[рік про визнання протиправним та скасування податкового повідомлення-рішення, яким збільшено суму грошового зобов’язання з податку на прибуток підприємств.
2. Суд касаційної інстанції підтримав позицію судів попередніх інстанцій, які встановили відсутність порушень податкового законодавства з боку платника податків. Суд зазначив, що контролюючий орган не надав належних та допустимих доказів, які б свідчили про заниження податку на прибуток підприємств. Суд касаційної інстанції вказав на те, що податкове повідомлення-рішення було прийняте на підставі припущень контролюючого органу, а не на основі фактичних даних.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
o. on the cancellation of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery of debt in favor of “Trading House “Novaahro” LLC.
2. The decision only contains the introductory and operative parts, therefore it is impossible to establish the arguments of the court. It is known from the text of the resolution that the case was considered in the Supreme Court, which acted as the court of cassation instance. The judges refer to the articles of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure of cassation proceedings, the powers of the court of cassation instance, and the consequences of consideration of the cassation appeal. Considering that the full text of the decision will be drawn up later, a detailed analysis of the court’s motives is currently impossible.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of A.X. AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. and left the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 235/3240/23 dated June 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against “Shakhtobudivelna Kompaniya” LLC for compensation for moral damage caused by the death of her husband at work.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damage, since the death of the plaintiff’s husband occurred as a result of an accident at work, which caused her moral suffering. The court also emphasized that the amounts collected as compensation for damage caused to life and health are not subject to taxation, referring to the relevant norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine and the practice of the Supreme Court. Regarding the settlement agreement, the court recognized as lawful the refusal of the appellate court to approve it, since the terms of the agreement did not meet the requirements of the law. The court of cassation instance noted that there are no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence established by the courts of previous instances, and that its task is to correct judicial errors, not to conduct a new trial. The court also rejected the applicant’s reference to other decisions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstances in those cases differed from the circumstances in the case under consideration.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Shakhtobudivelna Kompaniya” LLC and left the decision of the Dnipro Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 947/7986/20 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract for the assignment of rights and obligations to an apartment, concluded without the consent of one of the spouses, and the recovery of a share of this apartment.
2. The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, satisfied the claim, since it established that the apartment was acquired during the marriage and is the joint common property of the spouses, and that the mutual consent of the spouses is necessary for the alienation of such property, which was not the case here. The court also took into account the bad faith actions of the defendant, who alienated the property in favor of her son’s cohabitant. Since the property was disposed of from the plaintiff’s possession against his will on the basinvalidation of the contract, the court decided to claim a share of the apartment in favor of the plaintiff. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the mutually exclusive remedies, as the recognition of the contract as invalid is the basis for claiming the property. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments regarding the improper notification of the defendant about the hearing of the case, since the case materials confirm the sending of notifications to the last known place of residence of the defendant.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 904/6795/23 dated June 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decisions of the village council on granting permission and approving the land management project for the allocation of a land plot for lease to “Agrofirma “Krasny Zaboyshchik” LLC.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, emphasizing that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of economic procedure, since it concerns the right of “Agrofirma “Krasny Zaboyshchik” LLC to the land plot on which its real estate is located. The court indicated that the decisive factor is that the dispute arose in the context of private law relations, since the agricultural firm has real estate on this plot, and therefore the case cannot be considered in an administrative court. The court emphasized that the actual circumstances of the case are similar to case No. 910/5201/19, which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered according to the rules of economic procedure. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court take precedence over the conclusions of other panels of judges. The court also noted that challenging the decision of a local self-government body is absorbed by a dispute over a property right, which is protected in civil proceedings.
3. The court decided to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 487/2511/20 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the apartment, the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of this apartment, and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of it.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership is not an effective remedy, since the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not verify the existence of evidence confirming the expiration of the 30-day period from the moment the demand for the elimination of violations was received by the mortgagor, and also did not find out whether the subject of the mortgage was assessed by an appraisal entity. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts must establish the existence of the violated right of the plaintiffs before drawing a conclusion about the effectiveness of the chosen method.
of defense. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts must assess the evidence comprehensively, fully, and objectively, and their decisions must be lawful and justified. Since the courts of previous instances did not fulfill these requirements, their decisions are subject to cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 185/147/20 dated 02/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order on the transfer of a land plot for lease, the recognition of the lease agreement as invalid, and the return of the land plot, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances dismissed the claim, considering that the prosecutor did not comply with the procedure for notifying the competent authority (State Geocadastre) about the appeal to the court and did not provide sufficient time for the independent protection of the interests of the state. The appellate court also noted that the prosecutor did not provide evidence of sending and receiving the relevant notification by the State Geocadastre. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, indicating that the courts did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the awareness of the competent authority about the violation of the state’s interests even before the prosecutor’s appeal, and also did not take into account the previous correspondence between the prosecutor and the State Geocadastre. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts had to verify whether the correspondence was aimed at informing about already detected violations, and whether the competent authority reacted to this information. Given that the courts did not properly investigate these circumstances, they came to an erroneous conclusion about the lack of proof of grounds for representation of the state’s interests by the prosecutor.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 824/23/25 dated 06/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the company “A. X. AGROSLAVINVEST s. r. o.” to cancel the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) on the recovery from it in favor of LLC “Trading House “Novaagro” of debt for supplied goods, penalties, three percent per annum, and reimbursement of expenses.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to refuse the cancellation of the ICAC decision, based on the following:
* There is no proper evidence of the conclusion of an additional agreement on changing the jurisdiction of the dispute from ICAC to the commercial court, as claimed by the buyer.
* The buyer did not provide evidence of sending and receiving a copy of the additional agreement by e-mail to the other party, as provided for in the contract.
* The buyer’s behavior is inconsistent, since in the commercial court he denied the jurisdiction of this court, and then tried to challenge the ICAC decision, referring to the agreement on the jurisdiction of the commercial court.
* The court noted that the assessment
confirms the good faith of the parties to the dispute, regardless of the grounds for setting aside the ICAC decision stated by the debtor.
* The principle of the autonomy of the arbitration agreement requires the interpretation of doubts regarding its validity in favor of its validity.
4. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the appeal of A. X. AGROSLAVINVEST s. r. o.
Case No. 201/1927/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of pledge – a car.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the appeal of the prosecutor’s office, motivating this by the fact that the prosecutor’s office did not indicate in whose interests the appeal was filed, and did not provide evidence of grounds for appealing to the court. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office appealed to the court as a person who did not participate in the case, in the order of self-representation, since the disputed car is material evidence in criminal proceedings, which is procedurally managed by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the decision in the case directly concerns its rights and obligations. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have considered the appeal on its merits, and not returned it, since the prosecutor’s office acted in the order of self-representation, and not as a representative of the interests of the state or a citizen. Considering that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, the Supreme Court overturned its ruling and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case to the court of appeal for further consideration.
Case No. 916/3114/21 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot to a farm for lease, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement, the cancellation of the state registration of the right of lease and the return of the land plot.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the State Geocadastre, in whose interests the prosecutor acted, did not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims, since the disputed land plot is in communal, not state, ownership, and the dispute does not concern unauthorized occupation of land or compensation for damages. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the State Geocadastre can appeal to the court to protect land only in cases expressly provided by law, and only with respect to state-owned land. The court also noted that the filing of a claim by an improper plaintiff is a basis for dismissing the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of prereversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the satisfied claims and rendered a new decision dismissing the claim.
**Case No. 908/1964/21 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the general meeting of participants of LLC “Zaporizhzhia Titanium and Magnesium Combine”, the new version of the statute, as invalid, as well as the recognition of registration actions as illegal and their cancellation.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, reasoning that the company “Tolexis Trading Limited” did not prove violations of its rights as a participant of the company during the convening and holding of the general meeting, and also did not substantiate the need for the Supreme Court to form a new legal conclusion regarding the application of the disputed legal norms. The court noted that timely sending of a notice of the meeting, advance provision of the draft statute, ensuring the possibility of familiarization with the documents and participation in the meeting indicate the absence of violations of the plaintiff’s rights. The court also indicated that the creation of an audit committee is not the creation of a new management body of the company, which requires a unanimous decision of all participants. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, and its task is only to verify the correct application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 909/130/24 dated 06/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the closure of the bankruptcy case of LLC “Kalush Pipe Plant” due to the detection of the enterprise’s connection with the aggressor state and the nullity of the transactions on which the claims of the initiating creditors were based.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that LLC “Kalush Pipe Plant” is connected with the aggressor state, and the transactions on which the creditors’ claims are based are null and void due to violation of public order, in particular, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 187 and the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”. The court noted that sanctions regulation is an important aspect of public order in Ukraine, especially in the context of armed aggression, and private law instruments should not be used to avoid sanctions. The court also took into account that the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) adopted a decision on restrictive measures (sanctions) against certain individuals and legal entities, and such a decision is put into effect by a corresponding decree of the President of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the purpose of the creditor’s application with monetary claims to the debtor in the bankruptcy case, as well as the rules for repayment of these claims established by the legislator imperatively in the Bankruptcy Code, which, although different for each of the bankruptcy procedures, are equally binding on its participants, in particular, the creditor (creditors) and the debtor, indicate the existence in
in such a method of protection and restoration of the violated right as appealing with monetary claims of the creditor(s) in bankruptcy procedures for the purpose of their satisfaction, state coercion aimed at protecting and restoring the violated right of the creditor.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 553/1091/19 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of certain clauses of the apartment property rights purchase and sale agreement as invalid, the recognition of the agreement as valid, the recognition of actions as illegal, the obligation to perform certain actions, the recognition of ownership, the recognition of property rights purchase and sale agreements as invalid, and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the apartment.
2. The court of appeal, leaving the decision of the court of first instance partially unchanged, proceeded from the fact that “Poltavatransbud” ALC improperly fulfilled its obligations under the property rights purchase and sale agreement, which led to a violation of the rights of PERSON_1, who, having paid the full cost of property rights, had legal expectations to receive the apartment into ownership. The court noted that PERSON_1 fulfilled her financial obligations, which is a sufficient condition for acquiring property rights, and after the completion of construction – the right of ownership of the apartment. The court also obliged “Poltavatransbud” ALC to amend the agreement, indicating the correct address of the apartment. The court agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance to refuse the counterclaim, as PERSON_3 did not prove that her rights were violated by the conclusion of the property rights purchase and sale agreement between PERSON_1 and “Poltavatransbud” ALC. The court took into account the criteria of reality of attorney’s fees and increased the amount to be recovered from “Poltavatransbud” ALC in favor of PERSON_1 for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of “Poltavatransbud” ALC and PERSON_1, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the court of appeal.
Case No. 569/23781/23 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the employee’s dismissal from office as illegal in connection with the refusal to continue working due to a change in essential working conditions.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the plaintiff’s dismissal as illegal, as the employer did not prove the existence of changes in the organization of production and labor that would serve as the basis for changing essential working conditions. The courts found that the plaintiff was not familiarized with specific changes to his job description, and the typical form provided to him did not reflect actual changes in his duties. Also, the court noted that the notice of change in essential working conditions did not clearly state what these changes consisted of. The court took into account that the plaintiff was dismissed immediately after reinstatement by court decision, which indicates a formalemployer’s approach to the dismissal procedure. The court of cassation also noted that although the plaintiff had changed the subject of the claim by adding a claim for compensation for moral damages, this did not affect the legal outcome of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “UkrSibbank” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/11669/18 dated 19/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and the invalidation of this agreement.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of “Agrofirma Prestige” LLC for the recovery of debt from “Koniarstvo Ukraine” SE, as the fact of granting the loan and its non-repayment were established by the courts, and the defendant’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the branch manager to conclude the agreement were not properly proven. The court of cassation also noted that the claim of the State Property Fund of Ukraine to invalidate the loan agreement was rightfully dismissed, as the representative of the Fund repeatedly failed to appear in court without valid reasons. The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of the lawfulness of the transaction, which was not disproved in this case. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the prosecutor’s arguments amounted to the need to re-evaluate the evidence and circumstances, which cannot be the subject of review in cassation proceedings. **:** The court of cassation refers to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court dated 18.11.2022 in case No. 905/458/21, regarding the application of part four of Article 202 and paragraph 4 of part one of Article 226 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of “Agrofirma Prestige” LLC and to dismiss the claim of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, and overturned the decision of the appellate court in this part.
Case No. 910/7237/24 dated 26/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right of “Bekvard Plus” LLC to operate a parking lot and the obligation of “Kyivtransparkservice” CP to transfer this lot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to partially satisfy the claim of “Bekvard Plus” LLC, motivating this by the fact that the agreement between “Bekvard Plus” LLC and “Kyivtransparkservice” CP on the operation of the parking lot is void, as it was concluded in violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”. The appellate court established that “Kyivtransparkservice” CP should have conducted a public procurement procedure, which was not done. According to the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”, an agreement concluded without compliance with this procedure is void. The court of cassation emphasized that the nullity of the agreement means its invalidity from the moment of conclusion, and such an agreement does not create any legal consequences for the parties.
Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the court has the right to independently recognize a contract as void, even if none of the parties has stated this.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Bekvard Plus” LLC without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court remained unchanged.
Case №910/2322/20 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) in the part concerning the violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of previous instances, supporting their position that the AMCU had committed violations in applying the Methodology for Determining a Monopoly Position, in particular, in determining the boundaries of the market and assessing competition. The court noted that the AMCU did not provide sufficient justification for combining the gas distribution and supply markets into one, and also did not take into account the presence of competition from other suppliers, in particular, “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC. The court also emphasized that the obligation to prove the absence of a monopoly position does not relieve the AMCU of the obligation to prove the existence of such a position properly. An important point is that the AMCU was unable to reasonably justify the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the division of gas distribution and supply markets.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №990/8/24 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine in part.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 and the company “AC-TERRA INTERNATIONAL LTD” against the President of Ukraine regarding the recognition as illegal and invalid of the President’s Decree in part. The court likely proceeded from the fact that the President acted within the limits of his powers defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, and the disputed Decree met the requirements of legality and validity. Also, the court could take into account the interests of national security and defense, which were referred to by third parties – the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. The lack of a detailed description of the court’s arguments in the provided text makes a more specific analysis impossible.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged.
Case №503/263/22 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as valid of the contract of sale of a residential building and the recognition of ownership of this house.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of appellate proceedings, since the person who filed the appeal (PERSON_2) was not a party to the case in the court of first instance, andthe court of first instance did not resolve the issue of her rights, freedoms, interests, or obligations. The court of appeal correctly established that PERSON_2 did not accept the inheritance after the death of PERSON_5, and therefore does not have a substantive legal interest in the outcome of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal a decision, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly concerns their rights, interests, or obligations, which was not established in this case. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court acted in accordance with procedural rules by closing the appellate proceedings, as it was not confirmed that the decision of the court of first instance resolved the issue of the rights and interests of a person who was not involved in the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 176/435/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of funds from SE “Eastern Mining and Processing Plant” in favor of an individual as compensation for moral damages caused by health impairment due to occupational disease.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that at the time of the suspension of enforcement actions, the enforcement proceedings were joined to the consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combined decisions of courts of different jurisdictions, including commercial jurisdiction. The courts did not pay attention to the fact that the essence of the challenged actions is decisive for determining jurisdiction. Appealing the actions of a state executor during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combines decisions of courts of different jurisdictions, falls under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The courts did not establish whether the enforcement proceedings were withdrawn from the consolidated proceedings at the time of the suspension of enforcement actions. Thus, the courts of previous instances came to the wrong conclusion about the consideration of the complaint in the order of civil procedure.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of administrative procedure.
Case No. 404/3599/22 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the contract for the provision of services for the removal of household waste between an individual (plaintiff) and LLC “Ecostyle” (defendant) as invalid and unconcluded.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his right, since he denied the very fact of the conclusion of the contract. The court noted that in the case of denying the fact of the conclusion of the contract, this fact must be disproved not by filing a separate claim for the invalidity of the transaction, but during the resolution of the dispute about the protection of rights.
that the plaintiff considers violated. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the need for an effective means of protection that would correspond to the content of the violated right. The court of cassation indicated that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, and therefore there is no need to evaluate other arguments of the cassation appeal. The court also granted the defendant’s motion for the recovery of legal aid expenses, as the plaintiff did not provide objections to this motion.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes, and also recovered from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant the costs of legal assistance in the court of cassation.
**Case No. 398/2305/24 dated 06/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her child and the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of this child.
2. The court of appeal, canceling the decision of the court of first instance in the part of depriving the mother of parental rights, proceeded from the fact that the deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure, which is applied only in cases where it is impossible to change the behavior of parents for the better, and only if there is guilt in the actions of parents. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s evasion of fulfilling her parental responsibilities, which would be a legal basis for depriving her of parental rights. At the same time, the court took into account the mother’s desire to communicate with the child and objections to the deprivation of parental rights, which indicates the possibility of changing her behavior. The court also emphasized the importance of ensuring the interests of the child and preserving family ties, if this does not contradict the best interests of the child. Upholding the decision on the recovery of alimony, the appellate court proceeded from the obligation of both parents to support the child and the need to provide her with funds for full development.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
**Case No. 907/330/24 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Service for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure in Zakarpattia Oblast in favor of LLC “ShBU-77” of debt for the provided services of operational maintenance of public roads of state importance.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, pointing to violations of the norms of procedural law, namely: the court of appeal did not properly examine the terms of the contract, the procedure for ordering, performing and accepting works, and did not assess the actions of the parties in the context of these terms. The court of appeal did not establish whether the plaintiff submitted documents confirming the actual performance of works in terms of volumes, terms, cost, place of performance and actual expenses, as provided for by the terms of the contract. Also
j, the court did not establish whether the reason for the defendant’s failure to sign the acts of completed works was justified, and did not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was improper. In addition, the court did not investigate the circumstances of the plaintiff’s compliance with the terms of drawing up and submitting the acts of completed works to the customer for signing. The court also did not take into account that the defendant, in its response to the statement of claim, objected to the satisfaction of the claim, did not recognize the fact that the plaintiff had performed work under the contract during the disputed period, and only referred to the lack of funding.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 922/3198/24 dated 06/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from the Department of Housing and Communal Services of the Kharkiv City Council in favor of the Private Enterprise “Construction Company “Mega-S” under the contract.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, agreeing that the Department of Housing and Communal Services had missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, and the reasons for the omission were not valid. The court of cassation noted that the Department of Housing and Communal Services received procedural documents, including the full text of the appealed decision, in a timely manner through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, and did not prove the fact of blocking access to this system. Also, the court took into account that references to martial law alone are not a sufficient basis for renewing the term, since it is necessary to prove how exactly the military circumstances made it impossible to file an appeal in time. The court emphasized that the circumstances referred to by the Department of Housing and Communal Services relate to organizational issues of internal activities and do not indicate objective obstacles to timely appeal of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Department of Housing and Communal Services of the Kharkiv City Council, and to leave the ruling of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 990SСGС/28/24 dated 06/26/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice regarding the bringing of a judge to disciplinary responsibility.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the judge’s complaint, overturning the decision of the High Council of Justice. The court probably took into account the arguments of the complainant regarding the groundlessness of bringing him to disciplinary responsibility. Possibly, violations of the procedure for considering the case or incorrect application of substantive law were established. Also, the court could take into account the practice of the ECHR regarding the independence of judges and the inadmissibility of excessive interference in their professional activities. The court also decided to recover from the High Council of Justice in favor of the judge the costs of paying the court fee.
The court granted the judge’s complaint and overturned the decision of the High Council of Justice.
**Case No. 673/547/21 dated 06/30/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
The court of cassation instance, when considering the application for an additional decision regarding the reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance, was guided by the principle of proportionality and reasonableness of such expenses. The court took into account the scope of services provided by the lawyer, the complexity of the case, as well as the financial condition of the parties. The court noted that the information regarding the nature and scope of the work performed by the lawyer does not meet the criterion of reasonableness and time spent on its performance. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the reimbursement of only justified expenses. The court partially satisfied the application, reducing the amount of claimed expenses for professional legal assistance, considering them to be overstated. The court rejected the argument about the lack of a detailed description of the work, since the amount of the fee was set at a fixed amount, which did not depend on the scope of services and time spent.
The court partially satisfied the application of the representative of PERSON_2 for an additional court decision, recovering from PERSON_1 in favor of PERSON_2 expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance in the amount of 7,000 hryvnias.
**Case No. 916/2686/16 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the complaint of LLC “Company “Niko-Tais” against the inaction of the state executor in the enforcement proceedings regarding the compulsory execution of a court order to recover debt from an individual.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the complaint of LLC “Company “Niko-Tais”, stating that the state executor had taken certain actions in the enforcement proceedings, in particular, sent requests to various bodies to identify the debtor’s property, but violated the requirements regarding the frequency of checking the debtor’s property status. The court of cassation instance noted that for recognizing inaction as illegal, it is not enough just to state the fact of improper performance of actions, but it is important to take into account the reasons and circumstances due to which the actions were not performed. The SC also emphasized that the creditor did not provide evidence of the debtor’s evasion from fulfilling the court decision, which could be the basis for applying additional measures, such as restricting travel abroad. The court of cassation instance also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances, and that its task is only to correct judicial errors, and not to re-examine the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Company “Niko-Tais”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 916/2686/16 dated 06/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the complaint of LLC “Company “Niko-Tais” against the inaction of the state executor regarding the compulsory execution of the order
of debt recovery from PERSON_1.
3. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the state enforcement officer performed certain actions aimed at enforcing the court decision, in particular, verified the debtor’s property status and sent requests to various bodies to obtain information about the debtor’s property and income. At the same time, the courts found that the state enforcement officer violated the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” regarding the periodicity of inspections of the debtor’s property status. However, since the court of first instance had already ordered the state enforcement officer to remedy these violations, and the complainant did not provide evidence of the debtor’s evasion from fulfilling the court decision, there are no grounds for recognizing the inaction of the state enforcement officer as unlawful in full. The court of cassation instance also noted that the complainant’s arguments boil down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence by the courts of previous instances, which is not a ground for cassation review.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Company “Niko-Tais” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 369/870/21 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of the land plot and the return of the land plot to state ownership, as the prosecutor’s office believes that the plot belongs to the lands of the water fund.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence that the disputed land plot, at the time of its transfer to private ownership, belonged to the lands of the water fund, in particular, its location within the coastal protective strip was not proven. The court took into account the existence of urban planning documentation, which defined the width of the coastal protective strip, as well as the expert opinion, which did not reveal any water objects on the plot. The court emphasized that the appellate court unreasonably rejected the expert opinion and relied on the letter from the Institute of Water Problems, which did not confirm that the plot belonged to the lands of the water fund at the time of its transfer to private ownership. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish the existence of a water object at the time of the land plot’s withdrawal from state ownership.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 910/16936/23 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding the violation by the Kyiv City Council (KCC) of legislation on the protection of economic competition due to non-compliance with the previous decision of the AMCU.
2. The court of cassation instance
of appeal left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, based on the fact that the Kyiv City Council (KCC) did not comply with the decision of the AMCU within the established term, which is a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition, and that the KCC did not provide convincing evidence of the existence of grounds for invalidating the decision of the AMCU. The court noted that the KCC had the right to appeal the AMCU’s decision, which it did, but the courts upheld the legality of the AMCU’s decision. The court also rejected the KCC’s arguments about interference with its legislative activity, since the KCC is not a legislative body, and its activity must be carried out within the limits of the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the AMCU has the authority to bring to justice for violations of legislation on the protection of economic competition. The court also took into account the principle of res judicata, which provides for respect for the final court decision.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the KCC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/8009/24 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the obligation to transfer property and recover UAH 5,895,234.97.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the Representative Office of “AZVIRTMMS” against the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of Individual Entrepreneur (IE) Zubenko K.S. on the obligation to transfer property and recover funds. The court of cassation instance, having examined the case materials, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances regarding the validity of the claims. The court took into account the arguments of the parties, assessed the evidence provided, and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law. The defendant did not appear in the court session, which did not prevent the consideration of the case on the merits. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper fulfillment of contractual obligations and protection of the property rights of the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/3480/21 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) in the part concerning JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Rivnegas” regarding violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition and the imposition of a fine.
2. The court of cassation instance left the decisions of previous courts unchanged, supporting the position of the AMCU. The court noted that the AMCU reasonably established the monopoly position of JSC “Rivnegas” as part of the RGC group in the natural gas distribution market and abuse of this position through the imposition of unreasonable requirements on participants in meter procurements. The court indicated that the AMCU correctly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” and the Methodology for Determining a Monopoly Position. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of expert examinations, since they were not decisive for the case. In addition, the court emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence
Case №910/4461/23 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by Sole Proprietor Fitsai Yu.I. in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application for the recovery of court costs, was guided by the principles of fairness, proportionality and the rule of law, as well as the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the distribution of court costs. The court took into account the criteria of reality of attorney’s fees, their necessity and reasonableness of the amount, based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court also took into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided by the attorney, the importance of the case for the parties, as well as the behavior of the parties during the consideration of the case. The court noted that the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance should not be a way of excessive enrichment of the party in whose favor they are recovered. Considering that the legal position of the defendant did not change during the consideration of the case in various instances, as well as the absence of evidence of additional study of the legal nature of the disputed legal relations at the stage of cassation review, the court concluded that it was necessary to reduce the amount of court costs.
3. The court partially granted the application of Sole Proprietor Fitsai Yu.I. and ordered the recovery from Sole Proprietor Popa L.I. of UAH 15,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
Case №910/3320/21 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection of economic competition in the form of abuse of monopoly (dominant) position on the market of natural gas distribution services.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claims of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Zhytomyrgaz” and JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Zakarpattgaz” to invalidate the decision of the AMCU. The court proceeded from the fact that the AMCU proved the fact of abuse of monopoly (dominant) position by the group of companies, which included the plaintiffs, by putting forward unreasonable requirements to the participants in the procurement of gas meters, which led to infringement of the interests of other business entities. The court noted that the AMCU correctly established the boundaries of the market, reasonably determined the monopoly (dominant) position of the plaintiffs as part of the RGC group and proved the fact of abuse of this position. Also, the court of cassation instance pointed out that the courts of previous instances properly assessed the expert opinion conducted in the case. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is beyond the scope
of the competence of the cassation instance. The court also noted that the Guidelines on the Application of the Concept of Control are not a source of law enforcement practice.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Rivnegaz” and left the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
of his/her powers.
2. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/376/16 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of certain clauses of agreements between Private Enterprise “Law Firm “Egida-Lviv” and Lviv Municipal Enterprise “Lvivvodokanal” regarding the subscriber’s obligation to obtain a permit for wastewater discharge and pay an increased fee in the absence of such a permit.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the agreements, the Rules for Acceptance of Wastewater were in effect, which provided for the mandatory obtaining of a discharge permit, and these rules were valid, and therefore, the agreements complied with the law at the time of their conclusion. The court noted that the recognition of certain provisions of the Rules for Acceptance of Wastewater as illegal at a later period is not a basis for recognizing the agreements concluded on the basis of these rules as invalid, since the invalidity of the agreement must exist at the time of its conclusion. Also, the Supreme Court refused to transfer the case for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as sufficient arguments were not provided regarding the existence of an exclusive legal problem that needs to be resolved to ensure the uniformity of law enforcement practice. The court took into account that the cancellation of the Rules for Acceptance of Wastewater in the disputed part occurred after the conclusion of the agreements, and this does not make the agreements invalid at the time of their conclusion.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claims of Private Enterprise “Law Firm “Egida-Lviv”.
Case No. 910/8655/24 dated 06/26/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of funds from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “TEPLODAR PIVI”.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of funds from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “TEPLODAR PIVI”, and also partially satisfied the application of LLC “TEPLODAR PIVI” for the recovery of court costs. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no grounds for overturning the appealed decisions. At the same time, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for the recovery of expenses for legal assistance, reducing the amount to be recovered from the defendant. The court took into account the criteria of reasonableness and justification of expenses related to the provision of legal assistance.
The court of cassation ruled to leave the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” without satisfaction, and the additional decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 910/6752/21 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the “Barvinok” Garage Cooperative to cancel d
