when deciding on the distribution of costs between the parties; therefore, it independently evaluates their necessity and justification.
6. Taking into account the verification of the costs and their proportionality to the subject matter of the dispute, the court reached a conclusion on the full satisfaction of the City Council’s application.
The court adopted an additional decision, by which it satisfied the application of the Buryn City Council and ordered the recovery from Farming Enterprise “Victoria – 2012” in favor of the Council of 20,000 hryvnias ascosts of professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/3598/25 dated 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant (sole proprietor) in favor of the plaintiff (limited liability company) of funds in the amount of 2,016,000.00 UAH as property acquired without legal grounds based on Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the key factor for applying Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is the absence of contractual relations between the parties at the time of the transfer of funds. During the consideration of the case, the defendant did not provide any proper and admissible evidence (original contracts, consignment notes, etc.) that would confirm the existence of legal grounds for receiving this money. The court critically evaluated the defendant’s position, as even the former director of the plaintiff denied the fact of signing any contracts with the sole proprietor. The court also emphasized that the appellate instance rightfully refused to accept new evidence, as the defendant did not substantiate the validity of the reasons for their non-submission during the consideration of the case in the court of first instance. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with procedural deadlines for submitting evidence is not “excessive formalism,” but a guarantee of legal certainty. Ultimately, the court noted that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of sole proprietor V. A. Rohivskyi unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 927/1002/23 dated 08/27/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 927/1002/23:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transition from the debt restructuring procedure to the debt repayment procedure for a natural person in an insolvency case, subject to the debtor’s failure to execute an approved restructuring plan and failure to submit the corresponding report.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion in insolvency cases of natural persons is the debtor’s good faith, as only those persons who conscientiously cooperate with the court and creditors have the right to rehabilitation and debt discharge. The court noted that the automatic introduction of a debt repayment procedure merely due to the expiration of the plan’s term, without analyzing the reasons for its non-execution, is premature. The lower courts did not establish the actual volume of payments made and did not assess whether the non-execution of the plan was a result of objective circumstances or a deliberate evasion of duties by the debtor. The court also emphasized that failure to submit a report on the execution of the plan should not create procedural advantages for the debtor or block the case indefinitely. The court must exercise judicial control by checking the debtor’s conduct for abuse of rights andthe existence of a genuine intention to settle with creditors. Consequently, the courts should have comprehensively evaluated all evidence, including the debtor’s selective activity and their disregard for court orders, which was not done.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remand the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and an assessment of the debtor’s good faith.
Case No. 909/811/21 (909/275/25) dated 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of the legality of imposing subsidiary liability for the obligations of a bankrupt debtor on a third party (PERSON_1), who had no formal corporate ties to the enterprise but acquired its property under a deed of gift.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that subsidiary liability in bankruptcy cases is of a tortious nature, and its key purpose is to protect the rights of creditors against bad-faith actions that led to the withdrawal of assets. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a formal status (founder or director) of a person does not exclude their liability if they received a significant benefit as a result of the bad-faith conduct of the debtor’s management bodies. The court indicated that the liquidator is obliged to form a “primary evidentiary basis” indicating the person’s involvement in an asset stripping scheme or their receipt of benefits that could not have arisen under ordinary conditions. After this, the burden of proving good faith shifts to the person being held liable. The lower courts made errors: the local court failed to individualize the defendant’s conduct, and the appellate court groundlessly narrowed the scope of subjects of liability solely to persons with formal ties. Therefore, to establish all circumstances of the case, in particular PERSON_1’s awareness of the origin of the property and the causal link between her actions and the bankruptcy, a full examination of the evidence in its totality is necessary.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims against PERSON_1 and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/5371/21 (910/11147/25) dated 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided judicial decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of the liquidator’s application to impose subsidiary liability on the former manager and participant of Regency Bud Invest LLC for the debtor’s obligations in connection with driving the company to bankruptcy.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that subsidiary liability in bankruptcy cases is of a tortious nature, therefore, for its application, the liquidator is obliged to provethe full corpus delicti (elements of an offense): unlawful conduct, the existence of damage, a causal link, and the fault of the person.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the mere fact of the existence of accounts payable or the absence of assets in the liquidation estate is not an automatic ground for holding the manager liable.
* The courts of previous instances established that the liquidator did not provide convincing evidence that the manager entered into contracts without the intent of fulfilling them or purposefully siphoned off assets to the detriment of creditors.
* Regarding the failure to transfer documentation, the court noted that although this is a violation of the manager’s duties, the liquidator failed to prove that this particular inaction was the cause of the debtor’s insolvency or that it made it impossible to replenish the liquidation estate.
* The court took into account the defendant’s explanations regarding the use of funds for business needs (purchase of materials, payment to subcontractors) and evaluated the documents submitted by him, which, in the court’s opinion, refute the theory of intentional bankruptcy.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the standard of the preponderance of evidence does not exempt the liquidator from the duty to substantiate their claims, and that courts have the right to evaluate evidence based on their internal conviction, without assigning any predetermined weight to any piece of evidence.
* In summary, the court concluded that the liquidator failed to prove the existence of a causal link between the manager’s actions and the company’s bankruptcy, which is a key condition for the recovery of funds by way of subsidiary liability.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the liquidator was denied the satisfaction of the application to impose subsidiary liability on PERSON_1.
[Case No. 761/6524/24 of 08/28/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/139333313)
1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery by a prosecutor, in the interests of the territorial community, of non-residential premises from the possession of the defendants and the cancellation of the state registration of the title to it.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
The court proceeded from the premise that new legislative requirements regarding the mandatory deposit of funds into a court account (as a guarantee for a bona fide purchaser) apply exclusively in cases where property is being recovered specifically from a bona fide purchaser. Since the prosecutor insists in the lawsuit on the lack of good faith of the defendants, the issue of their status cannot be resolved at the stage of opening proceedings, but is subject to clarification during the consideration of the case on its merits. The court emphasized that the duty of prior deposit of the value of the property into the account arises only when the purchaser is recognized as bona fide, which is established by the court only after examining all the evidence. Therefore, dismissing the lawsuit without consideration on the grounds of failure to deposit funds at the initial stage is premature, since thdoes not deprive the plaintiff of the right to prove the bad faith of the defendants during the court hearing. The Supreme Court confirmed that the provisions of Article 390 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in the new wording are not subject to application if the plaintiff substantiates the claim with the bad faith of the acquirer. Thus, the appellate court correctly overturned the ruling on leaving the claim without consideration, as the case must be considered on the merits to establish the factual circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for further proceedings.
Case No. 766/24036/19 dated 08/18/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the deceased’s daughter to disqualify his wife from the right of inheritance due to the latter’s alleged evasion of providing assistance to the testator, who was in a helpless state.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that to disqualify an heir from the right to inherit under Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a combination of three factors is required: intentional evasion of assistance, the helpless state of the testator, and the existence of a real possibility and duty for the heir to provide such assistance. In this case, the courts established that the defendant, given her advanced age and chronic diseases confirmed by medical documents, did not have the physical ability to fully care for her husband. Furthermore, the care for the testator was provided by the daughter and a specialized charitable center, which excluded the fact of the testator’s “helplessness” before the defendant. The court emphasized that evasion must be the culpable behavior of a person who was aware of their duty but consciously ignored it. Since the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the defendant’s intentional evasion of performing duties, the courts concluded that there were no legal grounds to satisfy the claim. The Supreme Court also emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence, as this is the exclusive competence of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 182/4677/24 dated 08/12/2026
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:** The case concerns a father’s lawsuit to deprive the mother of parental rights regarding their minor son due to her long-term evasion of performing parental duties.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court committed serious procedural violations by failing to ensure the plaintiff’s right to participate in the court hearing via videoconference, despite the existence of a corresponding motion. The court emphasiemphasizing that the right to an “oral hearing” and participation in court proceedings is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial, as enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Furthermore, the appellate instance took a formalistic approach to the assessment of evidence, ignoring the conclusion of the guardianship and custodianship authority regarding the advisability of the deprivation of rights and failing to provide a proper assessment of the arguments concerning the mother’s deliberate unwillingness to communicate with the child. The Supreme Court noted that in cases concerning the child’s fate, the interests of the child must prevail over a formal interpretation of legal norms, and the court is obliged to thoroughly examine all circumstances, including the opinion of the child itself. Since the appellate court did not consider the motion to hear the child and failed to ensure a proper procedure, this made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appellate decision was deemed unlawful due to the violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and the right of access to justice.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 697/1796/25 dated 18/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman cohabiting as a family without marriage registration, which is necessary for the applicant to receive a one-time monetary payment in connection with the death of a serviceman.
2. The court concluded that the applicant provided sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of stable relationships inherent in spouses, in particular, cohabitation, maintenance of a joint household, and the existence of mutual rights and obligations. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses who confirmed the duration of the relationship and the couple’s shared daily life, as well as the applicant’s possession of the deceased’s personal documents (military ID, passports, employment record book, etc.), which indicates trust and shared management of affairs. An important argument was that the fact of the divorce in 1998 did not prevent further de facto family life, which continued until the death of the serviceman. The court also rejected the arguments of the Ministry of Defense that the establishment of such a fact has no legal significance for obtaining monetary assistance, citing the practice of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that a decision confirming de facto family relations is a proper basis for exercising the right to social payments provided by law for the family members of deceased defenders. At the same time, the court stressed that the assessment of evidence is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation appeal effectively boiled down to an attempt to re-evaluate already established circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, leaving the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 317/2862/19 dated 19/08/2026
Here is the analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the trial court judgment and the appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a driver for violating traffic safety rules, which resulted in fatalities (Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation concluded that the defense’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law are unsubstantiated. Firstly, the court confirmed that the convict’s guilt was fully proven by the totality of the examined evidence, including records of investigative actions and expert reports, which were evaluated by the lower courts in accordance with the requirements of the law. Secondly, the court of cassation emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish factual circumstances of the case, as this is the exclusive competence of the trial and appellate courts. Thirdly, the refusal to appoint repeat expert examinations was deemed lawful, as the reports available in the case files were considered sufficient by the courts, and the defense’s arguments regarding their inconsistency were refuted. Fourthly, the court noted that the additional scene inspection involving the accused effectively met the requirements of an investigative experiment, and the individual’s rights were observed. Finally, the court underscored that the lack of direct examination of physical evidence in the court session does not constitute a violation if the parties did not file corresponding motions for their inspection.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 904/2684/25 (904/5655/25) dated 28/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the legality of closing appellate proceedings upon the appeal of a debtor’s creditor against a trial court ruling approving a settlement agreement in separate litigation proceedings within a bankruptcy case.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal for a person who did not participate in the case arises only when the court decision directly resolves issues concerning their rights, interests, or obligations.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the status of a creditor in a bankruptcy case does not automatically grant the right to appeal any court decision rendered in separate disputes.
* The court noted that the contested settlement agreement concerned current claims, did not affect the register of competitive creditors, and did not change the priority of satisfaction of their claims.
* An important argument was that the appellant did not exercise their right to apply to the trial court with a motion to be joined to the case as a third party.
* The court indicated that the appellant’s arguments regarding a possible decrease in the debtor’s assets are merely assumptions that were not confirmedrequire a direct resolution by the court of the issue concerning the rights of that specific creditor.
* Referring to the position of the Grand Chamber, the court clarified that the conclusions in the reasoning part of a decision are not binding on a person who did not participate in the case, and therefore cannot serve as grounds for an appeal.
* In summary, since the challenged ruling did not contain judgments regarding the rights or obligations of Poltavaenergozbut LLC, the court deemed the termination of the appellate proceedings lawful.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the termination of proceedings.
Case No. 753/5732/20 dated 26/08/2026
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 theft combined with entry into a dwelling, other premises, or storage facility (Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Upon consideration of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, the Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Court established that during the appellate review, there were no significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law that would have prevented the rendering of a lawful and reasoned decision. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court’s findings regarding the proof of the individual’s guilt in committing the incriminated crime are based on proper and admissible evidence examined during the court session. The defense’s arguments regarding the incorrect qualification of actions or the incompleteness of the judicial proceedings were not confirmed during the cassation proceedings. The Court also verified that the imposed sentence meets the requirements of Articles 50 and 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and is fair and necessary for the rehabilitation of the convicted person. In summary, the cassation instance found no grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judgment.
The Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 676/2395/25 dated 31/08/2026
The subject of the dispute is the cassation review of the legality of the court of first instance’s judgment and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of an individual for unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service under martial law (Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, having reviewed the materials of the criminal proceedings, concluded that the lower courts properly examined all evidence provided by the prosecution and defense. The Court established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and corresponds to the factual circumstances of the committed offense. The defense’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law or the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Court emphasized that the conclusionand the appellate court are well-reasoned, and the arguments set forth in the defense counsel’s complaint do not refute the legality of the decisions made. The panel of judges did not find any essential violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law that would serve as grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judicial decisions. Thus, the lower courts acted within the scope of their powers and complied with the requirements regarding the comprehensive, full, and impartial consideration of the case.
The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the cassation complaint of the defense counsel.
Case No. 990/247/26 of 08/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on the temporary suspension of a judge from the administration of justice in connection with being held criminally liable.
2. The court reached a conclusion regarding the illegality of the HCJ’s decision, guided by the following arguments:
* The temporary suspension of a judge is not an automatic consequence of criminal prosecution but requires proper justification for the existence of risks of obstructing criminal proceedings.
* The HCJ did not provide an independent assessment of the prosecutor’s arguments but merely formally replicated them in its decision, which constitutes a violation of the requirements regarding motivation.
* The grounds cited by the prosecutor (possible influence on witnesses, delay of the process) were abstract in nature and were not supported by any factual evidence.
* The court noted that references to the “authority of the judiciary” or “moral and ethical principles” are not independent legal grounds for suspension if they are not linked to real risks of obstructing the proceedings.
* The fact of repeated applications by the prosecutor with similar motives was established, which contradicts the requirements of Article 64 of the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice.”
* It was taken into account that, at the time the decision was made, other preventive measures had already been applied by the court, which minimized the risks cited by the prosecutor.
3. The court decided to satisfy the claim, recognize the decision of the High Council of Justice to suspend the judge as unlawful, and cancel it.
Case No. 904/1820/24 of 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of illegality and cancellation of the state registrar’s decision to amend the description of a real estate object by including temporary non-capital structures in it.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that under the guise of “correcting a technical error,” the state registrar actually performed a new registration action, expanding the composition of the real estate object without proper title documents.
– In accordance with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration…”
