Case No. 991/11467/26 dated 09/15/2026
Unfortunately, I cannot provide an analysis of this decision because you have not provided the text of the judicial act for processing. Please attach the text of the decision, and I will immediately prepare a professional legal analysis in accordance with your requirements.
Case No. 712/10727/24 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The plaintiff demanded the removal of obstacles to the use of her household by demolishing a temporary structure (a retail pavilion) installed by the defendant (an Individual Entrepreneur) at a public transport stop adjacent to her private property.
**2. Court arguments**
* The court established that the defendant had placed the temporary structure on legal grounds, holding a valid passport of attachment and a contract for shared participation in the maintenance of an improvement object, concluded with the Cherkasy City Council.
* The key procedural violation pointed out by the appellate court was that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit only against the Individual Entrepreneur, whereas the owner of the land plot on which the structure is located is the Cherkasy City Council.
* Since the City Council was not involved in the case as a co-defendant, the court concluded that the lawsuit was filed against an improper party, which is an independent ground for denying the claims.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of ownership is protected only upon proving the fact of violation; however, in this case, the plaintiff did not ensure the proper subject composition of the participants in the case.
* Regarding the arguments about the unauthorized composition of the court, the cassation instance rejected them, confirming that the replacement of judges in the panel took place in compliance with the procedure of automated distribution due to the vacations of the previous judges.
* The court also recognized as lawful the recovery from the plaintiff of the costs for professional legal assistance, since the defendant provided evidence of incurring these expenses, and the plaintiff’s representative had the technical ability to familiarize themselves with them through the “Electronic Court” system.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the claim for the demolition of the structure.
Case No. 488/3204/25 dated 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of an heir by will to determine an additional period for submitting an application for acceptance of an inheritance due to its expiration.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that to determine an additional period, an heir must prove the existence of objective, insurmountable, and significant obstacles that made it impossible to submit an application within the six-month period established by law. In this case, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of suchobstacles, and the court found his arguments regarding lack of knowledge about the testator’s death, health condition, distance of residence, and the state of war to be insufficient. The court emphasized that an heir who knew about the existence of a will should have exercised due diligence and taken an interest in the testator’s fate. Furthermore, the plaintiff had the opportunity to submit an application by mail, yet failed to exercise this right for a long period of time. The court stressed that granting an additional period without valid grounds violates the principles of legal certainty and the rights of other persons. Consequently, the lower courts correctly concluded that there were no valid reasons for extending the period.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 918/822/23 dated 09/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of first instance leaving without consideration a creditor’s application for the review of a ruling on opening bankruptcy proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances, as well as the issue of compliance with the rules of automated distribution of cases during changes in bankruptcy judicial procedures.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that after the appellate instance overturned the ruling on approving the rehabilitation plan, the case was subject to mandatory automated distribution among all judges of the relevant specialization, rather than automatic return to the previously assigned judge.
– Since the local court’s ruling was issued by a judge who had effectively lost the authority to hear this case due to a violation of the distribution procedure, the appellate court rightfully overturned it as having been rendered by an unauthorized composition of the court.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that violation of the rules for automated distribution of cases constitutes a significant breach of procedural law, which entails the unconditional overturning of the court decision.
– At the same time, the appellate court correctly applied the consequences of procedural economy by independently deciding to leave the application without consideration, as the applicant themselves had submitted a corresponding motion that was not withdrawn.
– The Supreme Court noted that since the appellant themselves requested to have their application left without consideration, such a court decision does not violate their rights and does not prevent a repeated application to the court.
– The cassation instance stated that the appellant’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the court of first instance’s composition are well-founded; however, they do not provide grounds for overturning the appellate court’s resolution, which essentially resolved the matter in accordance with procedural law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the North-western Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 718/1251/25 dated 09/09/2026
Vi1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Collection of debt from the defendant (State Agency for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure) under a construction contract for the capital repair of a highway, where the works were certified by the plaintiff unilaterally.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court determined that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact of actual performance of the works in the claimed volume, as the provided documentation was incomplete and lacked clear dates of performance.
– A key factor was the customer’s inability to verify the quality and volume of the works, as the construction site was located in a temporarily occupied territory at the time the certificates were submitted.
– The court emphasized that the right to unilateral signing of a completion certificate arises only under the condition of actual performance of works and the absence of a justified refusal by the customer; however, in this situation, the customer’s refusal was entirely lawful due to the objective impossibility of inspecting the object.
– The plaintiff breached contractual deadlines for submitting documents for signature, which deprived the customer of the opportunity to accept the works prior to the commencement of active hostilities.and occupation.
– The Court rejected the expert report because it was based solely on documents without an on-site inspection of the object, which constitutes a critical flaw under martial law conditions.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the standard of proof of the probability of evidence, having evaluated all circumstances in their totality.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances, which dismissed the claim, and also supported the decision on the restitution of execution of the previous court judgment in favor of the defendant.
Case No. 922/1856/22 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, which was predicated on an expert study that the applicant attempted to use to refute facts previously established by the court.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Court emphasized that newly discovered circumstances are facts that existed at the time of the case consideration but were not and could not have been known to the applicant. In this case, the applicant provided an expert report prepared after the decision had already been rendered, which is essentially an attempt to introduce new evidence rather than newly discovered circumstances. The Court noted that the party had the opportunity to initiate an expert examination during the initial consideration of the case but did not exercise this right. The Court also emphasized that allegations of falsification of evidence require confirmation by a court verdict within the framework of criminal proceedings, which was not provided. Review based on newly discovered circumstances cannot be a tool for re-evaluating evidence or re-adjudicating the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Court deemed the consideration of the case by the appellate instance without the presence of the applicant’s representative to be lawful, as the latter had been duly notified, and the risks of technical malfunctions during a videoconference rest with the party that initiated it.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/207/25 dated 09/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed this decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for you. Here is the essence of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff (a judge) challenged the results of a qualification examination, arguing that the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) use of an “unforeseen” court case for a practical task and the lack of a detailed justification for the scores violated their rights.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the HQCJ’s authority regarding the evaluation of candidates is discretionary, and judicial review is limited only to verifying compliance with procedures, rather than re-evaluating a candidate’s professional knowledge.
– The Grand Chamber confirmed that the list of case[…], provided to the candidates for preparation, was of an auxiliary nature, and the use of another case does not violate the principle of equality, as it is the candidate’s ability to apply legal principles that is being tested, not their memory.
– The Court noted that current legislation does not require the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to provide a component-wise justification for each score awarded, as the assessment is based on the inner conviction of the commission members.
– It was established that the mechanism for re-evaluating examination papers is applied only in the event of significant discrepancies in the assessments made by commission members (20% or more), which was not the case for the plaintiff.
– The Court also pointed out a logical contradiction in the plaintiff’s arguments: even if his second task had been awarded the maximum score, his total score would still not have reached the passing threshold.
– Finally, the Court emphasized that since the plaintiff did not lose his position as a judge, but merely failed to pass a stage of the competition, this does not constitute an interference with his private life or professional activities that would require deeper judicial intervention.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/21/23 dated 09/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to secure a claim by suspending the effect of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) decision on the application of sanctions against the plaintiff.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the application of sanctions is an inseparable process: an NSDC decision becomes mandatory only after it is enacted by the corresponding Decree of the President of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that procedural legislation (Art. 151 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine) expressly prohibits securing a claim by suspending acts of the President of Ukraine. Furthermore, suspending an NSDC decision, which is not an independent subject of appeal within the framework of this claim, is also prohibited by law, as it effectively blocks the execution of the Presidential Decree. The Court emphasized that securing a claim cannot substitute for resolving the dispute on its merits. It was also noted that the refusal to secure the claim does not violate a person’s right to access to justice, as the consideration of the case on its merits is ongoing. Finally, the Court confirmed that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is inadmissible in view of the imperative norms of administrative proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to secure the claim.
Case No. 990/43/24 dated 09/17/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenging of actions and decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ), performed within the framework of the qualification assessment procedure ab…regarding the selection of judges.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, while reviewing an appeal filed by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ), concluded that this dispute cannot be adjudicated under administrative procedure. The Court’s rationale was that the powers of the HQCJ within the scope of relevant procedures are discretionary and aimed at exercising constitutional functions regarding the formation of the judiciary. It was established that such decisions are not subject to judicial review in administrative courts, as they do not constitute individual administrative acts within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, but rather pertain exclusively to the professional evaluation of candidates. The Court emphasized that judicial interference in the discretionary powers of the HQCJ violates the principle of the separation of powers. Accordingly, the legal nature of the disputed relations precludes their resolution through adversarial proceedings, which are intended for the protection of violated rights within the framework of public law disputes. Thus, the Court concluded that the case is not subject to adjudication under administrative procedure, which constitutes an absolute ground for the termination of proceedings.
The Court decided to partially satisfy the appeal filed by the HQCJ, to set aside the decision of the court of first instance, and to terminate the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 910/15948/24 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of joint and several damages from two defendants in connection with the destruction of mortgage collateral, which, according to the plaintiff, was unlawful and rendered the satisfaction of the creditor’s claims impossible.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court established that the mortgagor (PJSC “Ukrpromteplytsia”) breached the terms of the mortgage agreement by demolishing buildings without the mortgagee’s consent and failing to provide proper notification thereof.
– Regarding the second defendant (PJSC “HC ‘Kyivmiskbud'”), the Court concluded that it was not aware of the specific contractual obligations between the plaintiff and the mortgagor, and the mere fact of an encumbrance in the Register is not a sufficient ground to automatically find it liable for damages.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that for joint and several liability under Article 1190 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, “joint” action is required, i.e., a unity of intent or the indivisibility of the result of wrongful acts, which was not proven in the relations with the developer.
– The Court stressed that the determination of the proper defendant is the duty of the court, and in this case, the developer cannot be held liable for the breach of mortgage obligations that arose exclusively between the mortgagor and the mortgagee.
– The cassation appeal of the first defendant was partially dismissed, as references to the practice of the Supreme Court concerned dissimilar legal relations, and arguments regarding the re-evaluation of evidence exceeded the powers of the court of cassation.
– Ultimately, the Court differentiated the liability, leaving…the obligation to indemnify damages rests solely with the mortgagor who directly breached the terms of the agreement.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially upheld the cassation appeal of PrJSC “HC “Kyivmiskbud”, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of damages from this company and adopting a new decision to dismiss the claim against it, while upholding the recovery of damages exclusively from PrJSC “Ukrpromteplytsia”.
Case No. 2-44/2011(1) of 16/09/2026
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 of the dispute:** Appealing the refusal of lower courts to replace a party in the case (procedural succession) and to open proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances after the completion of the case hearing on the merits.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural succession is derived from substantive succession and can be carried out at any stage of the judicial process, including the stage of reviewing a decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously believed that after the adoption of a final decision, the replacement of a party is impossible, thereby effectively depriving the successor of access to justice. The Court stressed that a successor acquires all the procedural rights of its predecessor; therefore, it has the right to initiate a review of the case. Accordingly, the court of first instance is obliged to first consider the issue of replacing the party (procedural succession) and only then resolve the issue of opening proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances. The Court indicated that a successor to a participant in a case has the right to file an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances, departing from a narrow interpretation according to which only persons who participated in the case at the time of its hearing have this right. The courts did not duly examine the evidence of succession and did not clarify whether the applicant is indeed the successor of the persons who held the status of participants in the case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case to the court of first instance to continue the proceedings and resolve the issue of opening proceedings based on the application of the successor.
Case No. 824/84/25 of 17/09/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by a party during the appellate review of the case in the Supreme Court.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that expenses for legal assistance are subject to reimbursement if they are documented and commensurate with the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that according to the adversarial principle, it is the party objecting to the recovery of expenses that bears the burden of proving theirdisproportionality. Since the applicant provided proper evidence of the services rendered (the agreement, the certificate of work performed, and proof of payment), and the debtor failed to provide any substantiated objections regarding the amount of these expenses, the court found them to be justified. The court also took into account the criteria of reasonableness and fairness, evaluating the scope of work performed by the attorney, which consisted of preparing a response to the appeal and legal representation in the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot act as an initiator of the reduction of expenses if the other party has not expressed relevant substantiated objections. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant’s claims regarding the compensation for legal assistance expenses in the court of appellate instance should be satisfied in full.
The court decided to grant the motion and recover from the debtor in favor of the claimant 1,500 euros in professional legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 757/35073/21-ts 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 breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An employee challenged their dismissal due to staff reduction, demanding reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism due to the employer’s improper performance of the duty to offer vacant positions.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the employer violated Article 49-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, as it did not offer the employee all available vacancies that appeared in the enterprise during the two-month notice period for dismissal.
– The appellate court correctly determined that reinstatement is an imperative consequence of an unlawful dismissal; therefore, reinstating the employee to the position held prior to dismissal does not constitute exceeding the scope of the claims.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that reinstatement consists of returning the employee to the same position held previously, and this is not an appointment procedure falling under the employer’s discretion.
– Regarding the recovery of earnings for the entire period of absenteeism (over one year), the court analyzed the chronology of events and found no evidence that the delay in the case proceedings was the fault of the plaintiff.
– The court emphasized that the lack of proper notification of the plaintiff regarding court hearings in the court of first instance precludes holding the plaintiff responsible for the duration of the proceedings.
– Thus, the court concluded that there are no grounds for reducing the amount of the average earnings payment, as the balance of interests of the parties was not disturbed by bad-faith actions of the employee.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which reinstated the plaintiff to the position and ordered the recovery in his favor of average earnings for the entire period of forced absenteeism in the amount of over 3 million hryvnias.
Case No. 522/22370/23 dated 21/09/2026
GreetAs a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
**1. Subject of the Dispute:**
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court to remove her brother from the right to intestate succession following the death of their mother, arguing that he had evaded providing assistance to the decedent, who was in a helpless state during her lifetime.
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
* The court emphasized that removal from inheritance is an exceptional measure, applied only in the presence of a combination of three conditions: evasion of providing assistance, the decedent being in a helpless state, and the need for assistance specifically from that person.
* The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the defendant intentionally evaded the obligation to care for their mother while having the actual ability to provide such assistance.
* The court established that the existence of the defendant’s criminal records or hostile relations between relatives is not, in itself, a legal basis for depriving him of the right to inheritance.
* Witness testimonies provided by the plaintiff were assessed by the court as insufficient to confirm the fact of the defendant’s culpable inaction.
* The court noted that the fact of the decedent’s inpatient treatment is not automatic proof of her “helpless state” within the meaning of Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* The court also emphasized that the fact that one heir (the plaintiff) provided assistance does not create an automatic obligation to remove another heir from inheritance, provided that his intentional evasion of duties has not been proven.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances properly assessed the evidence and did not commit any violations of substantive or procedural law.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit unchanged.
[Case No. 607/15144/20 of 09/09/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/139924670)
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed this Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decision for you. This is a precedent-setting case that clearly delineates the boundaries of state intervention in the affairs of religious organizations.
**1. Subject of the Dispute:**
A former nun filed a lawsuit against a monastery to remove obstacles to the use of a cell (residential premises), demanding to be granted unimpeded access to the premises and keys to it.
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
* The court confirmed that the presence of a religious element does not deprive a person of the right to judicial protection if they substantiate their claims with norms of national, and not merely canonical, law.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized the principle of autonomy of religious organizations: a secular court has no right to interfere in internal church matters, such as monastic discipline, the status of a monk, or the rules of residence in a cloister (enclosed territory).
* The court established that a cell in a monastery has a special functional status, which is not identical toordinary housing, as its use is inextricably linked to the performance of monastic duties.
* The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an independent civil law title (tenancy agreement, easement, etc.) to the use of this property that would exist independently of her status as a member of the monastic order.
* Registration of a place of residence at the monastery’s address does not, by itself, create a right of ownership or a right to use a specific premises if other legal grounds are absent.
* The court concluded that the forced eviction of a person who is no longer a member of the monastic community into a monastery cell would be a gross interference with the property rights of the religious organization and the freedom of religion of other monks.
* Thus, the courts of lower instances erroneously equated the fact of prior residence with the existence of a permanent right to housing.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision, in which it fully denied the former nun’s claims.
****
In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous position set forth by the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court on June 12, 2023, clarifying the limits of the jurisdiction of national courts in disputes concerning the internal life of religious organizations and their property.
Case No. 524/3244/23 of 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the recovery of debt under a repayable financial assistance agreement and counterclaims to recognize this agreement as a sham transaction, which allegedly concealed a mandate agreement for the transfer of funds to a third party.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction (Art. 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), noting that an agreement is valid until proven otherwise.
– The counter-plaintiff did not provide any proper evidence that she acted as an intermediary or transferred the received funds to a third party.
– The fact of actual receipt of funds into a bank account was confirmed by payment documents, which indicates that the company fulfilled its obligations.
– The court rejected the arguments regarding the “commercial” nature of the dispute, confirming the correctness of considering the case under civil procedure, as the parties acted as natural persons.
– The courts of lower instances correctly applied the provisions on liability for delay in a monetary obligation (Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), taking into account the period of martial law.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the authority to reassess evidence, and the appellant’s arguments amount solely to disagreement with the assessment provided by the lower courts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and the decisiondecisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the recovery of debt, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum — remain unchanged.
Case No. 916/2045/26 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of applying measures to secure a claim by way of seizing real estate objects (warehouses), which the prosecutor considers to have been constructed without a permit on state-owned land.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of securing a claim is a tool for preventing situations where the enforcement of a court decision becomes impossible or significantly complicated. The panel of judges stressed that the seizure of property is a temporary measure that does not deprive the owner of the right of use, but only limits the disposal of it, which is proportionate to the protection of state interests. The Court found the appellate court’s conclusion that the lack of state registration of ownership of the objects makes the seizure impossible to be erroneous. On the contrary, it is the potential possibility of such registration and subsequent alienation of the property to third parties that creates real risks for the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The Supreme Court supported the position that seizure is an appropriate way to prevent registration actions that could complicate the enforcement of a future decision. Thus, the court of cassation instance confirmed that security measures must be aimed at preserving the property until the completion of judicial proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the seizure of the disputed objects.
Case No. 394/15/25 dated 09/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought through the court to determine the child’s place of residence with him and to establish the legal fact of the father solely maintaining and raising the child.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The court proceeded from the premise that the family responsibilities of parents are inalienable, and their non-performance by one of the parents must be proven by proper evidence, rather than solely by the fact of living abroad. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of the mother being in another country does not indicate her evasion of parental duties, as she may maintain contact with the child remotely. The court also noted that establishing the legal fact of sole upbringing is possible only when there is evidence of the termination or limitation of the mother’s parental rights, for example, through their deprivation or the declaration of her as legally incapacitated. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the mother had removed herself from the upbringing, the court concluded that the parents’ duties remain equal. Furthermore,The court indicated that the issue of determining the place of residence of a child who has reached the age of 14 shall be resolved by taking into account their free choice, and not solely through a judicial lawsuit. Thus, the courts of lower instances correctly evaluated the evidence, finding no grounds to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged.
Case No. 521/19110/25 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the situation:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of an appellate complaint by the court of appellate instance due to partial failure to remedy defects (non-payment of the court fee and the absence of a corresponding motion).
2. In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of ensuring the right to appellate review, which is one of the key pillars of judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that procedural restrictions should not turn into excessive formalism that blocks access to justice. In this case, the appellant partially fulfilled the court’s requirements by filing an updated complaint; however, she technically failed to attach a motion for exemption from paying the fee, although she mentioned it in the text. The Supreme Court emphasized that in such cases, the court should not automatically return the complaint, but must act proportionally. Specifically, the court of appellate instance had the right and duty to extend the period for remedying the defects, providing the person with the opportunity to correct a technical error. Since the appellate court limited itself to a formal return of documents, this was recognized as a violation of procedural norms that hinders access to court.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance to resolve the issue of initiating appellate proceedings.
Case No. 520/5026/22 dated 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 520/5026/22:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual of penalties by the tax authority in the amount of 75% of the tax amount for the late payment of Personal Income Tax (PIT) and military levy due to the application of the qualifying feature of “repeat” commission of an offense.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that for the application of the increased penalty rate (75%) under Clause 125-1.4 of Article 125-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, a mandatory condition is the existence of facts of holding the taxpayer liable for similar actions at least twice within 1095 days. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere recording of violations in audit reports is not a sufficient basis for qualifying an act as “repeated,” since the legal fact of holding someone liable is the actual issuance of tax assessment notices (TANs). Since the tax authority did not provide evidence that the enterprise had previously received TANs for
