Case No. 463/6960/23 of 02/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Division of immovable property (a house) acquired by one of the spouses before marriage, by way of recognizing it as common joint property due to reconstruction performed during the marriage, which significantly increased the area and value of the object.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that property acquired before marriage is personal private property, and the presumption of common marital property does not apply to it.
– To recognize such property as common under Article 62 of the Family Code of Ukraine, the plaintiff is obliged to prove two conditions: a substantial increase in the value of the property and a causal link between this increase and common labor or financial expenses.
– The court emphasized that a mere increase in area (even several-fold) is not automatic proof of a substantial increase in value, as value depends on many factors that require specialized knowledge.
– Since the plaintiff did not initiate a forensic construction-technical or valuation expert examination, the court was unable to objectively compare the value of the property before and after the reconstruction.
– The Supreme Court noted that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the receipts and cost estimates available in the case file do not allow for establishing the share of the value increment caused specifically by common investments.
– Consequently, due to the failure to prove the value criterion, the claims for recognition of ownership rights and eviction were found to be unsubstantiated.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left unchanged the appellate court’s resolution, by which the claim was denied.
Case No. 910/20109/23 of 26/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the issue of the lawfulness of imposing on the Department of Economy and Investments of the Kyiv City State Administration (KCSA) the obligation to reimburse legal costs (court fees) for the consideration of an appeal in a case concerning the collection of share participation.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the general rules for the distribution of legal costs provide for their imposition on the party that lost the dispute, or in proportion to the satisfied claims. The court rejected the Department’s reference to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 923/199/21, as the circumstances of these cases are radically different. In that case, the plaintiffs did not support the prosecutor’s claim, whereas in this case, the Department actively supported the claims and carried out the calculation of the share participation amount itself. The court emphasized that it was the Department’s inaction regarding the timely collection of funds that became the basis for the prosecutor’s office’s intervention. Since the Department received a positive financial result in the form of collected…of funds, imposing the costs of the appellate appeal upon him is fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a lawful decision cannot be overturned solely on formal grounds in an attempt to shift costs onto the Prosecutor’s Office, which acted in the interests of the state due to the passivity of the Department itself.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the Department’s cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 947/18447/24 dated 09/01/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 947/18447/24:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A grandmother filed a lawsuit against the father to remove obstacles in communicating with her granddaughter and to establish a visitation schedule.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the priority of ensuring the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the grandmother’s legal right to participate in her granddaughter’s upbringing, as provided for by Article 257 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
– It was established that conflict between adults is not a ground for restricting a child’s right to communicate with close relatives, provided no real danger to the child’s life or health has been proven.
– The court took into account the grandmother’s prior active role in the child’s upbringing, the plaintiff’s positive character references, and the absence of evidence of any negative influence on the granddaughter.
– The claim for the removal of obstacles and the claim for determining the manner of participation in upbringing are independent methods of legal protection; therefore, even in the absence of proven obstacles, the court has the right to establish a communication schedule.
– The appellate court reasonably applied a mechanism for the gradual restoration of contact, providing for the presence of a representative of the children’s affairs service at the initial stage, which minimizes stress for the child.
– The father’s arguments regarding the grandmother’s political views or improper nutrition were not supported by proper evidence and, therefore, cannot be grounds for a total denial of communication.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which established a visitation schedule for the grandmother and her granddaughter.
Case No. 344/19516/18 dated 09/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the mortgagee’s acquisition of ownership of the mortgaged property (non-residential premises) through an extrajudicial procedure and the subsequent recovery of this property from a bona fide purchaser by its legal owner.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the state registration of ownership by the mortgagee (FC Alkor Invest LLC) was carried out in violation of the law, as the registration file lacked the mandatory expert valuation of the property at the time of its acquisition.
* The absence of such an evaluation, according to the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages,” is a critical procedural violation, which rendersthe acquisition of ownership by the mortgagee as unlawful.
* Since the initial acquisition of ownership was unlawful, the mortgagee had no legal grounds for the subsequent alienation of this property in favor of a third party (PERSON_2).
* The court confirmed that the recovery of property (vindication) is an appropriate and effective method of protecting ownership rights if the property has left the owner’s possession against their will, regardless of whether the subsequent acquirer is a bona fide purchaser.
* Regarding the counterclaim, the court noted that since LLC “FC ‘Alkor Invest'” lost its status as a mortgagee by (illegally) becoming the owner, it cannot file a lawsuit for the foreclosure of the mortgage subject until its status as a mortgagee is restored.
* The court also emphasized that the claim for recovery of property is an independent method of protection; therefore, the refusal to satisfy the claim for the cancellation of the registrar’s entry does not preclude the satisfaction of the vindication claim.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which satisfied the claim for the recovery of the non-residential premises into the plaintiff’s ownership and denied the counterclaim for the foreclosure of the mortgage subject.
Case No. 571/1394/25 dated 09/01/2026
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:** An employee challenged their dismissal for absenteeism, claiming that the employer had unlawfully canceled their remote work arrangement, which was the reason they did not appear at the office.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the remote work arrangement is a material condition of employment, which the employer has the right to change after notifying the employee.
* During the period of martial law, the procedure for notifying about changes to material conditions of employment was simplified, and the employer fulfilled its duty by issuing the corresponding order and attempting to familiarize the employee with it.
* The fact of the employee’s refusal to acknowledge the order was documented by properly drafted committee acts, which confirms the plaintiff’s awareness of the change in the work arrangement.
* The court emphasized that the employer’s failure to fulfill the duty to obtain written explanations from the employee is not an unconditional ground for overturning the dismissal if the fact of absenteeism is proven by other evidence.
* Since the plaintiff personally admitted in court that they did not appear at the workplace, citing only their previous remote status, the court deemed the reasons for their absence invalid.
* The court also rejected the plaintiff’s procedural objections regarding the failure to examine evidence, pointing out the plaintiff’s own violation of the procedure for filing motions to summon witnesses.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, recognizing the dismissal of the employee as lawful.
Case No. 759/19709/25 dated 19//08/2026
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:** A lawsuit filed by a mother against the deceased’s wife to remove obstacles to the burial by obliging her to bury the urn with ashes in a cemetery (columbarium) according to the Christian rite, as the defendant has been keeping the ashes at home for a long period.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that although the law does not explicitly establish time limits for the burial of an urn with ashes, keeping the ashes at home indefinitely without objective reasons may violate the rights of relatives to honor the memory of the deceased.
– The Court stressed that the right to burial is not exhausted by cremation alone but includes the duty to complete the procedure by placing the ashes in a grave or a columbarium niche, which corresponds to the principles of respectful treatment of the body as enshrined in Article 298 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– A balance of interests is essential: the court must verify whether the defendant’s actions constitute an interference with the mother’s right to respect for family life, taking into account the religious beliefs of the deceased and the lack of access for relatives to the location of the ashes.
– The Court noted that the appellate court mistakenly limited itself to a formalistic approach, failing to investigate whether the prolonged keeping of the urn in an apartment corresponds to reasonable timeframes and whether it violates the rights of other family members.
– The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of applying the principle of *jura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”), which obliges the court to independently seek an effective method of protection, even if the plaintiff has not chosen it with perfect precision.
– **Conclusion:** The Supreme Court effectively departed from a narrow interpretation of the norms of the Law “On Burial and Funeral Services,” indicating that the absence of a clear timeframe in the law does not mean the absence of an obligation to complete the burial, and courts must assess the “reasonableness” of such timeframes in each specific case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a proper examination of the balance of the parties’ interests.
Case No. 510/1853/23 dated 19/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in an interview format:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of a teacher’s dismissal for absenteeism during martial law, reinstatement at work, and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
**2. Court arguments**
In this case, the Supreme Court focused not on the merits of the labor dispute, but on gross violations of the plaintiff’s procedural rights by the court of first instance. The Court established that the actions of the local court were contradictory: initially, it scheduled a hearing with the summoning of parties and sent the appropriate subpoenas, which gave the plaintiff reasonable grounds to expect an oral hearing of the case. However, subsequently, the court unreasonably denied the request to conduct a video conference and examined the case without the plaintiff’s participation, effectively depriving her of the opportunityto provide explanations and defend one’s position. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to participate in court hearings is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial, enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The Court stressed that procedural rules must be clear, and their application must be foreseeable for the parties. Since the court of first instance created a situation in which the plaintiff was disoriented regarding the procedure for considering the case, this led to the deprivation of her right to access justice. The appellate court, in turn, did not rectify these violations, taking a formalistic approach to the assessment of its colleagues’ procedural actions.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to ensure proper consideration procedure.
**Case No. 535/905/22 dated 08/12/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to invalidate title documents and purchase and sale agreements for land plots, as well as for their return to communal ownership due to the illegality of their allocation and location within the coastal protective strip of the water fund.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that to protect rights to water fund lands that were illegally transferred into private ownership, a negatory action must be applied, as such lands cannot, a priori, be in private ownership. The Court noted that the appellate instance committed an error by concluding that there was a complete overlap of the plots with the coastal strip without proper identification of boundaries. The Supreme Court highlighted that in the presence of only a partial overlap, the demand to return the entire plot constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right of ownership. To resolve the dispute correctly, it is necessary to clearly identify the coordinates of the overlap, which requires specialized knowledge (expertise), which the appellate court failed to ensure. The Court also pointed out that invalidating transactions is not mandatory if the effective method of protection is specifically a negatory action for the return of a specific portion of the land. Therefore, without establishing the exact boundaries of the overlap, granting the claim in its entirety is premature and legally unfounded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance for the proper establishment of factual circumstances regarding the boundaries of the overlap of the land plots with water fund lands.
**Case No. 118/1329/13-k dated 08/25/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the legality and justificationof the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the imposed sentence for violation of traffic safety rules that caused the death of the victim, namely — the possibility of releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation.
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the courts of lower instances had already taken into account all mitigating circumstances, in particular, sincere remorse and partial compensation for damages, by imposing a sentence within the minimum limits of the article’s sanction. The panel of judges emphasized that the imposition of a sentence is a discretionary power of the court, and in this case, it complies with the principles of fairness and individualization. An important factor was the impossibility of obtaining the case materials due to the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea; however, the court recognized the available copies of the decisions as sufficient for the consideration of the appeal on its merits. The court also took into account the principles of reasonable timeframes for case consideration to avoid prolonged legal uncertainty for the convicted person. Ultimately, the cassation instance did not find convincing arguments that would indicate excessive severity of the sentence or material violations of the law. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation).
3. The Supreme Court left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense attorney — unsatisfied.
Case No. 904/6190/25 dated 08/31/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of the legality of the refusal to initiate proceedings in a case regarding the termination of a land lease agreement due to the alleged identity of the claims.
In this case, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that for the application of the procedural prohibition on re-applying to the court (clause 3 of part 1 of Article 175 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine), a complete identity of the parties, subject matter, and grounds of the claim is required. The court emphasized that the grounds of the claim are precisely the factual circumstances upon which the requirements are based, rather than merely their legal qualification. In this case, the plaintiff added a new independent ground to the claim — systematic non-payment of rent, which had not previously been the subject of consideration. Since this circumstance requires the establishment of new legal facts, the subject of proof in the case has changed significantly. Therefore, the addition of new factual circumstances that have a different legal nature excludes the identity of the disputes. The court emphasized that the right to judicial protection cannot be limited if the plaintiff substantiates the claims with new evidence and facts that have not been previously examined by the court.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the resolution of the appellate court, by which the case was referred for consideration on its merits to the court of first instance.
Case No. 361/2231/25 dated 08/27/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review in cassation proceedings of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of a person under Part 1 of Art. 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of road traffic safety rules while in a state of intoxication).
2. The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court, concluded that this case contains an exceptional legal issue that requires resolution by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The judges pointed out the need to ensure the uniformity of judicial practice in cases related to the qualification of actions of drivers who are in a state of intoxication. Since fundamental questions regarding the application of substantive law arose during the consideration of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, the panel of judges decided that only the Grand Chamber could provide a final interpretation, which would be binding on all courts. Such a step is necessary to avoid contradictory decisions in the future and to ensure legal certainty. It is important that the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber indicates the presence of serious debatable points in law enforcement that go beyond the powers of an individual cassation chamber. This decision is aimed at forming stable and predictable judicial practice in cases of traffic accidents committed while in a state of intoxication.
3. The Supreme Court decided to refer the criminal proceeding regarding PERSON_6 to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration.
Case No. 344/3219/26 dated 08/31/2026
The subject of this dispute is the consideration of a defense attorney’s motion to change the territorial jurisdiction (transferring the criminal proceeding from one appellate court to another) for the consideration of an appeal against a ruling of an investigating judge.
When considering this motion, the Supreme Court was guided primarily by the provisions of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly defines the exceptional grounds for transferring a case from one court to another. The judges analyzed the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the necessity of changing jurisdiction and assessed them for compliance with the requirements of the procedural law, which requires the existence of objective circumstances that make it impossible to consider the case in the designated court. Since the defense attorney did not provide sufficient and convincing evidence that would indicate the impossibility of ensuring an objective and impartial consideration of the case within the relevant appellate district, there were no grounds to satisfy the motion. The Court emphasized the importance of observing the rules of territorial jurisdiction as a guarantee of access to justice and the stability of the judicial system. Ultimately, the panel of judges concluded that there were no circumstances provided by law for the exceptional transfer of the case to another court.
The Court ruled to deny the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal proceeding to another court of appellate instance.
Case No. 766/21132/24 dated 08/31/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recoveryrecovery from the creditor (pledgee) of funds representing the difference between the value of the collateral acquired by them and the amount of the debtor’s actual indebtedness under the loan agreement.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that, when concluding the pledge agreement, the parties had voluntarily agreed upon the appraised value of the share in the authorized capital, which was equal to the full amount of the loan. Since the creditor had already received a significant portion of the debt in cash and subsequently, by foreclosing on the collateral, acquired an asset the value of which, together with the previously paid funds, significantly exceeds the amount of the debt, unjust enrichment occurred. The court applied the principle of good faith, noting that the creditor has no right to receive an “additional benefit” beyond the amount owed to them by the other party. Furthermore, the court indicated that the provision of Article 25 of the Law of Ukraine “On Pledge” explicitly provides for the return to the pledgor of the difference if the value of the realized collateral exceeds the amount of the secured claims. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the impossibility of applying this provision due to the specifics of corporate rights, as the parties themselves had determined the price of the share in the agreement. As a result, the court concluded that the creditor’s retention of both the funds and the share in the capital, the total value of which exceeds the debt, is unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the creditor’s obligation to return the excessively received funds.
Case No. 766/18100/24 dated 09/01/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the bank’s alleged failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against the court decision of the first instance.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a fundamental principle of legal proceedings; therefore, courts should avoid excessive formalism. The appellate court had the opportunity to independently verify the date the bank received a copy of the decision via the “Electronic Court” system instead of requiring additional evidence from the applicant. The court established that since the decision was delivered to the bank’s electronic cabinet after 5:00 PM, it is considered served on the next business day, which falls fully within the 30-day period prescribed by law. The Supreme Court underscored that the date of filing a complaint in electronic form is the date it is signed with a qualified electronic signature. Consequently, the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the missed deadline was premature and erroneous. The court also noted that sending court decisions is a procedural duty of the court and not a burden for the parties.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further proceedings.
Case No. 932/8278/24 dated 08/31/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzedto the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Determining the manner of a grandmother’s participation in the upbringing of and communication with her granddaughter, as well as the removal of obstacles to such communication caused by the child’s mother.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court was guided by the priority of ensuring the best interests of the child, which is a key principle under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the provisions of the Family Code of Ukraine.
– It was emphasized that a grandmother’s right to communicate with her granddaughter is part of the right to respect for family life, which is subject to protection if close ties exist between the relatives.
– The court noted that even if the fact of obstruction is not fully proven, this does not deprive the grandmother of the right to have a clear visitation schedule established by the court.
– Taking into account the martial law and the parties’ residence abroad, the court deemed it appropriate to establish both in-person visits and a remote format of communication (video calls).
– The opinion of the guardianship and custody authority is merely advisory to the court; therefore, the court has the right to depart from it if it does not fully comply with the child’s interests or the circumstances of the case.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence in its entirety, without committing violations of substantive or procedural law.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the grandmother’s right to communicate with her granddaughter according to the established schedule.
Case No. 755/3502/24 dated 08/31/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the prosecution of an individual for committing criminal offenses related to the theft, misappropriation, or extortion of documents, stamps, or seals, or the acquisition thereof through fraud or abuse of office (Article 308 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, analyzed the appellate court’s compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law when reviewing the judgment of the court of first instance. The Court concluded that significant violations of procedural law were committed during the appellate proceedings, which hindered the delivery of a lawful and reasoned decision. In particular, the appellate court failed to ensure a proper review of the arguments set forth in the prosecution’s appeal, which is mandatory for upholding the principle of legality and the reasoning of a judicial act. The panel of judges established that the appellate court’s conclusions did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case or lacked sufficient legal justification for the decision made. In this regard, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to uphold the challenged ruling, as it did not meet the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, to ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, it must be sent for…and a new trial to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 757/45184/24-k dated 01/09/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of the accused’s motion to change the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings and transfer them from the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv to the Khmelnytskyi City-District Court of Khmelnytskyi Region.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the issue of changing jurisdiction is regulated by Articles 32 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which require the existence of exceptional circumstances for such a step. The panel of judges analyzed the arguments of the accused and concluded that they do not contain sufficient legal grounds, as provided by law, for transferring the case to another court. The court emphasized that the general rule is for the case to be heard by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the criminal offense was committed. The absence of objective obstacles to the administration of justice in the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv became the key factor for the refusal. The Supreme Court also took into account the principle of procedural economy and the ensuring of reasonable timeframes for case consideration. Thus, the court found no grounds to satisfy the motion, as the impossibility of hearing the proceedings in the court of first instance was not proven.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to deny the accused’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court.
Case No. 2-835/10 dated 12/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of replacing the claimant in the writ of execution with a successor in interest (Bright Investment LLC) after the court had previously denied the reinstatement of the missed deadline for presenting this enforcement document for execution.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that procedural succession cannot be an instrument for the “artificial” reinstatement of deadlines that have already been missed and regarding which the court had previously made a final decision to deny their reinstatement. The court emphasized that a successor in interest acquires the rights and obligations of the predecessor in the state they were in at the time of the transfer of the claim, and therefore the refusal to reinstate the deadline is also binding on the new creditor. The Supreme Court stressed that beyond the deadline for presenting an enforcement document for execution, compulsory enforcement becomes impossible, and the right to it is lost. The appellate court erroneously applied the rules on “wartime” suspension of deadlines, since the deadline for presenting the writ of execution had expired long before the commencement of martial law, and the court decision refusing its reinstatement had already entered into legal force. Thus, the replacement of the claimant in the absence of a valid enforcementof a document that can be submitted for enforcement serves no procedural purpose.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the court of first instance’s order refusing the substitution of the judgment creditor, amending only its reasoning part.
Case No. 282/241/25 dated 26/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of criminal liability of a person liable for military service for evading mobilization conscription (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), despite his claims of refusing service due to religious beliefs (membership in Jehovah’s Witnesses).
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Supreme Court confirmed that the legislation of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of refusing mobilization due to religious or other beliefs, as the right to freedom of religion is not absolute and may be restricted in the interests of national security under martial law.
2. The court emphasized that conscription for active military service and conscription during mobilization are different legal institutions, and for the latter, the law does not provide a mechanism for substitution with alternative service.
3. The panel of judges referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court dated October 27, 2025, which has already established that such beliefs do not exempt one from criminal liability under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
4. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the need to depart from this position, noting that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has repeatedly returned similar cases for reconsideration, seeing no grounds for revising the established practice.
5. At the same time, in exercising its discretionary powers regarding sentencing, the court took into account the personality of the convicted person, the sincerity of his beliefs, and his lack of a criminal record.
6. Considering the principle of individualization of punishment, the court concluded that the correction of the convicted person is possible without actual service of imprisonment, therefore applying the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (probation period).
The court left the conviction regarding the finding of guilt unchanged, but amended the appellate court’s verdict regarding the sentence, exempting the convicted person from serving the primary sentence with probation (a 2-year probation period).
Case No. 523/7386/21 dated 19/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring invalid a residential apartment sales contract concluded between a debtor and a third party as a fraudulent transaction (executed to the detriment of a creditor).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid the fulfillment of obligations or legally binding court decisions.
– The qualification of a transaction as “fraudulent” (executed to the detriment of a creditor) is based on the principles of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Art.3, 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
– To recognize an onerous contract as a fraudulent one, the mere fact of the existence of a debt is insufficient; the court must examine a number of specific circumstances: the moment of concluding the contract, the connection between the parties (familial or other relationships), as well as the compliance of the price with the market value and the fact of the actual settlement.
– The appellate court made an error, as it limited itself to merely stating the fact of the seller’s debt, without providing a proper assessment of the buyer’s arguments regarding good faith, market pricing, and the lack of acquaintance with the debtor.
– The court of cassation emphasized that the absence of an attachment on the property at the time of sale does not preclude fraudulent nature, yet it requires the court to conduct a thorough analysis of all circumstances of the transaction to confirm the bad faith of the parties.
– **:** The Supreme Court noted that it is departing from its own previous position set forth in the resolution of July 3, 2019 (case No. 369/11268/16), clarifying that a plaintiff who was not a party to a transaction has the right to challenge it as fraudulent based on the general principles of civil legislation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the resolution of the appellate court in the part concerning the invalidation of the contract, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 400/5604/25 dated 09/01/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief legal analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a taxpayer of the decisions of the tax authority regarding the additional accrual of VAT liabilities and the reduction of negative value, adopted as a result of an audit during which the taxpayer lacked primary documents due to their seizure by law enforcement agencies.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the tax authority ignored the requirements of Clause 85.9 of Article 85 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which obliges the controlling authority to postpone the audit deadlines in the event of document seizure by law enforcement officers.
– Instead of appealing to law enforcement agencies for access to the seized documents or their copies, the tax officers limited themselves to a formal statement of the taxpayer’s lack of documents.
– The court emphasized that the seizure of documents by law enforcement officers is an objective circumstance that makes it impossible for the taxpayer to fulfill the obligation to provide documents during an audit, therefore, such actions cannot automatically indicate the fictitious nature of the transactions.
– The tax authority did not prove that it had taken all measures provided by law to gain access to the documents that were at the disposal of the investigative bodies.
– The courts of lower instances correctly established that the procedural violations on the part of the tax officers directly affected the validity of the conclusions of the audit report.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the tax authority is obliged to act in the manner prescribed by law and has no right to…reach conclusions regarding violations of legislation without having duly examined primary documentation, even if it was seized within the framework of criminal proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had overturned the tax notices-decisions.
Case No. 206/1528/24 dated 08/26/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal of the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances in criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person for committing premeditated murder for hooligan motives (Clause 7, Part 2, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obligated to objectively and impartially verify all arguments of an appellate appeal, without leaving any of them without proper analysis.
* In this case, the convicted person pointed out in the appeal significant contradictions in witness testimonies and protocols of investigative experiments; however, the appellate court ignored these arguments, limiting itself to a formal statement regarding the proof of guilt.
* The Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, according to which an appellate court has the right (and, in the presence of relevant arguments, the duty) to re-examine the circumstances of the case if they were examined by the court of first instance incompletely or with violations.
* The Supreme Court acknowledged that the failure of the appellate court to verify the arguments regarding the non-correspondence of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case constitutes a significant violation of criminal procedural law.
* Because of this, the appellate court failed to render a lawful and reasoned decision, which requires a new appellate review.
* Regarding other procedural violations cited by the defense (in particular, regarding the right to a defense and the quality of video recording), the Supreme Court refrained from providing an assessment so as not to influence the position of the appellate court during the new trial.
* Since the appellate judgment was overturned and the judgment of the first instance lost its legal force, the court, in order to prevent the risk of the accused absconding, selected a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody for the accused.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s judgment, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, while selecting a preventive measure of detention in custody for the accused.
Case No. 916/2675/22 dated 08/31/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to review a ruling based on newly discovered circumstances, which the plaintiff attempted to justify by the cancellation of another court decision in a parallel case.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the institution of review based on newly discovered circum-[the application] cannot be used as a “disguised” appeal for a re-examination of the case on its merits. The Court emphasized that for such a review, it is necessary to prove the existence of circumstances that existed at the time of the case consideration but were objectively unknown to the applicant and are decisive for the outcome. In this case, the key factor was that the decision, which the plaintiff cited as the basis for the review, had been overturned by the appellate court even before the application was filed. Consequently, at the time the application was submitted, the legal ground for review provided for by Article 320 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine had effectively ceased to exist. The Court also emphasized that it cannot reassess evidence that has already been the subject of examination during the initial consideration of the case. Thus, the appellant’s arguments regarding the falsity of documents were deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of the cassation court and did not meet the criteria for newly discovered circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, confirming the legitimacy of the refusal to grant the application for a review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 946/654/22 dated 02/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Termination of the former husband’s ownership right to a 1/2 share in an apartment upon the claim of the former wife, and the husband’s counterclaims regarding the removal of obstacles in the use of this housing.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the termination of ownership rights to a share in joint property under Article 365 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is an extreme measure that requires strict adherence to property guarantees for a co-owner.
– The key basis for the denial of the wife’s claim was that she failed to prove the actual market value of the share at the time of the case consideration, as the amount she proposed was based on 2011 prices.
– The Court noted that the preliminary deposit of funds is not a formality but a mandatory condition, and these funds must be equivalent to the real value of the property.
– Regarding the impossibility of joint use, the Court indicated that the existence of conflicts and litigation in itself is not proof of the impossibility of residing [in the property], especially when an expert examination confirms the technical possibility of allocating separate rooms.
– Regarding the counterclaim, the Court confirmed that the husband’s ownership right is inviolable, and the lack of keys and the obstruction by the former wife constitute a direct violation of his rights.
– The Court also emphasized that the fact that a co-owner has other housing does not deprive them of the right to use their share in the disputed apartment.
– Ultimately, the Court concluded that the move-in of a co-owner does not limit the rights of the child and does not deprive the wife of the right to reside [in the property], therefore granting the counterclaim is a lawful method of protecting ownership rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and aappellate instances, by which the termination of the right of ownership to a share was denied and the claim for the eviction/possession of a co-owner was satisfied.
Case No. 910/12927/23 (910/12973/25) dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim to recognize the absence of the defendant’s right to claim payment for indebtedness under an electricity supply agreement, alleging price inflation and the existence of an overpayment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the parties signed certificates of acceptance for the products, which are primary documents confirming the volumes and costs of the supplied energy.
– The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the price in the certificates did not correspond to the pricing mechanism provided for by the agreement and the commercial offer.
– The court emphasized that signing the certificates without objections indicates the acceptance of services in full and at an agreed price, and the plaintiff did not exercise the contractual right to challenge the invoices within the established period.
– The plaintiff’s arguments regarding “good faith reliance” on the counterparty were rejected by the court as failing to refute the actual performance of the agreement’s terms.
– The court noted that establishing the circumstances of the case and assessing evidence fall within the competence of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation instance has no authority to re-evaluate evidence.
– Regarding references to the case law of the Supreme Court, the court found the decisions cited by the plaintiff irrelevant, as they pertain to other legal relations (specifically, defense procurement).
– The court also pointed out that even if the appellate instance mistakenly referred to irrelevant case law regarding the method of protection, this did not affect the correctness of the decision on the merits, as the plaintiff’s claims were unproven.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. dated 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the victim against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which the actions of the convicted person were reclassified from intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to murder involving the exceeding of the limits of necessary defense (Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation proceeded from the fact that the review of the case is carried out based on available materials, since the originals of the criminal proceedings remained in the temporarily occupied territory, and their restoration was not initiated by the participants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new factual circumstances of the case, limiting itself only to verifying the application of legal norms. The panel of judges confirmed[…], that the courts of lower instances duly examined the evidence, including the testimony of the accused and expert opinions, and provided a reasoned assessment thereof. The Court noted that the qualification of actions under Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was motivated, as the courts established the absence of intent to commit murder and the presence of signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense. It was also acknowledged that the imposed sentence complies with the principles of fairness, proportionality, and individualization provided for by Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Ultimately, the Court did not identify any substantial violations of criminal procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged decisions.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the victim.
Case No. 160/12774/24 dated 09/01/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax authority’s refusal to apply special rules for confirming tax reporting data (a moratorium on inspections) to a taxpayer in connection with the impossibility of removing primary documents from territories where hostilities are ongoing or which are temporarily occupied.
**2. Key Arguments of the Court**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of entering into service agreements in dangerous territories is not automatic proof that the primary documents were stored specifically in those locations.
* The Court noted that the appellate instance committed an error by equating the authority of employees to sign documents with the fact of their physical storage at the customers’ facilities.
* The panel of judges stressed that the appellate court failed to fulfill the prior instructions of the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of a comprehensive examination of the organization of accounting, financing of expenses, calculation of wages, and the actual location of the documentation.
* The Court pointed to the absence of evidence in the case file that would confirm that the agreements with counterparties provided for the creation of special premises for storing the plaintiff’s documents or imposed a duty on the customers to preserve them.
* It was separately noted that the appellate court violated the principle of separation of powers: the court had no right to mandate the tax authority to adopt a specific decision, as this falls within the discretionary powers of the controlling body.
* The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court did not properly verify the admissibility of evidence and did not establish the factual circumstances that are of decisive importance for the case.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 320/23229/23 dated 09/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided […]
