Case No. 760/11955/23 of 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of paternity of a deceased serviceman regarding a child born out of wedlock for the purpose of receiving social benefits.
2. **Court arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that the applicant provided sufficient evidence of cohabitation with the deceased as one family, which is key to establishing the fact of paternity. The decisive evidence was a posthumous molecular-genetic examination, which confirmed biological paternity with a probability of over 99.99%. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged illegality of blood sampling, as the procedure was conducted in accordance with a special Procedure in effect during martial law. The court also emphasized that a DNA test is the most reliable scientific method, the probative value of which outweighs other evidence. Regarding the procedural violations complained of by the party, the court noted that they did not affect the legality of the decision taken on the merits. Ultimately, the courts of lower instances correctly assessed the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of relatives and documents regarding shared household arrangements.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts on the establishment of the fact of paternity unchanged.
Case No. 243/2846/24 of 16/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the place of residence of a minor child between parents living separately.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court of first instance, whose decision was upheld, proceeded from the priority of the “best interests of the child,” taking into account that the father provides proper conditions for the child’s development, care, and upbringing.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that when resolving such disputes, courts must evaluate evidence in its totality, giving preference to the stability of the child’s environment rather than formal equality of the parents.
* The court noted that a change in the child’s place of residence by one of the parents is not “arbitrary” in the legal sense if there was no corresponding court decision or agreement previously fixing a different place of residence.
* The appellate court erroneously gave preference to the mother’s interests without proving that changing the child’s place of residence from the father to the mother would be better for the child’s development.
* Arguments that the father hinders the mother’s communication with the child are not a sufficient basis for an automatic change of the child’s place of residence, as such issues are resolved within the framework of separate lawsuits regarding the removal of obstacles in communication.
* The court stressed that determining the place of residence with one parent does not deprive the other of parental rights and does not exempt them from…relieved of parenting responsibilities.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the court of first instance’s decision, which determined the child’s place of residence to be with the father.
Case No. 752/7455/14-ц dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerns the division of a residential building and a land plot held under common partial ownership, as well as the partition in kind of the co-owners’ shares and the recovery of monetary compensation.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the premise that the partition in kind of real estate is possible only provided there is a technical feasibility of creating isolated objects that correspond to the size of the co-owners’ ideal shares.
– The partition option proposed by the plaintiffs was rejected, as it involved the allocation of premises that had already been assigned to other owners based on gift agreements, which would violate their rights.
– The court recognized as lawful the partition of shares to the defendants (23/100 and 19/100), as these premises are essentially separate apartments, do not require remodeling, and correspond to their shares in the right of ownership.
– The demand for an additional partition of outbuildings was rejected, as this would lead to an unjustified increase in the share of one of the co-owners at the expense of others.
– The court emphasized that within the framework of this proceeding, the issue of terminating the ownership rights of other co-owners was not addressed; therefore, there are no grounds for recovering monetary compensation.
– The arguments regarding the delivery of the decision by an improperly constituted court were rejected due to the lack of evidence that the full text of the decision was signed after the judge’s retirement.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 704/1434/24 dated 17/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to have an additional agreement to a land lease contract declared as not concluded, demanding the return of the land plot and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right on the grounds that her late mother did not personally sign the document.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that although the lessor did not personally sign the addendum (it was done by her son), she essentially ratified these actions, as she continued to receive rent payments for a long period (2020–2023).
* The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of good faith: the conduct of a party that benefits from a contract and subsequently denies its validity contradicts fair business practice.
* The court noted that the contractualand the relations were effectively performed by both parties: the lessee used the land, and the lessor received payment, which indicates the existence of an intention to extend the lease.
* The Court of Cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating the evidence (in particular, payment slips and witness testimony) is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding procedural violations in the admission of evidence, as she had the opportunity to review them and did not express objections during the proceedings in the first instance.
* The Supreme Court pointed out that the arguments of the appeal amount to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 824/46/25 dated 09/17/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the foreclosure on funds of third parties (debtors) who have debts to the judgment debtor, within the framework of the procedure for enforcing a foreign arbitration award.
2. The Supreme Court, in overturning the ruling of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the mechanism for foreclosure on the funds of the debtor’s debtors has clear procedural boundaries and conditions for application. The court emphasized that the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts or arbitrations does not grant the enforcement officer the right to groundlessly expand the circle of liable persons at the expense of their debtors without due proof of the existence of such debt and its undisputed nature. The panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the appellate court made a mistake by failing to properly take into account the rights of third parties whose funds were subject to foreclosure. The court emphasized that the institution of foreclosure on accounts receivable cannot be used as a tool to replace the procedure for collecting funds from the primary debtor. Therefore, the lack of sufficient legal grounds for satisfying the applications of the enforcement officer and the judgment creditor became the decisive factor for overturning the lower court’s decision. Thus, the Supreme Court protected the property rights of persons who were not parties to the arbitration dispute from groundless interference with their financial assets.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the appeals of Sole Proprietor OSOBA_1 and OSOBA_3, overturned the ruling of the appellate court regarding the foreclosure on their funds, and denied the corresponding applications of the private enforcement officer and the company HIMBALT TRADE OU.
Case No. 757/48717/20-ts dated 09/16/2026
The subject of this dispute is the claimant’s demand for the collection of alimony arrears calculated by her independently on the basis of the payer’s income from entrepreneurial activity.
In rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The court emphasized that current legislation does not provide for the possibility of confiling a separate lawsuit for the recovery of alimony arrears, if such are already being collected on the basis of a court decision.
2. The issue of determining the amount of alimony arrears falls exclusively within the competence of a state enforcement officer within the framework of an open enforcement proceeding.
3. The court noted that in the event of disagreement with the calculation of arrears made by an enforcement officer, a party has the right to appeal specifically the actions or inaction of the enforcement officer, rather than filing a lawsuit for the recovery of the debt amount.
4. The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly refused to satisfy the lawsuit, as the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is improper.
5. At the same time, the court pointed out the error in the reasoning of the appellate court, which, instead of applying procedural norms regarding the improper method of protection, began to analyze in detail the circumstances of the settlement agreement and the existence of an obligation to pay alimony.
6. The panel of judges emphasized that the court should not substitute itself for the enforcement service in matters of calculating the amounts of arrears, but should only verify the legality of the enforcement officer’s actions if they are challenged in the manner prescribed by law.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of lower instances, while leaving the operative part regarding the refusal of the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 760/6143/21 dated 16/09/2026
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 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the court for the establishment of paternity and maternity regarding a child born by a surrogate mother and for making the corresponding changes to the birth registration record.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court emphasized that in cases concerning the establishment of paternity, the conclusion of a molecular-genetic examination is key evidence, which in its weight prevails over other evidence.
– The appellate court reasonably appointed a re-examination, as the previous conclusion was not based on the study of biological samples of the father, but only on data from a certificate, which raised reasonable doubts about its reliability.
– The plaintiff, PERSON_1, did not appear at the expert institution for the collection of DNA samples, despite the fact that his representative was properly notified of the date and time of the procedure through the “Electronic Court” system.
– The court interpreted the plaintiff’s non-appearance as intentional evasion from participation in the examination, since the two-month period between the notification and the date of the examination was sufficient to ensure attendance even taking into account his residence abroad.
– According to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a party’s evasion from participation in an examination gives the court the right to recognize the fact for the clarification of which it was appointed, or to refuse to recognize it, which the appellate court availed itself of by refusing the lawsuit.
– The Supreme Court supported the position of the appeal, noting that the court n[it] must not engage in formalism, but must evaluate the good faith of the conduct of the participants in the proceedings, who are obliged to contribute to the establishment of the truth.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, which denied the claim for the recognition of paternity and maternity.
Case No. 750/19061/23 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use and disposal of a water fund land plot by returning it to the territorial community and demolishing a garden house illegally constructed thereon.
2. The Court was guided by the fact that the disputed land plot is located within the 100-meter coastal protection strip of the Desna River and, therefore, belongs to the lands of the water fund, which, by law, could not be transferred into private ownership for gardening purposes. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a separate land management project for establishing the boundaries of such a strip does not negate its legal status, as its dimensions are clearly defined by the norms of the Land and Water Codes of Ukraine. The Court also noted that the erection of a house without permits on land not allocated for this purpose constitutes unauthorized construction, which violates the rights of the land owner. Furthermore, the fact of state registration of ownership for such an object does not legitimize it if the procedure itself was illegal. The Court concluded that the demolition of the object is the only effective way to restore the legal status, and the good faith of the acquirer does not exempt one from the consequences of the illegal use of water fund lands.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts regarding the return of the land plot and the demolition of the illegally constructed house.
Case No. 369/13953/24 dated 16/09/2026
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:** Recovery from the seller of property rights to an apartment of a penalty for violation of the deadlines for commissioning the construction object based on the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Consumer Rights.”
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Court established that the contract concluded between the parties, by its legal nature, is a contract of sale of property rights, and not a construction contract or a service agreement.
* In accordance with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Consumer Rights,” the right to recover a penalty (3% of the value for each day of delay) arises only for a consumer who is a customer of works or services, and not a purchaser of goods or property rights.
* Since the defendant acted as a seller of property rights, not as a performer of construction works, they cannot be…and the penalties provided for in Article 10 of the specified Law were applied.
* The court emphasized that the parties independently determined the terms of the agreement and did not challenge them in the established manner; therefore, the obligations must be performed in accordance with the terms agreed upon in the document itself.
* Regarding the recovery of legal assistance costs, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the disproportionality of the costs claimed by the defendant; therefore, the appellate court lawfully awarded UAH 70,000 in favor of the defendant.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that its conclusions are consistent with established practice, in particular, with the positions of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, from which no departure is permitted.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution and the additional resolution of the appellate court, by which the claim for the recovery of a penalty was denied, and the claim for the recovery of legal assistance costs was granted.
Case No. 307/4428/22 dated 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring invalid a lease agreement for municipal real estate (pharmacy premises) concluded as a result of an electronic auction.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts made a fundamental error by considering this dispute under civil rather than commercial proceedings. The court emphasized that the criteria for distinguishing jurisdiction are not only the subject composition but also the nature of the disputed legal relations, which in this case arose between business entities regarding the commercial use of real estate. Since the defendant (PERSON_2) held the status of an individual entrepreneur at the time the dispute arose and the agreement was concluded, and the lease agreement itself was aimed at conducting business activities, such a dispute is commercial in its nature. The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of an individual entrepreneur held by a natural person in such legal relations automatically shifts the dispute into the sphere of commercial jurisdiction. The court also noted that a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction is an absolute ground for overturning the decisions of the lower courts, regardless of other arguments of the parties. In this regard, the cassation instance had no authority to review the case on its merits and was obliged to terminate the proceedings under civil procedure.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and terminated the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to a commercial court.
Case No. 536/2242/24 dated 09/17/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court to determine an additional period for the acceptance of an inheritance under a will.due to the expiration of the six-month period established by law.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to be granted an additional period, an heir must prove the existence of objective, insurmountable, and significant obstacles that prevented them from applying to a notary in a timely manner.
– The plaintiff cited residence abroad and ignorance of the change in the testator’s place of registration; however, the court found these arguments insufficient to recognize the reasons for the delay as valid.
– The courts established that the plaintiff knew about their mother’s death and the existence of a will but did not take any active steps to accept the inheritance for a long period of time.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that legal ignorance or being abroad are not, in and of themselves, automatic grounds for extending the deadline if the person has not proven the impossibility of submitting an application (for example, via postal services or a representative).
– The court noted that the assessment of the validity of reasons must pertain specifically to the six-month period following the opening of the inheritance, during which real obstacles must have existed.
– Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of such objective obstacles, the court concluded that the missed deadline was due to the heir’s own negligence.
– The court also indicated that it saw no grounds to deviate from established practice, as the circumstances of this case do not indicate a violation of the plaintiff’s rights, but rather their passive conduct.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance unchanged, confirming the refusal to set an additional period for the acceptance of inheritance.
Case No. 342/1028/24 dated 09/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the dismissal of an employee from the position of Financial Director for absenteeism and her claims for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. The court established that the employer properly documented the fact of the employee’s absence from the workplace for more than three hours during the working day by means of relevant acts and internal memoranda. The plaintiff did not provide evidence confirming her performance of employment duties outside the enterprise or the existence of valid reasons for her absence. The court noted that the employer fulfilled the legal requirements regarding the investigation of the reasons for the absence, as it repeatedly demanded written explanations from the employee, which she refused to provide. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the director’s lack of authority or the impossibility of signing documents due to being abroad were rejected as unproven. The court also emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instance, and the court of cassation does not have the authority to re-evaluate them. In conclusion, the courts reached the decision that the dismissal was lawful, as the fact of absenteeismis confirmed, and the procedure for bringing to disciplinary liability has been complied with.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to deny the claim.
Case No. 569/337/25 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to have the retention of his children on the territory of Ukraine declared unlawful through the court and to compel the mother to return them to the Republic of Poland, citing the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the habitual residence of the children since birth is Ukraine, and their stay in Poland was of a temporary nature related to specific life circumstances rather than a change of permanent place of residence.
* A key factor for the court was the absence of evidence that the children had integrated into the social and family environment of Poland to such an extent that it became their new “habitual residence” within the meaning of the Hague Convention.
* The court noted that the children, together with their mother, repeatedly crossed the border and returned to Ukraine, which confirms the lack of intent to reside permanently abroad.
* An important argument was that upon returning to Ukraine, the children successfully adapted, attend a local lyceum and sports sections, which testifies to the stability of their life right here.
* The court emphasized that parental rights are derived from the best interests of the child, and in this case, the forced return of the children to Poland would be contrary to their best interests.
* The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of unlawful abduction or retention of the children, as the relocation took place within the legal framework, and the father was not restricted in his right to communicate with the children.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence, and the arguments of the cassation appeal effectively amounted to an attempt to reassess established facts, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, denying the claim for the return of the children to Poland and ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of professional legal assistance.
Case No. 199/16268/25 dated 09/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of applying measures to secure a claim in the form of a prohibition on the alienation of real estate that is subject to division between former spouses.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, which changed the method of securing the claim from an attachment to a prohibitionalienation, considering such a measure to be more balanced. The Court emphasized that a provisional measure (securing the claim) is a preventive instrument; therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the respondent has already committed bad-faith actions to apply it, as the existence of an objective probability of difficulty in executing the judgment is sufficient. The panel of judges noted that the prohibition of alienation does not restrict the owner’s right to use and possess the property, but only temporarily limits the right to dispose of it. The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the property is personal property, as this issue is subject to resolution during the consideration of the case on the merits, rather than at the stage of securing the claim. It was also emphasized that the court of cassation has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by lower courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the chosen measure is proportionate to the stated claims and necessary to guarantee the execution of a future court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the court decisions of the lower instances (in the part regarding the prohibition of property alienation) without changes.
Case No. 295/12281/24 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of non-pecuniary (moral) damages from the state of the Russian Federation caused by armed aggression against Ukraine, in the amount of 35,000 euros.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s right to compensation, as the armed aggression of the Russian Federation is a generally known fact that violates the rights of civilians and causes them mental suffering. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the amount of compensation must comply with the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness, without leading to unjust enrichment. It was taken into account that no active combat operations were conducted in the city of Zhytomyr, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence of damage to her own property. The Court noted that the assessment of the depth of moral suffering is within the discretionary powers of the court, which must balance the interests of the victim and the objective circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadequacy of the compensation amount do not refute the conclusions of the lower instances, as the previous courts duly evaluated all evidence provided. Ultimately, the determined sum of 50,000 UAH was deemed sufficient satisfaction under the existing circumstances.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances without changes.
Case No. 522/12490/22 dated 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s demand for the return of movable property (office equipment and structures), which, in his opinion, was groundlessly acquired by the respondenttogether with the acquired office center building.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove with proper evidence that it was specifically their property that was in the defendant’s possession. The Court drew attention to the significant discrepancies between the quantity of property acquired by the plaintiff (1,057 items) and the data from the bank’s public asset passport, from which it follows that only 558 items were sold at auction. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the disputed property was not individualized, and some of the items, according to the documents, had a different location address altogether. The Supreme Court stressed that a condictio claim (Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) requires proving the fact of the groundless acquisition of property, which the plaintiff did not do, as proof cannot be based on assumptions. In the opinion of the cassation instance, the Appellate Court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance by failing to properly assess the lack of evidence identifying the property and by not taking into account the balance of probabilities when examining the submitted documents.
3. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Appellate Court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 910/2022/25 dated 08/09/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery by a prosecutor, in the interests of a military unit, of debt arising from penalties (fines and late fees) under a military property supply contract due to the defendant’s breach of performance deadlines.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court proceeded from the premise that a prosecutor has the right to represent the interests of the state in court only in exceptional cases where the relevant competent authority (in this case, the Ministry of Defense) is not exercising or is improperly exercising the protection of state interests.
– The Supreme Court, relying on the position of its Joint Chamber, emphasized that a military unit is not an organ of state power or a subject of authority in the sense of procedural legislation, but acts as a business entity.
– The Court noted that the function of a budget funds administrator and state customer in the defense sector is performed by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and not by an individual military unit.
– Since the military unit acted in the disputed legal relations as a business entity, and not as an authority exercising administrative functions, the prosecutor had no legal grounds to apply to the court in its interests.
– The Court emphasized that a prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject of filing a lawsuit if there are no clear legislative prerequisites for this and proven facts of inaction by the competent authority.
– Consequently, the Appellate Court rightfully left the claim without consideration, as the prosecutor filed the lawsuit without proper authority.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the pro…prosecutor’s [complaint/appeal] without satisfaction, and the appellate court ruling on leaving the claim without consideration — unchanged.
Case No. 567/1320/23 dated 09/16/2026
Hello. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The owner of land plots filed a lawsuit to recognize the absence of a lease right held by “Zakhidna Ahrovyrobnycha Kompaniya” LLC due to the non-conclusion of lease agreements and supplementary agreements, which he did not sign.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that land lease agreements require a mandatory written form, and a signature is an essential requisite confirming the expression of the parties’ will.
– Since the defendant failed to provide the original documents for handwriting examination, the court reasonably recognized the fact of the absence of the plaintiff’s signature on the disputed transactions.
– The court emphasized that a transaction that has not been executed (not signed) cannot be declared invalid; therefore, the claim for recognition of the lease right as “absent” is an appropriate and effective way to protect the owner’s rights.
– The defendant’s argument that the payment of rent constitutes conclusive actions (actual acceptance of the terms of the agreement) was rejected, as such actions can only confirm agreements that do not require a mandatory written form.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that land lease agreements, for which the law requires a written form, cannot be considered concluded solely on the basis of actual use or payment of funds in the absence of a signed document.
– The court also noted that the reassessment of evidence is not within the jurisdiction of the cassation instance, and the decisions of the lower courts are lawful and reasoned.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts — without changes, confirming the absence of the lease right for the defendant.
Case No. 758/7276/19 dated 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to issue an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court erroneously concluded that the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements regarding the claim for reimbursement of expenses. The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant, in their response to the appellate appeal, clearly stated a preliminary calculation of expenses and informed the court of the intention to provide evidence of their incurrence within five days after the adoption of the decision. According to the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, such a statement made in the response is a proper fulfillment of a procedural duty. The court emphasized that the right to reimbursement of expenses cannot be restricted due to a formalistic approach by the court to the assessment of already submitted procedural documents. Therefore,The Court of Appeal groundlessly deprived the party of the right to resolve the issue of compensation for legal assistance expenses. As a result, the decision of the appellate instance was recognized as violating the norms of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the same court for the resolution of the issue regarding the adoption of an additional decision on the merits.
Case No. 554/877/24 dated 09/16/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is an individual’s claim for the refutation of inaccurate information set forth by an investigator in a motion for the seizure of property within the framework of criminal proceedings, and for compensation for the moral damage caused thereby.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that information obtained and disseminated during pre-trial investigation in procedural documents cannot be the subject of refutation under civil proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that there are special mechanisms provided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine for assessing the lawfulness of an investigator’s actions and challenging information set forth in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, for the compensation of damage caused by the unlawful actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, there exists a special law (Law No. 266/94-VR), which the plaintiff did not utilize in this case. The court emphasized that civil proceedings cannot substitute for criminal ones or be used to verify evidence collected by investigative bodies. It was also noted that the challenged decisions of the lower courts are reasoned and comply with the established practice of the Supreme Court, which does not require review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts denying the claim unchanged.
Case No. 906/226/25 dated 09/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the decisions of the general meeting of the condominium association “Vatskivskyi 9” due to a violation of the convocation procedure, lack of a quorum, and the consideration of issues not included in the agenda.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the first-instance and appellate courts took a formal approach to the case without examining key evidence. In particular, the courts did not verify the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the actual number of co-owners and the legal capacity of the persons who participated in the voting. Also overlooked was a significant violation: the consideration at the meeting of issues that were not included in the previously announced agenda at all. The court emphasized that the adoption of decisions on issues not included in the agenda is an unconditional ground for declaring them invalid. Furthermore, no assessment was provided regarding compliance with the requirements of the Statin this regard, concerning the prior provision of drafts of amendments to the Articles of Association to the co-owners. As a result, due to the incomplete establishment of circumstances, the previous decisions were deemed unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zhytomyr Oblast.
Case No. 924/1108/25 of 08/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring illegal and cancelling the decision of the regional energy supply commission regarding the accrual of the cost of unmetered electrical energy due to seal damage.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that for the application of sanctions for unmetered electricity consumption (pursuant to the Rules of Retail Electricity Market), the mere fact of seal damage is insufficient; it is necessary to prove that there was access to the current-carrying parts of the metering circuit.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts approached the case formally, limiting themselves to the fact that the violation report was signed without objections, and failed to investigate whether the seal damage actually provided the consumer with the technical capability to interfere with metering.
– An important condition for applying charges is compliance with the time criterion (no more than 6 years from the moment the seal was installed), which must also be verified by the court.
– The Court stressed that the duty to preserve seals is not unconditional, and any accrual of damages must be based on a full investigation of the circumstances, and not merely on the fact of the absence of objections in the report.
– The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts ignored the legal position set forth in the ruling dated 15/01/2026 in case No. 917/2058/24, which is relevant to this dispute.
– As a result, due to incomplete clarification of factual circumstances and failure to examine evidence, the decisions of the lower courts were deemed premature.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Commercial Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the ruling of the North-Western Commercial Court of Appeal, remanding the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 907/1096/23 of 17/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The court considered the lawfulness of including in the registry of creditors’ claims, in a bankruptcy case, the amount of a penalty accrued by the tax authority on tax debt for which the 1,095-day statute of limitations had expired.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the tax authority does not have the right to accrue a penalty if more than 1,095 days have passed since the moment the right to accrue it arose, as such a penalty is subject to mandatory cancellation in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that the imposition of a moratorium on the satisfaction of creditors’ claims in the case of bbankruptcy terminates the accrual of a penalty, but it does not “revive” a penalty for which the accrual period had already expired earlier. The tax authority mistakenly attempted to link the emergence of the right to accrue a penalty to the date of the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, whereas the law links it to the date the tax debt arose. The court also noted that the reflection of the penalty in the taxpayer’s integrated card after the commencement of proceedings is merely an accounting operation, and not a legal fact creating a new right to accrual. Thus, the courts of lower instances correctly established that for all claims asserted by the tax authority, the 1095-day period had expired long before the start of the bankruptcy procedure. In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the position that a moratorium cannot be a ground for resuming the accrual of a penalty that was already hopeless by virtue of law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the tax authority’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the refusal to recognize claims regarding the annulled penalty.
Case No. 914/1871/25 of 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the customer’s claim for the return of cargo unjustifiably withheld by the carrier and the carrier’s counterclaim for the collection of debt for transportation services and cargo storage expenses.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that a contract of carriage is considered performed upon the arrival of the cargo at the destination, and the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods obligated the carrier to return the cargo to the sender in accordance with the Rules of Cargo Transportation. Since the carrier arbitrarily withheld the cargo at its own base instead of returning it, the court deemed such actions baseless, which creates restitutionary obligations under Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the contractual relations terminated at the moment of refusal to fulfill the new delivery terms, therefore the legal basis for withholding the property had lapsed. Regarding the counterclaim, the court recognized the carrier’s right to payment for services actually rendered along the primary route, but refused to collect storage costs, as the withholding of the cargo was unlawful. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of third-party rights, pointing out that the court’s conclusions in the reasoning part do not have prejudicial significance for persons who did not participate in the case.
3. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim for the return of property was satisfied, and the counterclaim was satisfied only in the part regarding the collection of the cost of the primary transportation.
Case No. 734/2131/25 of 09/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is the convicted person’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellateof the court regarding the sentencing for draft evasion during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
When considering this case, the Supreme Court was guided by the principles of individualization of punishment and fair justice. The Court acknowledged that the lower courts had taken a formalistic approach to the issue of sentencing, failing to give due weight to the defendant’s family circumstances. In particular, it was taken into account that the defendant is the sole caregiver for two children, one of whom suffers from severe chronic illnesses, and that at the time of the proceedings, he had obtained a legal deferment from mobilization. The Court emphasized that the purpose of sentencing is not only punishment but also rehabilitation, which in this case is possible without the actual isolation of the individual from society. Considering the defendant’s lack of a criminal record and the non-grave nature of the committed offense, the panel of judges concluded that the application of a probationary period was appropriate. Thus, the Court exercised its discretionary powers to ensure the humanity of the criminal law in specific life circumstances.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the judicial decisions regarding the sentencing and releasing the defendant from serving the sentence with a probationary period pursuant to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 753/440/25 dated 09/17/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling concerning a person convicted of illegal production, manufacturing, acquisition, storage, transportation, or shipment for the purpose of sale of narcotic drugs, and illegal production, manufacturing, acquisition, transportation, shipment, storage for the purpose of sale, or the sale of poisonous or potent substances.
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that the appellate court, during the review of the first-instance court’s verdict, committed significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law. The court of cassation established that the appellate court failed to provide a proper assessment of all arguments set forth in the prosecution’s appeal, which is mandatory to ensure the right to a fair trial. In particular, the requirements for the completeness and comprehensiveness of the examination of the circumstances of the case, which affect the correct qualification of the defendant’s actions and the imposition of a sentence, were ignored. The Supreme Court emphasized that the ruling of an appellate court must be reasoned and contain exhaustive responses to the arguments of the parties, which was not done in this instance. Consequently, to rectify the committed violations and ensure the legality of the judicial decision, the case files require a new appellate review. This approach is consistent with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of adhering to standards of substantiation for judicial decisions.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.appellate instance.
Case No. 922/2484/24 dated 09/16/2026
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s demand to remove obstacles for the state in the use and disposal of a civil defense structure by declaring the order on the privatization of the property invalid and recognizing the state’s ownership of these premises.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the need to adhere to the principle of legal certainty and the stability of civil relations arising from privatization processes. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the legal grounds for JSC “Ukrtelecom” to acquire ownership of the disputed property, considering the long period that had elapsed since the issuance of the property transfer order in 2003. The court concluded that the prosecutor’s choice of a remedy in the form of declaring the privatization order invalid after more than twenty years is ineffective and violates the balance of interests between a private owner and the state. An important aspect was that the defendant’s ownership of the object was formed on the basis of an act of a state body, which at that time acted within the scope of its powers. The court also took into account that the protection of state interests cannot be carried out through groundless interference with the property rights of a person who has been in good-faith possession of the property for a long time. Thus, the court denied the claim in the part concerning the cancellation of privatization and the recognition of ownership by the state, effectively protecting the property rights of JSC “Ukrtelecom”.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrtelecom”, overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the part regarding the satisfaction of the claims, and rendered a new decision dismissing the claim.
Case No. 911/1138/25 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation and amount of professional legal aid expenses that the prevailing party sought to recover from the opponent following appellate and cassation review.
2. The court was guided by the principle that although the right to professional legal aid is guaranteed, the amount of the attorney’s fee is not subject to unconditional reimbursement by the other party. The Grand Chamber emphasized that even in the presence of an agreement on a “fixed fee,” the court has the right to assess its reasonableness and proportionality to the complexity of the case. The court established that the submission of additional explanations and arguments was not mandatory, and the party’s legal position had been formed as early as the court of first instance. It was also taken into account that additions to the cassation appeal indicated shortcomings in the initial work of the attorneys; therefore, these expenses should not be shifted to the other party. Ultimately, the court applied the criteria of reality, necessity, and proportionality of expenses, rejecting excessive fi
