**Case No. 217/296/23 dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of compensation for an apartment destroyed as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.
2. The court of cassation instance noted that the plaintiffs have the right to demand compensation from the state for non-fulfillment of obligations regarding the payment of monetary compensation for housing destroyed as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, referring to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the practice of the ECHR. The court indicated that the regional body for the protection of the population, as a structural subdivision of the Donetsk Regional State Administration, is responsible for completing the procedure for paying compensation. However, the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine did not receive a submission from the regional body of social protection, which was not involved in the case as a defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiffs chose an improper method of protection, since they are actually challenging the inaction of the competent authority regarding the non-payment of compensation, the assessment of which the court cannot make in this case. The court also noted that one cannot refer to the failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court as a basis for cassation appeal if the difference in court decisions is due to different factual circumstances of the cases.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the reasons for refusing the claim, indicating that the plaintiffs chose an improper method of protection.
**Case No. 127/324/24 dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of 1/2 share of the apartment, concluded between the plaintiff’s grandfather, father (as the legal representative of the plaintiff) and the defendant, since the plaintiff believes that his rights were violated during the sale of property that belonged to him by right of ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts, indicating that the courts did not take into account that one of the parties to the disputed contract (the plaintiff’s grandmother) was involved in the case as a third party, and not as a co-defendant, which is a violation of procedural law, since in cases of recognizing transactions as invalid, all parties to the transaction must be involved as defendants. In addition, the court noted that the claim was filed against an improper defendant, namely the plaintiff’s father, who acted as his representative in the conclusion of the contract, while the proper defendant is the other party to the contract. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the filing of a claim against an improper defendant is an independent basis for refusing to satisfy the claim. The court of cassation instance also took into account the defendant’s motion for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, since the claim was dismissed, and granted it.
3. The court rendered a new decision
regarding the denial of the claim of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 176/1745/23 dated 07/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of moral damages caused by injury to health from SE “Eastern Mining and Processing Combine.”
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the creditor’s complaint against the actions of the state enforcement officer. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of the previous instances did not take into account that the state enforcement officer is executing consolidated enforcement proceedings, to which enforcement proceedings for the execution of court decisions made under the rules of different jurisdictions are joined. The Supreme Court emphasized that the essence of the disputed actions is decisive for determining the jurisdiction of the court, namely, appealing the decisions and actions of the state enforcement officer, which takes place during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, in which the execution of court decisions made by courts under the rules of different jurisdictions is combined. Considering that the courts did not establish the fact that at the time of suspension of enforcement actions, the enforcement proceedings were withdrawn from the consolidated enforcement proceedings, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts made an erroneous conclusion about the consideration of this complaint in the order of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case in the order of administrative proceedings.
**Case No. 686/18943/24 dated 07/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages caused, in his opinion, by the excessive length of the criminal proceedings initiated on his application.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the fact of causing him moral damage, its amount, as well as the causal connection between the damage and the inaction of the defendant, which is his procedural duty. The court noted that the mere fact that the investigating judge issued rulings obliging the defendant to perform certain procedural actions is not proof of causing moral damage. Also, the court took into account that the right of PERSON_1 to proper оформлення документів [properly оформлення документів – there is no appropriate translation, because it means “execution of documents”] was restored by issuing a new passport, and he had already received compensation for previous inaction in this case. The court emphasized that the current legislation does not provide for repeated compensation for moral damage for the delay in the execution of a court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal unsatisfied.
**Case No. 344/17183/23 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Joint Stock Company “Gas Distribution System Operator “Ivano-Frankivskgaz” in favor of PERSON_1 of the debt that arose from the non-payment of due payments upon dismissal, and the recovery of the average salary for the entire period of delay in settlement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the bonus paid to the plaintiff on the basis of the Supervisory Board’s decision is of a one-time nature, since it is not systematic and does not reflect constant working conditions, but is an incentive. The court noted that, according to the Procedure for Calculating Average Wages, one-time payments are not taken into account when calculating average wages for the payment of compensation for unused vacations and severance pay. The court also rejected the applicant’s reference to the failure of the courts of first and appellate instances to take into account the legal conclusions set forth in the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, since the appealed court decisions do not contradict these conclusions, since the courts found that the defendant fully settled with the plaintiff, there is no debt, therefore, the claims for recovery of the amounts due to the dismissed employee under Article 116 of the Labor Code of Ukraine are not subject to satisfaction. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the court of appeal unreasonably refused to satisfy the motion for the appointment of a forensic economic examination, since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the objective impossibility to file a motion in the court of first instance to request from the defendant the evidence necessary for the examination.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 132/3304/22 dated 07/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property and its return to the possession of the co-owners of the property shares of the former agricultural cooperative “Myr”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, as they did not take into account that the plaintiff, as a co-owner of the property of the former agricultural cooperative “Myr”, has the right to protect the right of possession by filing a lawsuit against the non-owner possessor regarding the entire undistributed share fund, acting in the interests of all co-owners. The courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that the only way to realize the plaintiff’s rights is to receive a share in kind or in money, and that he does not have the right to protect the interests of all co-owners. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances allowed a superficial approach to resolving the dispute, did not investigate all the circumstances of the case, and did not properly assess the evidence. Also, the courts did not state sufficient reasons on which their decisions are based, which is a violation of the requirements of civil procedural law.
3. The court of cassation 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.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595108](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595108)
**Case No. 755/15628/14-ц dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a consumer loan agreement from the borrower and guarantors.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the bank’s claim against one of the guarantors, PERSON_1. The court took into account that the bank’s right to accrue interest on the loan ceases after the expiration of the loan term or the presentation of a demand for early repayment of the loan. Since the bank sent a demand for early repayment, the debt is calculated as of the date when this demand is deemed received. Also, the court applied the provisions on the termination of guarantee in the part of obligations, the term of performance of which occurred six months before the filing of the claim. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of the subject of the dispute, since the notice of debt cancellation was issued after the decision of the court of first instance, and cannot be the basis for closing the proceedings. The court noted that it does not deviate from the previous conclusions stated in the resolutions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595089](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595089)
**Case No. 306/1029/22 dated 01/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights and the recovery of alimony.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and sent the case for a new trial to the court at the place of registration of the defendant, since the appellate court found that the case was considered in violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction, because the defendant is registered in another district, and the claim had to be filed at her place of registration. The court of cassation emphasized that the determination of territorial jurisdiction is important to ensure access to justice and the consideration of cases within a reasonable time. Also, the court of cassation rejected the motion to recognize abuse of procedural rights and issue a separate ruling, since no intent to obstruct the administration of justice was established. The court of cassation emphasized the inadmissibility of restricting the right to access to justice and professional legal assistance, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and international acts. The court of cassation noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court has no authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence, unless violations of the norms of procedural law are established.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595180](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128595180)
**Case No. 752/24264/20 dated 02/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unilateral termination of…
in the procedure of the agreement on the use of the holiday house.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, dismissed the claim, reasoning that the demand to recognize the termination of the contract as illegal is not an effective way of protection, since even if the claim is satisfied, this decision cannot be forcibly enforced, and the plaintiff’s property rights will not be restored. The courts also noted that such a method of protection is not provided for either by the terms of the contract or by law. The courts referred to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the choice of a proper and effective method of protection, emphasizing that the method of protection should be such as to guarantee the person full restoration of the violated right and/or the possibility of receiving appropriate compensation. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that an effective method of protection should ensure the restoration of the violated right, and the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff does not meet these criteria.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 285/6397/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the ownership right of a citizen of the Russian Federation to agricultural land plots inherited by him, due to failure to alienate them within a year, as required by the Land Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that according to the Constitution of Ukraine, land is an object of the ownership right of the Ukrainian people and is under special protection of the state, and the right of ownership to land is guaranteed and implemented in accordance with the law. The Land Code of Ukraine establishes that agricultural land cannot be transferred to the ownership of foreigners, and if such land is inherited by foreigners, it is subject to alienation within a year. In case of non-fulfillment of this obligation, the land plot is subject to confiscation by a court decision, and the claim for confiscation is filed by the body that exercises state control over the use and protection of land. The court emphasized that the confiscated land plot is subject to sale at land auctions, and the former owner is paid the sale price, less the costs associated with the sale. The Supreme Court emphasized that confiscation in favor of the state represented by the Main Department of the State Geocadastre is a necessary prerequisite for the subsequent sale of land at auction.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the previous instances, and ruled to confiscate the land plots into the ownership of the state represented by the Main Department of the State Geocadastre for further sale at land auctions.
Case No. 176/2281/23 dated 04/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is a complaint by PERSON_1 against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings on the recovery from SE “Eastern Mining and Processing Plant”
of monetary funds from “Комбінат” [Kombinat] in favor of PERSON_1 as compensation for moral damages caused by injury to health as a result of a chronic occupational disease.
The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the disputed actions of the state executor were committed within the framework of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which include enforcement documents issued by courts of different jurisdictions. The court emphasized that the essence of the disputed actions is decisive for determining the jurisdiction of the dispute. Since the appeal against the actions of the state executor took place during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combines the execution of court decisions rendered by courts of different jurisdictions, this dispute is subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings, and not civil proceedings. The court also noted that the courts must verify compliance with the rules of jurisdiction regardless of the arguments of the parties.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case in an administrative court.
Case No. 176/2319/23 dated 02/07/2025
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 compensation for moral damages caused by injury to health from an enterprise in favor of an individual.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the case was considered in the order of civil proceedings erroneously, since the dispute arose within the framework of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combine the execution of decisions of courts of different jurisdictions (commercial and civil). The Supreme Court emphasized that disputes regarding appeals against the actions of a state executor in consolidated enforcement proceedings, which include decisions of different jurisdictions, are subject to consideration in administrative proceedings. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of such disputes. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances should have taken these conclusions into account and closed the proceedings in the case, since it is not subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the claimant the right to apply to the administrative court.
Case No. 953/9152/20 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a state act of ownership of a land plot as invalid, the cancellation of ownership rights, and the return of the land plot to the Kharkiv City Council, since the decision to transfer the plot to the defendant was made with violations.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right, since the demand for the return of the land plot (negatory action) is not a proper way of protection in this case, when the state is deprived of possession of the land plot. The proper way to protect this right
situations is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession (vindication claim), but the prosecutor did not make such claims. The court noted that the recovery of a land plot requires an assessment of the добросовісності (good faith) of the acquirer and the proportionality of the interference with their right of ownership. The court also took into account the principle of диспозитивності (dispositive nature) of civil proceedings, according to which the court cannot go beyond the claims stated by the plaintiff. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the non-application of the principle “jura novit curia” by the courts, as in this case the court correctly qualified the disputed legal relations, but the prosecutor did not make the appropriate claims.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 490/7829/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between a bank and an individual.
2. The court of cassation overturned the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the court of appeal, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, on the grounds that the court of appeal unreasonably took into account new evidence submitted by the bank, which was not submitted to the court of first instance without proper justification of the reasons, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court of cassation emphasized that the bank did not prove that the defendant, by their actions, contributed to the loss or illegal use of information that made it possible to initiate payment transactions, and doubts should be interpreted in favor of the consumer. The court also noted that the bank in the court of first instance denied any appeals by the defendant regarding the blocking of the card account, and in the appeal claimed evidence that contradicted the previous position, which is mala fide (bad faith) conduct. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of змагальності сторін (adversarial nature of the parties) and the obligation of each party to prove the circumstances on which it relies.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, and also recovered from the bank in favor of the defendant the court costs incurred in the court of cassation.
Case No. 359/2708/20 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the признання недійсним (recognition as invalid) of the purchase and sale agreement of rights of claim under loan and mortgage agreements concluded between the bank and a financial company, and the скасування (cancellation) of the state registration of rights.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the courts did not properly investigate all the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not request originals of documents relevant to the case, and made decisions on the basis of copies, the authenticity of which was not confirmed. Also, the courts did not properly verify the powers of the bank’s representative who submitted the evidence, and did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of his right to beutim. The court also noted that the appellate court unreasonably considered that the debtor does not have the right to appeal the contract of sale of rights of claim, since such contract directly affects his rights and obligations. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive and complete clarification of the circumstances of the case, as well as taking into account that the bank is a professional participant in the financial services market, to which increased requirements are imposed regarding compliance with rules and procedures.
3. The Supreme Court reversed 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. 916/2001/23 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Individual Entrepreneur Zarichanskyi A.A. to invalidate the decision of the Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovations regarding the registration of the trademark of Individual Entrepreneur Kryvenko S.O., because, according to the plaintiff, this violates his rights to a commercial name and logo.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of previous instances, because the courts did not establish key circumstances, namely: in defense of which specific intellectual property right of the plaintiff is the claim directed; the grounds for the plaintiff’s arising of this right; the scope of protection of this right, in particular, the circumstances of commercial use of the disputed designation by the plaintiff for the provision of services and the availability of evidence thereof. The court noted that the courts did not pay attention to the fact that the subject of proof includes the circumstances of commercial activity directly by the plaintiff, as a business entity, in the provision of services using the disputed designation, with the need to prove these circumstances as of the time of the disputed legal relationship with proper and admissible evidence. The court also emphasized that the issue of determining the commercial name and its recognition are issues of law, not fact, and must be resolved by the court based on the assessment of evidence, and not only by the expert’s opinion.
3. The court reversed the decisions of previous instances in the part of recognizing the decision on trademark registration as illegal and the distribution of court costs, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 176/1007/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings on the recovery of moral damages from a state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute arose within the consolidated enforcement proceeding, which combines the execution of decisions of courts of different jurisdictions (commercial and civil). The Supreme Court emphasized that appeals against the actions of the enforcement officer in consolidated enforcement proceedings, which include decisions of different jurisdictions, must be considered by an administrative court. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take this fact into account and mistakenly considered the case in the order of civil procedure. Also, the court took into account the conclusion set out in the resolution of the Verkhovna
Decision of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of May 05, 2025, in case No. 176/1715/23 (proceedings No. 61-13883svo24) and the binding nature of its application. The court indicated that the appellate court verifies compliance by the court of first instance with the rules of jurisdiction, regardless of the presence of relevant arguments in the application, response, or complaint.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the claimant the right to apply to the administrative court.
Case No. 176/113/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer 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 a consolidated enforcement proceeding is pending with the state enforcement officer, to which enforcement proceedings for the execution of court decisions rendered under the rules of different jurisdictions are joined. The Supreme Court emphasized that the essence of the challenged actions of the enforcement officer is decisive for determining jurisdiction. Since the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer occurs during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combine the execution of court decisions rendered by courts under the rules of different jurisdictions, the dispute must be considered in the order of administrative proceedings. The courts of previous instances did not take into account that in such a case, the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The court of cassation also noted that courts must verify compliance with the rules of jurisdiction regardless of the arguments of the parties.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case in the order of administrative proceedings.
Case No. 199/2213/20 dated 30/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of actions as unlawful and the cancellation of decisions of the local self-government body, decisions on state registration, entries on ownership, state registration of a land plot, recognition of the invalidity of the land plot sale agreement, and recognition of the right to complete the land privatization procedure.
2. The Supreme Court considered the application for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case. The court noted that, according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the issue of distribution of court costs must be resolved in the operative part of the resolution. Considering that the plaintiff submitted evidence of incurred expenses for professional legal assistance within five days after receiving a copy of the Supreme Court’s resolution, the court renewed the term for submitting this evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent by the attorney.atom, the scope of services provided, the price of the lawsuit, and the significance of the case for the party. Since there was no information in the submitted documents about the time spent by the lawyer, and the plaintiff’s legal position was consistent, the court decided to partially grant the application, reducing the amount of compensation to UAH 6,000, based on the criteria of reality and reasonableness of expenses.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the application, recovering UAH 2,000 each from the Dnipro City Council, PERSON_2, and PERSON_3 in favor of PERSON_1 as reimbursement for expenses for professional legal assistance during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 161/2205/23 dated 06/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the distribution of court costs, in particular Articles 137, 141, and 270. The court took into account the criteria of validity, necessity, and reasonableness of the amount of expenses, as well as the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided by the lawyer, the time spent by the lawyer, and the absence of objections from the plaintiff regarding the amount of expenses claimed. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the reimbursement of court costs, in particular, the decisions in the cases of “Lavents v. Latvia” and “East/West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine”, which emphasize the need to prove the factuality, inevitability, and justification of expenses. The court noted that the plaintiff did not apply for a reduction of expenses for professional legal assistance, although he was notified of the submission of the relevant application by the defendant.
3. The court partially granted the defendant’s application and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 9,000.00.
**Case No. 176/730/23 dated 07/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is PERSON_1’s complaint 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” for compensation for moral damage caused by health impairment.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the state executor is executing consolidated enforcement proceedings, to which enforcement proceedings for the execution of court decisions rendered under the rules of different jurisdictions (civil and commercial) are attached. The court emphasized that the essence of the disputed actions, namely the appeal of decisions and actions of the state executor during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, is decisive for determining subject-matter jurisdiction, which refers the dispute to the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The court took into account that the courts of previous instances did not establish the fact of withdrawal of the enforcement proceedings from the consolidated ones at the time of consideration of the case.
injunction against enforcement actions, which also affects the determination of jurisdiction. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the consideration of similar disputes under the rules of administrative procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings, pointing out the need to consider the case under the rules of administrative procedure.
Case No. 362/3289/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against PrJSC “Kyivmetaloprom” for compensation for moral damage caused by injury to health at work.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that according to the act of occupational accident, the plaintiff’s injury occurred while performing his duties. The court emphasized that the company is responsible for creating safe working conditions, and the presence of the employee’s fault in the accident is not an absolute basis for refusing compensation for moral damage, but should be taken into account when determining its amount. The court also pointed out that the fault of the owner is not a mandatory element for the emergence of the right to compensation for moral damage in cases of injury at work. The court took into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling of August 02, 2023 in case No. 761/553/21, proceeding No. 61-12772sv22. The court also referred to the conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court as part of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling of June 14, 2021 in case No. 235/3191/19, proceeding No. 61-21511svo19.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 176/567/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings on the recovery from SE “Eastern Mining and Processing Plant” in favor of an individual of funds as compensation for moral damage caused by injury to health as a result of occupational disease.
2. The court of cassation found that the state enforcement officer is executing consolidated enforcement proceedings, to which enforcement proceedings on the execution of court decisions rendered under the rules of different jurisdictions (civil and commercial) are joined. The court emphasized that the essence of the challenged actions of the state enforcement officer is decisive for determining the jurisdiction of the dispute. Since the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer takes place during the execution of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combines the execution of court decisions rendered by courts of different jurisdictions, the dispute must be considered under the rules of administrative procedure. The court indicated that the lower courts did not take into account that the consideration of such complaints falls under the jurisdiction of administrative courts, and also did not establish the fact of withdrawal of the enforcement proceedings from the
reduced at the time of suspension of enforcement actions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case, pointing to the need to consider the dispute in the order of administrative proceedings.
Case No. 672/5/23 dated June 30, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership and the return of this plot, since the prosecutor’s office believes that the plot belongs to the lands of the water fund.
The court of cassation upheld the decision of the lower courts, which obliged the defendant to return the land plot, since it belongs to the lands of the water fund, which has a special legal regime and restrictions in circulation. The courts found that the available evidence, including data from the State Geocadastre and the Regional Office of Water Resources, confirms that the plot crosses a water body (an intermittent stream), and therefore could not be transferred to private ownership. The court also noted that the absence of a land management project regarding the establishment of a coastal protection strip does not disprove the fact of its existence, since the sizes of such strips are established by law. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the impossibility of seizing lands of the water fund in violation of the requirements of the law.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 752/11888/20 dated July 02, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to use the land plot and the obligation to perform certain actions to restore the condition of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, since the court of appeal did not comply with the mandatory instructions contained in the previous decision of the court of cassation, namely, it did not clarify on which part of the land plot the defendant installed the fence and whether the plaintiff has the right to use this part, taking into account the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv of 2010, which terminated the plaintiff’s right of permanent use of part of the disputed land plot. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal formally referred to the conclusions of the Supreme Court, but did not implement them, did not establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case, and did not assess the evidence in its entirety. The court of cassation also pointed out the binding nature of court decisions that have entered into legal force for all state authorities and individuals.
3. The decision of the court of appeal was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 761/21247/20 dated June 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the company “Wizz Air Hungary Ltd.” for reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, and compensat
