Case No. 991/8352/25 dated 09/14/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 991/8352/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of first instance correcting its own decision on the recovery of unjustified assets under the guise of rectifying a mathematical error, which effectively resulted in changing the amount of recovery.
2. The appellate court concluded that the actions of the court of first instance were unlawful because they went beyond the procedure for correcting mathematical errors. The appellate court emphasized that a mathematical error is a purely technical failure in calculations (for example, a missing digit or an error in addition), rather than a change in the initial data or the calculation methodology. In this case, the court of first instance effectively revised its own findings regarding the value of the assets subject to recovery, reducing the amount by more than 900 thousand hryvnias. Such interference violates the principle of the immutability of a judicial decision and legal certainty, as the court does not have the right to change the essence of an adopted decision under the guise of correcting clerical errors. The appellate court stressed that a correction should not affect the substance of the decision or the established factual circumstances. Thus, changing the recovery amount is not a technical correction but a de facto change to the decision, which is prohibited by procedural law in such a manner.
3. The appellate court granted the prosecutor’s appeal and set aside the ruling of the court of first instance on the correction of the mathematical error, upholding the original court decision.
Case No. 904/5254/24 dated 09/16/2026
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:** The plaintiff challenged the decision of the company’s general meeting regarding her dismissal from the position of director, demanding reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism due to an alleged violation of the procedure for convening the meeting and the agenda.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the issue of the plaintiff’s dismissal was clearly indicated on the agenda; therefore, she was duly notified and had the opportunity to participate in the meeting.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural decisions made at a meeting to implement the main issue (in particular, determining the date of dismissal and the status of the director during the transition period) are not separate issues requiring separate inclusion in the agenda.
* The court took into account that the company acted in good faith: it cancelled the previous dismissal order issued during the plaintiff’s sick leave and recalculated the wages, which effectively protected her labor rights.
* The plaintiff’s assertion that the meeting was convened by an unauthorized person was rejected, because at the time the meeting was held, the decision on the appointment of a newthe director was in effect and had not been revoked.
* The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s formal objections do not demonstrate an actual violation of her rights, as she failed to prove that the cancellation of the contested decisions would result in her reinstatement to the position or other legal consequences.
* In general, the court concluded that the company’s actions were aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty rather than restricting the corporate rights of the participant.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had denied the claim.
Case No. 500/1938/16 of 09/23/2026
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 of the Dispute:** The Izmail City Council filed a lawsuit against a citizen for the demolition of an unauthorized apartment building constructed on a land plot designated for individual housing construction.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the construction is unauthorized based on three key indicators: the lack of land plot zoning for multi-apartment construction, the absence of proper permits, and the absence of an approved project.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases where an object is built without permits or on a plot not allocated for such purposes, demolition is possible without a prior court decision mandating the developer to carry out reconstruction.
– The court rejected arguments regarding the impossibility of demolition due to the fact that the apartments already belong to third parties, noting that the registration of ownership rights to an unauthorized object does not alter its legal status.
– It was highlighted that the developer acted in bad faith, ignoring orders from regulatory authorities and continuing construction; therefore, the risks associated with this cannot be shifted onto the state or the community.
– The court noted that the public interest in compliance with urban planning legislation and the city’s Master Plan outweighs the private interests of individuals who purchased real estate in such a building.
– It is important that the court found no grounds for applying the principle of proportionality in favor of the developer, as the latter knowingly violated the law, and third parties had the opportunity to verify the legality of the construction prior to purchase.
– The Supreme Court stated that the lower courts had erroneously applied the provisions regarding the “possibility of reconstruction,” which relate only to cases of minor deviations from the project, rather than the complete absence of legal grounds for construction.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision granting the city council’s claim, ordering the defendant to demolish the unauthorized construction at their own expense.
Crights No. 910/6702/22 (910/6634/25) dated 09/15/2026
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 matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff (a sole proprietor) attempted to invalidate a 2007 loan agreement, on the basis of which another creditor included their claims in the register of creditors’ claims in the debtor’s insolvency proceedings.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the fact of the existence of the debt under the loan agreement dated 03/22/2007 had already been confirmed by court decisions in civil cases that entered into legal force back in 2013 and 2017.
* In accordance with Part 4 of Article 75 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, circumstances established in such decisions do not require re-proving.
* The court emphasized that the consideration of a claim regarding the invalidity of a transaction within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings is a separate adversarial proceeding, where the plaintiff did not provide new evidence that would refute the reality of the concluded agreement.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish circumstances that have already been examined by the courts of lower instances.
* The appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures were recognized as groundless, since the subject of this dispute is the validity of the transaction itself, and not the consideration of creditors’ claims as such.
* The court also rejected the reference to the practice of the Supreme Court, noting that the circumstances in the cases cited by the appellant are not identical to the circumstances of this case.
* In conclusion, the court came to the conclusion that the appealed decisions are lawful, and the plaintiff’s attempts to revise previously established facts have no legal basis.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances — unchanged.
Case No. 758/6121/23 dated 09/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerns the recognition of the mortgagee’s right to real estate and the invalidation of a mortgage agreement concluded after previous entries regarding the mortgage were canceled in the State Register.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances made a mistake by focusing exclusively on the presence or absence of entries in the State Register of Proprietary Rights. The court emphasized that a mortgage has a derivative nature from the principal obligation, therefore its validity depends on the actual performance of the loan agreement, and not only on the status of the register. The courts did not examine the key issue: whether the principal obligation was actually performed, which is the basis for the termination of the mortgage according to the law. It was also noted that the absence of an entry in the register does not mean automatic terminationtermination of the mortgage right if the principal debt has not been repaid. The court emphasized that the lower courts demonstrated “excessive formalism” by dismissing the plaintiff’s arguments without a proper analysis of the evidence. As a result, due to the incompleteness of the establishment of the actual circumstances of the case, the decisions of the lower courts were deemed premature and unfounded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, remanding the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 922/3314/21 dated 09/24/2026
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of funds in the amount of over 47 million hryvnias from JSC “Ukrainian Railways” in favor of individual entrepreneur Vasylevskyi V. Ya.
When rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and comprehensive examination of the case materials, having verified the arguments of the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railways” for compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The panel of judges concluded that the courts of lower instances had correctly established the actual circumstances of the case, having provided a proper legal assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. The Supreme Court found no violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for setting aside the challenged court decisions. The appellant’s arguments were found to be unfounded, as they amounted to a re-evaluation of evidence, which, according to procedural law, is beyond the authority of the court of cassation instance. Thus, the court confirmed the validity of the entrepreneur’s claims and the lawfulness of the previous judicial acts.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railways” and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 916/2869/25 dated 09/22/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of 137,851,545.88 UAH, which arose between business entities in the sphere of natural gas supply and distribution.
2. When rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle of mandatory performance of contractual obligations provided for by the norms of the Civil and Commercial Codes of Ukraine. The panel of judges carefully verified the lower courts’ compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law when evaluating the evidence provided by the parties. The court concluded that the appellate instance had correctly established the actual circumstances of the case, and the appellant’s arguments did not refute the lawfulness of the findings regarding the existence of the debt. It was confirmed that there are no legal grounds to exempt the defendant from liability for the non-performance of a monetary obligation. The court also took into account the position of the third party, which confirmed the validity of the claims. Consequently, the cassation instance found no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence oramendments to the already adopted decision, as it meets the requirements of legality and validity.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the commercial court of appeal without changes.
Case No. 44/282-b (911/2307/23) dated 09/15/2026
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 matter of the dispute:** Recognition of ownership of non-residential premises by acquisitive prescription within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
2. **Court arguments:** The court established that the plaintiff had actually possessed and used the premises openly, continuously, and in good faith for almost 20 years, which significantly exceeds the 15-year period established by law. An important factor was that the defendant, throughout this entire time, did not take any actions regarding the return of the property, its maintenance, or servicing, which effectively indicates their acknowledgment of the transfer of ownership. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the existence of a “defective” legal title, noting that the owner’s prolonged passive attitude toward their property confirms the plaintiff’s right to legitimize ownership through acquisitive prescription. The court also emphasized that previous court decisions referenced by the defendant did not concern the issue of acquisitive prescription and therefore do not constitute an obstacle to satisfying the claim. The Supreme Court stressed that the reassessment of evidence does not fall within its competence, and the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law by establishing all necessary conditions for the acquisition of ownership by prescription.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 757/51334/18-ts dated 09/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Invalidation of a declarative patent for a utility model due to its non-compliance with patentability conditions (in particular, the lack of industrial applicability).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the contested utility model lacks a set of features aimed at achieving a technical result and, in fact, describes only methods of organizational and intellectual activity.
– The key evidence was the conclusion of a repeated judicial commission examination, which was appointed by the court specifically to resolve contradictions between the previous expert studies of the parties.
– The court emphasized that an expert’s conclusion does not have predetermined force; however, in this case, it was recognized as complete, well-grounded, and not contradicting other materials of the case.
– The defendants did not provide proper evidence, such asand would refute the results of this forensic examination or cast reasonable doubt upon them.
– The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the necessity of appointing another expert examination, as the grounds for doing so, provided for by procedural law, were absent.
– The courts of lower instances provided a proper assessment of all evidence in its entirety, rather than relying solely on one expert opinion, which complies with the requirements of civil procedural legislation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to invalidate the patent.
Case No. 347/1588/25 dated 09/24/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the accusation of two individuals of committing a criminal offense provided for in Part 1 of Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of weapons, ammunition, or explosives).
2. The Supreme Court reviewed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, who insisted on the illegality of the appellate instance’s decision. Within the scope of its powers defined by Articles 433 and 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of cassation verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law. Since the operative part indicates the cancellation of the appellate court’s ruling, this confirms that the court identified significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law that prevented the adoption of a lawful and reasoned decision. The court concluded that the appellate court did not fully fulfill its duties regarding the verification of the parties’ arguments and the assessment of the circumstances of the case. Therefore, to ensure the right to a fair trial and the proper examination of evidence, the case materials require a re-examination in appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 466/3927/25 dated 09/16/2026
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:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the appellate court’s decision to leave the appellate appeal of a legal entity without consideration due to its lack of a registered electronic cabinet in the ESITS system.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a fundamental component of the right to judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The court established that the respondent demonstrated active procedural conduct, attempted to rectify the shortcomings, and provided explanations regarding technical difficulties in registering the cabinet related to the collegiate governing body and data in the Unified State Register. The Supreme Court emphasized that non-registration of an electronic…Cabinet, in the presence of objective technical obstacles, cannot be automatically equated to an abuse of procedural rights. The appellate court erroneously qualified the company’s actions as an abuse, as there is no evidence in the case file of intentional evasion of procedural obligations. On the contrary, the defendant’s genuine interest in having the case heard on its merits indicates the absence of any intent to delay the proceedings. Thus, the appellate court’s application of the extreme measure of leaving the appeal without consideration was recognized as excessive formalism, which violates the right of access to justice.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further proceedings.
Case No. 990/176/23 of 09/22/2026
The subject of the dispute is a challenge by a French citizen to a Decree of the President of Ukraine regarding the application of sanctions against him, which was subject to consideration in administrative proceedings.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the need for a clear distinction between methods of protection of violated rights in cases involving the challenging of individual acts of the Head of State. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that, within the framework of administrative proceedings concerning Presidential decrees on the application of sanctions, the court has the right to revoke such acts rather than declare them “ineffective” (void). Declaring an act ineffective, by its legal nature, is inherent in cases challenging normative legal acts, whereas a decree on sanctions is an individual act. The Court emphasized that selecting the proper method of protection is critical to ensuring the effectiveness of a judicial decision and its subsequent enforcement. Thus, the wording of the operative part of the first-instance court’s decision was adjusted to bring it into compliance with the requirements of procedural law. This decision is aimed at unifying judicial practice in cases concerning the challenging of decisions of the National Security and Defense Council put into effect by Presidential decrees.
The Court partially granted the appeal of the President of Ukraine, changing the wording of the operative part of the first-instance court’s decision from “declare ineffective” to “revoke.”
Case No. 910/10997/23 of 09/24/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under an insurance contract between Agaris Myco Ukraine LLC and PrJSC “IC “PZU Ukraine.”
2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle of the rule of law and strict compliance with the terms of the insurance contract concluded between the parties. The Supreme Court analyzed the case file and concluded that the first-instance and appellate courts correctly established the factual circumstances, providing them with a proper legal assessment. In particular, it wasit has been established that there are no legal grounds to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims due to the failure to prove the occurrence of an insured event or a breach of contract terms by the insurer. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the circumstances relied upon by a party lies with the plaintiff, who, in this case, failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. It was also taken into account that the lower courts did not commit violations of substantive or procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning their decisions. As a result, the cassation court confirmed the legality and validity of the previous judicial acts, finding no grounds for their review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 910/14720/25 dated 09/22/2026
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:** Recovery from the defendant of unjustifiably acquired funds in the amount of 4,293,092.31 UAH, which were received by the defendant under a bank guarantee as a result of filing an unfounded demand.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the bank guarantee secured the performance of obligations under a contract for the supply of a specific volume of goods (293.605 tons), which the plaintiff fulfilled in full and on time.
* The supplementary agreement, which increased the supply volume by 57.5 tons, did not change the terms of the performance security; therefore, this guarantee did not extend to the new volume of goods.
* Since the plaintiff duly fulfilled the primary obligation secured by the guarantee, the defendant’s demand to the bank for payment was groundless.
* The court emphasized that although a guarantee is an independent obligation in the relationship between the bank and the beneficiary, in the relationship between the beneficiary (defendant) and the principal (plaintiff), the use of the guarantee must be based on an actual breach of the secured obligation.
* The absence of a legal basis for receiving funds under the guarantee gives the principal the right to demand their return from the beneficiary on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (unjust enrichment).
* Regarding legal aid expenses, the court noted that their amount must be reasonable, commensurate with the complexity of the case, and confirmed by proper evidence; therefore, it partially satisfied the claims for their recovery, rejecting excessive amounts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claims for the recovery of funds and legal expenses were satisfied.
Case No. 297/3419/24 dated 09/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court resolution provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your inf1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Verification of the legality of a person’s conviction under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal sale of narcotic drugs) based on the defense’s arguments regarding the lack of intent to sell and violations of the evidence collection procedure.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the appeal, failing to provide exhaustive answers to key defense arguments. In particular, the lower courts did not establish the exact weight of the pure narcotic substance, excluding the weight of packaging materials, which is critical for the qualification of the crime. The Court also pointed to the need for a thorough analysis of the testimony of accomplices who entered into plea agreements with the prosecutor, as such testimony may be driven by procedural self-interest. The Supreme Court stressed that a verdict cannot be based on assumptions, and the materials of covert investigative (search) actions (NSRD) did not contain direct evidence of the convicted person’s intent specifically for sale. The court of appeal also ignored the defense’s arguments regarding the convicted person’s lack of specialized equipment for packaging drugs. Ultimately, the Court noted that during the new trial, the appellate court must verify the admissibility of the search protocol due to possible procedural violations during its execution.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and remanded the case for a new trial in the court of appellate instance, while selecting a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention in custody.
Case No. 752/4029/23 dated 08/12/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the state registration of ownership rights to a residential building, which the plaintiff considers to be unauthorized construction on a municipal land plot, and demands regarding the vacation of said plot.
2. When rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following main arguments:
* The Court established a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction: claims against a legal entity (the intermediate acquirer) regarding the cancellation of registration actions must be considered under the rules of commercial, rather than civil proceedings; therefore, the proceedings in this part were closed.
* Regarding the claim for the cancellation of registration against the initial acquirer, the Court applied the principle of dispositivity: since the initial acquirer did not appeal the appellate ruling, and the final acquirer has no authority to act on their behalf, there are no grounds for overturning the decision in this part.
* A key procedural violation by the court of appeal was identified as the failure to send the defendant (the final acquirer) a copy of the appellate complaint with attachments and the ruling on the commencement of proceedings.
* The Court emphasized that the presumption of proper notification of a court hearing does not replace the court’s duty to ensure that a party has a real opportunity to familiarize themselves with the opponent’s position and submit a response.
* Failure to fulfill this duty violates the principles of equality of parties and adversarial proceedings, which constitutes an unconditionalgrounds for overturning the court decision regarding the claims against the final acquirer.
* At the same time, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been properly notified of the hearing date, therefore, the arguments regarding improper notification of the case proceedings were rejected in their entirety.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it closed the proceedings regarding the claims against the legal entity, upheld the decision concerning the original acquirer, and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial regarding the claims against the final acquirer.
Case No. 990/604/25 dated 09/21/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief legal analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) declaring that she failed to confirm her ability to administer justice in an appellate court due to low scores in the criteria of personal competence, integrity, and professional ethics.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the HQCJ acts as a collegial body endowed with discretionary powers to evaluate candidates, and court interference in this evaluation is possible only in the event of obvious arbitrariness of the decision.
* A key factor was the discovery of contradictions between the documents submitted by the plaintiff (legal aid agreements with payment terms) and her tax returns, where incomes for the corresponding periods were reported as zero.
* The court deemed the HQCJ’s conclusion lawful, stating that such discrepancies raise reasonable doubts about the honesty and integrity of a candidate, which is critical for the position of a judge.
* The plaintiff’s argument regarding “double jeopardy” (taking into account the same facts under different criteria) was rejected, as the assessment of personal competence and integrity is a comprehensive process.
* The court emphasized that the HQCJ provided the candidate with sufficient opportunities to provide explanations and refute doubts during the interview; therefore, no procedural violations were established.
* The HQCJ decision was recognized as reasoned, as the Commission clearly indicated the facts that served as the basis for reducing the scores, and these conclusions are not arbitrary.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative lawsuit of PERSON_1 in its entirety.
Case No. 127/33187/23 dated 09/24/2026
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 plaintiff sought to invalidate bank transactions and compel PrivatBank to return funds debited from her accounts as a result of fraudulent activities.
2. **Court arguments:** The court established that the plaintiff had independently clicked on a phishing link received via SMS and entered her Privat24 account password on a fake website.website, thereby voluntarily granting attackers access to her accounts. Since these actions of the client directly contributed to the unlawful use of information that enabled the initiation of payment transactions, liability for the losses lies with her, not the bank. The court emphasized that the bank provided proper transaction security by employing “3D Secure” technology and acted within the scope of its authority. The prejudicial significance of circumstances established in previous court cases involving the same individual, where the fact of her reckless conduct had already been confirmed, was also taken into account. The existence of criminal proceedings regarding fraud does not exempt a client from complying with the terms of a banking services agreement. In view of this, the plaintiff’s claims were deemed unfounded and unproven.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 362/7517/23 dated 09/24/2026
Greetings. Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 362/7517/23:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of moral damages from an employer caused by the death of an employee as a result of an industrial accident.
2. The court established that the defendant failed to provide proper working conditions, which led to the tragic incident, therefore the duty to compensate for moral damages is indisputable. At the same time, when determining the amount of compensation, the appellate court took into account not only the fact of the employer’s fault but also the conduct of the deceased himself, who disregarded safety regulations and personal protective equipment. The Supreme Court supported this approach, emphasizing that the amount of compensation must conform to the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality. The court stressed that compensation should not lead to the unjustified enrichment of the plaintiffs. Since the appellate court duly assessed the depth of the relatives’ suffering and the circumstances of the event, there are no grounds for reviewing the determined amount (150,000 UAH each). The cassation instance also noted that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined by the lower courts.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 401/395/18 dated 09/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff demanded that a neighbor be compelled to dismantle a part of a building and bring the height of a fence into compliance with regulatory requirements, claiming that the unauthorized construction violated her rights to use her own house.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that the mere fact of a violation of building or sanitary regulations does not automaticallyas a ground for satisfying the claim for demolition of a structure. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the damage allegedly suffered by her property (appearance of mold, cracks, etc.). Although the expert examination confirmed certain deviations from building codes, they were not recognized as significant or as violating the plaintiff’s specific civil property rights. The court emphasized that in order to protect property rights under Article 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove actual obstruction in the use of property, and not merely a formal failure by the developer to comply with technical regulations. The court also pointed out that the reassessment of evidence already examined by the appellate court does not fall within the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the ruling of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, unchanged.
Case No. 750/11404/24 dated 09/22/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim for invalidation of a mortgage loan agreement due to alleged deception by the bank, violation of consumer rights, and non-compliance of the contract terms with legislative requirements.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction, according to which a contract is considered valid until proven otherwise. The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that his volition when signing the contract was restricted or that the bank acted with the intent to deceive him. A significant factor was that the plaintiff personally initiated the change in credit terms (a transition to a foreign currency loan) and performed obligations under the contract for a long time, which indicates his awareness of the terms. The court also drew attention to the fact that the circumstances of the case had already been the subject of review in other court proceedings, where the lawfulness of the bank’s actions was confirmed. The plaintiff’s reference to unfair business practices was rejected, as the case files do not contain confirmations of pressure or concealment of information by the financial institution. Ultimately, the court noted that the cassation appeal was effectively aimed at the reassessment of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 523/51/25 dated 09/16/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A father filed a lawsuit against the mother of the child to remove obstacles in accessing information about their common daughter, claiming that the mother, through her statements to the educational institution and other agencies, is restricting his right to obtain informationregarding the child.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the father’s right to receive information about the child is indisputable; however, the mother’s actions in submitting applications to an educational institution regarding the non-disclosure of information constitute the exercise of her statutory right to address petitions, rather than an automatic “creation of obstacles” within the meaning of family law.
– The Court noted that the direct refusal to provide information constitutes the actions of the information administrator (the educational institution) itself, and not the mother, therefore the claims against the mother to “not interfere” are legally unfounded.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s selection of a method of protection that does not lead to the restoration of the violated right is grounds for dismissal of the claim.
– It was also taken into account that the issue of the father’s participation in the child’s upbringing is already the subject of consideration in other court cases, where specific methods and procedures for providing information have been defined, which makes this lawsuit redundant.
– The Court rejected the argument regarding a jurisdictional breach, confirming that disputes between parents regarding child upbringing fall under civil jurisdiction, regardless of how exactly the mother attempts to restrict access to information.
– The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts mistakenly qualified the mother’s lawful appeals to institutions as unlawful actions that violate the father’s rights.
– In conclusion, the Court of Cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of claims against the mother, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of specific unlawful obstacles on her part that would be subject to judicial removal.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the claim to compel the mother not to interfere with the father’s access to information and issued a new decision to dismiss the claim in this part, while upholding the dismissal regarding the other claims.
[Case No. 917/119/24(917/1216/24) dated 09/15/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/140020626)
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a unilateral transaction (a statement on the set-off of homogeneous counter-claims) and the recovery of debt under a service agreement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial, as the courts failed to establish all factual circumstances necessary for a correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the court of appeal took a formalistic approach to the question of the indisputability of the claims that were set off, without assessing the plaintiff’s arguments that the leased property was under seizure and could not be used. Furthermore, the courts did not properly examine evidence regarding the status of the signatories and the validity of objections to the service acceptance certificates. In addition, the local court, when calculating the amount of…did not verify whether the recovery would lead to double recovery of funds that had already been the subject of consideration in other court cases. The Supreme Court emphasized that the indisputable nature of claims is a key condition for lawful set-off, and the courts did not establish whether these claims were truly indisputable at the time the transaction was executed. Furthermore, the appropriateness of involving certain persons as third parties without proper justification of their legal interest was called into question.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remit the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Poltava Region.
Case No. 916/1513/25 of 09/22/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief summary for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of electricity transmission services, including the principal debt, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court upheld the position of the lower courts, which refused to recover inflationary losses and 3% per annum on the amounts of “planned” payments. The Court pointed out that planned payments are of a predictive nature and are not a definitively formed monetary obligation to which liability under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine can be applied. The actual volume of services recorded in the acceptance certificates is of decisive importance, as the obligation for final settlement arises only after their signing. The Court also referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which confirmed that the accrual of penalties or inflationary losses on planned (advance) payments is unfounded. The appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous Supreme Court practice were rejected, as they were based on quotes taken out of context without taking into account the specifics of the specific legal relations. Thus, the court clearly distinguished between liability for late payment of services actually rendered and predictive planned accruals.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, denying the cassation appeal of NPC “Ukrenergo” in terms of recovering inflationary losses and 3% per annum on planned payments.
Case No. 910/6919/25 of 09/22/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of adopting an additional decision if the issue of legal costs was not resolved during the main proceedings.substantive proceedings.
2. The amount of legal assistance expenses shall be determined based on evidence confirming the scope of services rendered and their cost, as agreed upon by the parties in the contract.
3. The court emphasized that the criteria for assessing such expenses are their reality, justification, and reasonableness of the amount, which is consistent with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
4. A key point is that a reduction in the amount of legal assistance expenses is possible exclusively upon the motion of the other party, who must prove their disproportionality.
5. Since the plaintiff did not file a motion to reduce the expenses and did not provide objections regarding their amount, the court has no right to initiate such a reduction on its own.
6. Given the proven fact of the provision of services and the absence of objections from the opponent, the court recognized the claimed amount of UAH 50,000 as justified and subject to recovery.
The court granted the application of Vatzenrode LLC and recovered from Interbud Alliance LLC UAH 50,000 as compensation for professional legal assistance expenses.
**Case No. 420/25358/25 dated 09/23/2026**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the legality of fines imposed by the State Food and Consumer Service on a medical center for violations of advertising legislation, in particular due to the absence in outdoor advertising of information regarding the duration of discounts and the mandatory warning about the dangers of self-medication.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that any information containing a commercial offer (such as “10% discount”) is an advertisement, regardless of whether the business entity itself considers it as such.
– The court clearly distinguished between the concepts of “signage” and “advertisement”: if the facade displays not only the name of the establishment but also calls to receive services at a discount, this automatically falls under the scope of the Law “On Advertising.”
– It is important to conclude that the concept of an “indefinite discount” does not exist in legislation, as the very definition of a discount implies its temporary nature.
– The court emphasized that the advertiser is obliged to indicate the start and end dates of a discount directly in the advertisement so that the consumer has complete information.
– Internal company orders regarding the “indefinite” nature of discounts do not have priority over the imperative norms of the law and do not exempt from the obligation to comply with the requirements regarding the content of advertising.
– The court also noted that the assessment of the legality of the state authority’s actions is carried out exclusively on the basis of those documents that were provided to the supervisory authority during the inspection, and not those that appeared only in court.
– **Conclusion:** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position, which allowed for the possibility of interpreting price offers as “indefinite” based on internal administrative documents of a business entity, establishing that such…documents cannot supersede the legal definitions of a special law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the cancellation of the fine for the lack of discount validity periods and rendered a new decision confirming the legality of imposing the fine on the medical center.
Case No. 753/24021/17 of 09/21/2026
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:** Cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, by which the convicted persons were released from punishment for official forgery (Part 1, Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the institutions of release from criminal liability and release from punishment, noting that the appellate court applied specifically Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which does not require the consent of the accused.
– The Court confirmed that the minutes of a commission meeting are an official document, as they contain the appropriate requisites, are issued by an authorized person, and entail legal consequences in the form of the issuance of certificates for authorization to perform work.
– The panel of judges emphasized that the duty to identify the person undergoing knowledge assessment lies specifically with the commission members, who certify the accuracy of the data with their signatures.
– The Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during the inspection of the crime scene, as it was provided voluntarily and became the basis for entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (ERDR).
– Regarding assertions about the impossibility of identifying the specific perpetrator of the forgery, the Court noted that the signing of the minutes by all commission members testifies to their joint participation in the decision-making process and their agreement with the false information.
– The Supreme Court recognized that the totality of the evidence, including witness testimony and the results of covert investigative actions, fully proves the guilt of the convicted persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 560/10826/25 of 09/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the essence of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the limitation of the plaintiff’s pension amount through the application of reduction coefficients provided for by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1 of 2025.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the Law on the State Budget cannot amend or abolish social guarantees established by special laws, as this contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine. The Court stressed that issues of pension provision must be regulated exclusively by specialized laws, and not by bylaws or budget
