Case No. 914/1883/22 dated July 1, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the sale of a land plot, recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreement of this plot, the state certificate of ownership, and cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, since the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the interests of the state, namely, demanded recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body, which had already been executed, and recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreement without a claim for the return of the land plot to state ownership. The court noted that an effective method of protection should lead to a real restoration of the violated right, and in this case, the cancellation of the decision and recognition of the agreement as invalid will not ensure the automatic return of the plot to the state. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the ineffectiveness of such methods of protection if they are not accompanied by a request for restitution or return of property. The court emphasized that the request for cancellation of state registration is also not a proper way of protection, since the registration has already taken place and its cancellation will not lead to the restoration of ownership.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 185/5852/23 dated July 7, 2025
Case No. 9901/392/21 dated July 10, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part that put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) regarding the application of sanctions.
The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the President acted on the basis, within the limits of authority, and in the manner provided for by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”. The court took into account the discretionary powers of the NSDC and the President in making decisions in the field of national security and defense, as well as the fact that sanctions are a tool for responding to threats to national security. The court also noted that the challenged Decree of the President was issued in pursuance of the decision of the NSDC, which has a special status, and checking the legality of the NSDC decision is beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The court also took into account the position of the Security Service of Ukraine regarding the validity of the application of sanctions to the plaintiff.
The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim of an individual against the President of Ukraine to recognize as illegal and cancel the Decree of the President in part.
Case No. 332/57/22 dated July 7, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of the director of LLC “Stalkonstruktsiya-103” PERSON_7 of violating safety rules during the performance of work with increased
resulting in the death of a person (Part 2 of Article 272 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of first instance acquitted PERSON_7, justifying this by the fact that the prosecution did not prove the director’s obligation to control compliance with occupational safety requirements by the contractor PERSON_9, since the latter was not an employee of Stalkonstruktsiya-103 LLC and performed work on the basis of a civil law contract. The appellate court agreed with this decision. The prosecutor in the cassation appeal insisted that the courts did not take into account that the crane dismantling work is classified as high-risk work, and the director had no right to allow a person without appropriate permission and training to perform it. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not motivate why the involvement of the company director to perform high-risk work by a person not from among the employees of his company, but from the outside under a contract, gives the director the right to allow (appoint) such a person who does not have the appropriate permits to perform high-risk work, and did not undergo appropriate training before performing such work. Also, the Supreme Court reminded of the appellate court’s obligation to re-examine the circumstances of the case if there are arguments about the discrepancy between the court’s conclusions and the actual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 820/4598/17 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on correcting a clerical error in a previous court decision regarding the number of the tax notice-decision.
2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, as the appellate court lawfully corrected the clerical error in its decision. The court noted that the appellate court, when considering the appeal, actually considered the violations specified in the tax notice-decision with the incorrectly indicated number, therefore correcting the clerical error does not violate the rights of the tax authority. Also, the court emphasized that the tax authority was not deprived of the opportunity to appeal the decision of the appellate court after the clerical error was corrected by filing a cassation appeal and a motion to renew the deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court did not find any incorrect application of the norms of substantive or procedural law by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court on correcting the clerical error unchanged.
Case No. 916/3470/23 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement and the obligation of the city council to recalculate the rent due to the seizure of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for recalculation of the rent, justifying this by the fact that the lessee (Simon LLC) transferred the lanthe land plot into sublease, and therefore is responsible for the actions of the sublessee (OC “Kolorovyi Boulevard”). The court noted that the lessee did not prove circumstances that would directly make it impossible to use the land plot for reasons beyond its control, since the lessee itself transferred the plot into sublease and continued to receive funds from the sublessee to pay the lease. The court also indicated that the seizure of the plot was imposed in criminal proceedings regarding the officials of the sublessee, and not the lessee. In addition, the court rejected the appellant’s references to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances in those cases were different and not similar to this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Simon” and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 500/5781/17 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use of the land plot by invalidating the decision of the Izmail City Council to grant permission to PERSON_2 to develop a land management project for the allocation of a land plot into ownership.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the land plot for which the land management project was developed for the defendant overlaps with her land plot, and to establish the fact of land plot overlap, an expert opinion is necessary, which the plaintiff did not provide and did not file a motion to conduct an expert examination. The court noted that the plaintiff provided a number of documents containing information on the location and boundaries of both land plots, but special knowledge in the land sphere is necessary to establish the overlap. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove that the decision of the Izmail City Council violates her rights, as she did not confirm the fact of plot overlap. The court of cassation emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 915/1564/24 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed electricity, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as LLC “Dnipro Energy Services” missed the deadline for appealing, and the reasons for the omission provided by it were not recognized as valid. The court noted that the fact of the introduction of martial law is not in itself an unconditional basis for renewing the deadline, and the circumstances related to air raid alerts are subjective and depended on the organization of the enterprise’s work. Also, the court indicated that LLC “Dnipro Energy Services” did not prove
that did not receive the decision of the court of first instance in the electronic cabinet, and reference to a large number of cases in proceedings is not a valid reason for missing the deadline. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and clear deadlines for appealing to the court, and the renewal of the missed deadline is allowed only in exceptional cases if there are objective and insurmountable reasons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Dnipro Energy Services” without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 918/1131/22 dated 01/07/2025
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 for lease, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement for this plot, and its return.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which declared invalid the land lease agreement concluded between the Rivne City Council and LLC “Autoimperia-M” and obliged LLC “Autoimperia-M” to return the plot to the city council. The appellate court found that the city council, contrary to the requirements of land legislation, transferred the land plot to LLC “Autoimperia-M” without conducting land auctions for the construction and maintenance of a parking lot, although there was only a gatehouse building with an area of 3.5 sq.m. on the plot, which belongs to LLC “Autoimperia-M”. The court noted that the transfer of land for such purposes as the construction of a parking lot requires land auctions, and the provision of a plot without auctions violates the competitive principles of acquiring land rights. The court of cassation agreed that the prosecutor reasonably appealed to the court to protect the interests of the state, since the city council made an illegal decision regarding the disposal of land, which is the main national wealth.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which declared the land lease agreement invalid and obliged LLC “Autoimperia-M” to return it to the city council.
Case No. 910/9149/24 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of JSC “Energy Company of Ukraine” of funds for improper performance of obligations to pay for balancing of electricity.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of JSC “Energy Company of Ukraine”, noting that PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” did not fulfill its obligation to pay the invoices issued for purchased electricity for balancing. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that payment is possible only from the current account with a special mode of use after receiving funds from other market participants, referring to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which allow payment from other accounts. The court also emphasized that the accrual
the inflationary losses were calculated by the plaintiff arithmetically correctly, and the defendant did not provide a counter-calculation. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court found them partially justified, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову (ruling) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”.
Case №420/1593/25 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of the appeal to the controlling authority due to the alleged failure to pay the court fee in full.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly calculated the amount of the court fee that had to be paid for filing an appeal, based on the number of non-property claims, and not taking into account the limitation established by the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”. The Supreme Court emphasized that the object of the court fee in the appellate instance is the appeal itself, and not individual claims. The court also noted that the controlling authority correctly calculated the amount of the court fee, taking into account the limitations established by law, and provided a payment order to confirm its payment. Therefore, the appellate court had no grounds to return the appeal on the grounds of underpayment of the court fee. The court of cassation referred to similar legal conclusions set out in previous rulings of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case №320/19917/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions by which Interstarch Ukraine LLC was reduced the amount of the negative value of the VAT amount and the amount of budget reimbursement of VAT, and penalties were applied.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of Interstarch Ukraine LLC, based on the fact that the controlling authority did not prove the legality of the appealed tax notices-decisions. The courts found that the business transactions between Interstarch Ukraine LLC and its counterparties were actually carried out and confirmed by properly executed primary documents that comply with the requirements of the law. The court noted that the mere fact of the presence or absence of individual documents, as well as minor shortcomings in their execution, cannot be the basis for concluding that there are no business transactions if there are other data confirming changes in the assets and liabilities of the taxpayer. The court also critically assessed the arguments of the tax authority regarding the lack of land in the counterparties, pointing to the unfounded use of average statistical
data to determine the required amount of land.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Central Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 240/2350/25 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of an individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on securing the claim, namely, suspending the effect of the decision to cancel the registration of a single tax payer. The court proceeded from the fact that the cancellation of the registration of a single tax payer entails a transition to the general taxation system, which may lead to an additional tax burden, the obligation to register as a VAT payer, termination of contractual relations, and complication of business activities. The court noted that failure to take measures to secure the claim may significantly complicate the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights, and significant efforts and expenses will be required to restore them. The court emphasized that securing the claim is a temporary measure aimed at ensuring the execution of a court decision and does not resolve the dispute on its merits. The court also took into account that the plaintiff duly proved the existence of circumstances indicating a likely difficulty in enforcing the court decision if such measures are not taken.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 240/33421/23 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of an agreement concluded between Ladies+ LLC and an individual, based on a claim by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Zhytomyr Oblast.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings in the case, citing that the dispute does not fall under the administrative jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the tax authority, when filing a claim to invalidate a transaction, acts as a subject of power, exercising its public-authority management functions in the field of tax legal relations, in order to ensure the fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to pay taxes. The court also took into account that the individual denies his participation in the disputed transaction, which casts doubt on the existence of private legal relations. The Court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which disputes in cases brought by controlling bodies to invalidate transactions are subject to review in the order of administrative proceedings, since they arise in connection with the performance by these bodies of their power-of-authority management functions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration onstages of resolving the issue of initiating proceedings in the case.
Case No. 520/16199/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of a housing and communal services enterprise to bring a civil defense shelter into proper condition.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which left the prosecutor’s claim unconsidered, as the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MD SES), which, in the court’s opinion, does not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. The court noted that the powers of the SES to appeal to the court are defined by law, and no law grants the SES the right to demand through the court that protective structures be brought into proper condition. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence as to why the MD SES cannot independently appeal to the court, as required by law. The court indicated that the special period in connection with the introduction of martial law, of course, exacerbates the issue of the readiness of the population and the territory of the state for defense, but does not cancel the constitutional principle of legality.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 420/17641/22 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of a communal enterprise regarding the improper maintenance of a civil defense shelter.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, indicating that the prosecutor had no grounds to appeal to the court with this claim in the interests of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SES) and the Odesa Regional Military Administration (OMA). The court noted that the introduction of a moratorium on inspections does not mean that the prosecutor can replace the authorized body, and the SES has the right to appeal to the court only with a limited list of claims, which does not include the obligation to bring protective structures into proper condition. Also, the Odesa OMA does not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. In addition, the court pointed to the incorrect determination of the defendant, since the communal enterprise is not a subject of power, as required by the CAS of Ukraine.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and left the statement of claim unconsidered.
Case No. 420/29881/24 dated 07/09/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against a tax notice-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region.
In its decision, the Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of previous instances, dismissing the cassation appeal of the tax authority. The court likely agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances regarding the absence of violations of tax legislation on the part of the individual, or with procedural violations committed by the tax authority in issuing
of the appealed decision. It is possible that the courts of previous instances established that the tax notice-decision was unfounded or did not comply with the requirements of current legislation. Also, the court could take into account the evidence provided by the plaintiff, which refutes the arguments of the tax authority. It is important that the Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of tax authorities to comply with the established procedure when conducting inspections and issuing tax notice-decisions.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts – without changes.
Case No. 759/19315/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the court’s refusal to recover from the plaintiff the court costs incurred by the defendant in connection with the dismissal of the claim.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application for recovery of legal aid costs, since the lawyer did not provide a contract for the provision of legal assistance, which made it impossible to verify the reliability and validity of the declared costs. The court noted that to confirm the costs of legal assistance, it is necessary to provide a contract for the provision of legal assistance, documents on payment of the fee and other expenses, properly executed. The absence of documentary evidence of expenses is the basis for refusing their reimbursement. The court also emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence, unless violations of the procedure for their submission and receipt are established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 755/4961/24 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the change of terms of contracts for the sale of property rights, invalidation of the contract for the sale of property rights and recognition of ownership of real estate.
2. The appellate court, partially satisfying the application for securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that there is a dispute between the parties regarding real estate objects, and there is an objective possibility of alienation of this property before the case is resolved by the court, as evidenced by the registration by the defendants of ownership of the disputed property after filing the claim. The court took into account the proportionality of the type of security of the claim to the claims, as well as the balance of interests of the parties, imposing an arrest on the apartment of one of the defendants and prohibiting registration actions regarding other disputed property, the owners of which were not involved in the case as defendants. The court noted that the application of measures to secure the claim does not resolve the dispute on the merits, but only guarantees the possibility of execution of a future court decision. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the appellate court reasonably took into account the existence of a dispute and the risk of alienation of property, as well as the fact that
the applied measures are temporary and do not impede the use of the property. The court of cassation also noted that the requirement to provide evidence of obvious things (proving the owner’s unlimited right to dispose of their property at any time) indicates the court’s application of an excessively high or even unattainable standard of proof.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 925/834/24 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use and disposal of a forestry land plot by canceling the state registration of the right of communal ownership to this plot.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protecting the violated right, namely a negatory action instead of a vindicatory one. The court noted that when the ownership of the disputed property is registered to another person, the proper method of protection is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession (vindicatory action), as the court’s decision on the recovery of property is the basis for entering the relevant record in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court also emphasized that the requirement to cancel the state registration of ownership of this property is not necessary for the effective restoration of the violated right. The court took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the plaintiff’s choice of an inappropriate method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 916/3703/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed natural gas and the obligation to write off accounts payable.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the initial claim, recovering from “BONA VITA-RP” LLC only the amount of inflation losses, 3% per annum and penalties for late payment, but refused to recover the principal debt, as it was paid at the rate for household consumers. The court also supported the decision to satisfy the counterclaim, obliging “GC “Naftogaz Ukraine” LLC to write off the accounts payable of “BONA VITA-RP” LLC for natural gas consumed in November 2021, in an amount exceeding the cost of gas purchased at a price of UAH 7,420 per 1000 m3, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine No. 2479-IX. The court took into account that “BONA VITA-RP” LLC is the manager of an apartment building and actually acts as a collective household consumer, providing heat energy to the residents of the building. The court also referred to previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, emphasizing that such consumers should be subject to
on the maximum gas price set for household consumers.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine.”
**Case No. 120/11299/24 dated 07/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of an individual tax consultation that denies the enterprise the simultaneous application of real estate tax benefits.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which dismissed the enterprise’s claim, based on the fact that to apply for the real estate tax benefit provided for in subparagraph “e” of paragraph 266.2.2 of Article 266 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, it is necessary that the main activity of the enterprise is classified in sections B-F of NACE. The court noted that the Tax Code of Ukraine does not contain a definition of the term “main activity,” but, considering a systematic approach, sectoral legislative acts and officially established rules for accounting for types of activities should be taken into account. The court indicated that the benefit defined in subparagraph “e” is directly linked to the classification of the main activity according to the NACE sections, therefore, the legislator meant precisely the main type of economic activity indicated in the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Associations. The court also added that the application of the definition of “main activity” from the National Accounting Standard 1 “General Requirements for Financial Reporting” to the norms of the Tax Code would be an artificial expansion of the interpretation of the norm.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
**Case No. 320/1444/21 dated 07/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions, by which LLC “AK-Gazprogres” was determined to have penalties for violating the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine regarding the equipment of excise warehouses with flow meters and level gauges, as well as for late registration of the excise warehouse.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal, which partially satisfied the claim, canceling the fine for late registration of the excise warehouse, since at the time of the tax notice-decision, the warehouse was already registered, although with a technical error in the address. At the same time, the court of cassation upheld the decision to impose a fine for not equipping the excise warehouse with the necessary meters, since at the time of the audit, violations were found regarding the absence of registered level gauges on the tanks and a flow meter on the fuel dispensing column. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the installation of meters for liquefied gas is a right, not an obligation, emphasizing the imperative requirements of the Taxof the Tax Code regarding the mandatory equipment and registration of the relevant equipment at excise warehouses where fuel is sold. The court also noted that fuel sales are not allowed without registered flow meters-counters, level gauges-counters, and tanks, as well as without registration of the excise warehouse.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which partially satisfied the claim by overturning one of the tax assessment notices but upholding the first instance court’s decision regarding the fine for not equipping the excise warehouse with meters.
Case No. 932/5463/23 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decisions of the first and appellate instances regarding the resolution of the fate of material evidence in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, dismissing the lawyer’s cassation appeal. The decision does not provide specific arguments that the court relied on, as only the operative part was announced. Typically, when considering issues related to material evidence, courts take into account their significance for establishing the circumstances of the case, the legality of their acquisition, and whether they are necessary for further proceedings or are subject to return to the owner, destruction, or special confiscation. The absence of a detailed description of the motives in the operative part makes a complete analysis of the court’s position impossible.
The Supreme Court ruled: To leave the ruling of the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dated October 23, 2024, and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated January 20, 2025, unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of lawyer PERSON_6 in the interests of PERSON_7.
Case No. 280/9520/24 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of the Company as a single tax payer.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances on securing the claim, noted that the purpose of securing the claim is to avoid possible violations of the Company’s rights and to ensure the real enforcement of the court’s decision if the claim is satisfied. The court emphasized that the cancellation of the registration of a single tax payer will lead to a change in the taxation system, penalties, suspension of operations, termination of contracts, and dismissal of employees, which will complicate the resumption of economic activity. The court also took into account that failure to take measures to secure the claim could significantly complicate the effective protection of the Company’s rights. The court indicated that the chosen method of securing the claim is a temporary measure aimed at preserving the existing situation pending the consideration of the case on its merits. The court noted that to secure a claim, it is necessary to be convinced that a threat to the complication of the execution of the court decision actually exists, and this threat must be directly related to the subject of the dispute.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances
Case №620/5897/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision on the application of an administrative-economic fine to the carrier for violation of the requirements of the legislation on road transport, namely for the driver’s lack of a tachograph inspection and adaptation protocol.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance on the legality of the fine, but changed its reasoning part. The court noted that according to the legislation, trucks with a gross weight of over 3.5 tons must be equipped with functioning and verified tachographs. In the absence of a tachograph, the driver has the right to keep records of working hours using an individual control book. However, the driver is obliged to present this book during the inspection. Since the driver did not provide either a tachograph inspection protocol (because it was not available) or an individual control book during the inspection, this is a violation of Article 48 of the Law of Ukraine “On Road Transport,” which entails an administrative-economic fine. The court emphasized that the obligation to prove the availability of the necessary documents rests with the driver, not the controlling authority.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the carrier’s claim, while changing the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance.
Case №757/13397/20-ц dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of deposit agreements and the recovery of debt under these agreements from JSC CB “PrivatBank” in favor of the depositor (successor).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the bank had not fulfilled its obligations under the deposit agreements, as it did not provide sufficient evidence of the return of funds to the depositor. The courts found that the bank statement provided by the bank did not confirm the crediting of funds specifically under these deposit agreements, and the terms of the agreements did not provide for the return of funds by transferring them to a card account. The court also took into account that the bank did not provide its own calculations of the amount of debt that would refute the plaintiff’s calculations. In addition, the court of appeal followed the instructions of the Supreme Court to examine all available evidence in the case. The bank’s reference to the debt transfer agreement with “Finilon” LLC was found to be erroneous, as the amount of the transferred debt was insignificant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC CB “Privatbank” and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case №1915/6447/2012 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the application for
review of court decisions under exceptional circumstances. The court overturned the decision of the Ternopil Region Court of Appeal and the ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases. The case was remanded for a new trial to the court of appeal. The reasons for the cancellation are not provided in the text, but it can be assumed that the exceptional circumstances cited by the applicant were deemed sufficient by the court to review the case.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 756/17008/14 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the victim’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings, but the reasons for this decision are not stated in the operative part. The full text of the ruling will be drawn up later, so it is currently impossible to know why the court made this particular decision. Usually, cassation proceedings are closed if the cassation appeal is filed against a court decision that is not subject to appeal in cassation, or if the cassation appeal does not meet the requirements of the law. In this case, the court may have decided that the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal is not subject to cassation appeal, or there were other procedural grounds for closing the proceedings. Final conclusions can be drawn after reviewing the full text of the ruling.
The court closed the cassation proceedings.
Case No. 760/5414/21 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the stipulation on satisfying the mortgagee’s claims contained in the mortgage agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not proved the existence of grounds for invalidating the mortgage agreement at the time of its conclusion, namely: the absence of free will in concluding the agreement, and the non-compliance of the terms of the agreement with the requirements of the legislation at the time of its conclusion. The court noted that the existence of a court decision on foreclosure on the mortgaged property and the subsequent notification by the bank of foreclosure out of court are not grounds for invalidating the agreement, since the invalidity of the agreement must exist at the time of its conclusion, and not arise as a result of non-performance of obligations. Also, the court emphasized that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of the absence of will to conclude the disputed agreement.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 911/4610/15 (911/714/23) dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement on balancing electricity imbalances.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision
decisions of previous instances, which partially denied the claim of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” against SE “REM” for the recovery of debt. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of grounds for adjusting the volumes of electricity to settle the defendant’s imbalances for certain periods, as required by paragraph 1.3 of Appendix 10 to the Market Rules. The court noted that although the plaintiff referred to receiving updated certified data, the additional adjustment was made in violation of the deadlines established by the Market Rules and was not confirmed by a reasoned decision of the settlement administrator. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that Appendix 10 to the Market Rules was not in effect during certain periods, since this appendix was in effect on the date of the additional adjustments and the issuance of the relevant invoices.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 924/29/23 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of additional monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Khmelnytskyi region against Yarovit Invest LLC within the framework of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the requirements of the tax authority, recognizing only the amount of tax debt as an agreed monetary obligation, but refused to recognize the claims for penalties. The courts were guided by the fact that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, the accrued penalty is subject to cancellation after 1095 days from the day when the controlling authority had the right to accrue such a penalty. The courts found that for most tax liabilities, this period expired before the tax authority filed an application with additional monetary claims. The court of cassation emphasized that the consideration of the requirements of tax authorities in bankruptcy cases is carried out taking into account the peculiarities of the emergence of tax liabilities in accordance with the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the obligation to prove the validity of the claims rests with the creditor, and the evidence provided must meet the requirements of relevance, admissibility, reliability and credibility.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Khmelnytskyi region, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 917/2313/24 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Private Enterprise “Karsad I” for securing the claim by prohibiting registration actions regarding the right of economic management of the Municipal Enterprise “Poltava-Service” to real estate objects for which the plaintiff claims ownership.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the application for securing the claim, based on the following: there is a reasonable assumption
that failure to take security measures may complicate the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights, as the Poltava City Council decided to assign the disputed objects to the “Poltava-Service” Municipal Enterprise under the right of economic management, and the latter is taking actions to technically inventory and evaluate the property for further registration; registration of the right of economic management to a third party may complicate the execution of a court decision in favor of the plaintiff in a dispute over ownership; the prohibition of registration actions is an adequate and proportionate measure to secure the claim, which will not harm the rights of the City Council as the owner of the land plots and “Poltava-Service” Municipal Enterprise as the user, but will ensure the possibility of protecting the plaintiff’s rights within this court proceeding. The court also noted that the lack of information about the ownership of the disputed objects in the State Register of Real Property Rights emphasizes the risk of registering the right of economic management to a third party. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the prejudicial nature of the circumstances established in other cases, as the subject matters of those cases were different.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Poltava City Council, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 925/1630/20 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the first instance court’s ruling and the appellate court’s decision regarding the approval of the list of creditor claims in the bankruptcy case of “Cherkasy Oblavtodor” State Enterprise, in particular, regarding the recognition of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts thoroughly examined the evidence submitted by the Main Department of the State Tax Service, such as tax declarations, debt calculations, audit reports, and court decisions, and established the validity of most of the tax authority’s claims, with the exception of the amount of penalty, for which sufficient evidence was not provided. The court also noted that a higher standard of proof applies in bankruptcy cases, which requires creditors to provide comprehensive and convincing evidence to support their claims. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations during the consideration of the Main Department of the State Tax Service’s application, stating that they relate to a ruling that is not the subject of cassation appeal. The court also emphasized the lawfulness of correcting clerical errors in the first instance court’s ruling, as it was done to reconcile the operative and reasoning parts of the decision. The court of cassation instance emphasized the principles of adversarial proceedings and disposition in commercial proceedings, according to which each party must prove the circumstances they rely on.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/318/15 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the approval of the liquidator’s report and l
liquidation balance of LLC “Danika”, liquidation of the legal entity and closure of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the liquidator took all necessary measures to identify the bankrupt’s assets, sold the property included in the liquidation estate, and distributed the proceeds among the creditors in accordance with the established priority. The court noted that the creditor challenging the actions of the liquidator must prove that these actions led to a violation of the liquidation procedure and negatively affected the formation of the liquidation estate and the satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court also took into account that the contract of sale of the bankrupt’s property was not declared invalid, and previous complaints of the creditor against the actions of the liquidator were rejected by the court. The court emphasized that its task is to verify the compliance of the courts of previous instances with the norms of substantive and procedural law, and not to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances. Since the courts of previous instances acted within the law, the court of cassation found no grounds to overturn their decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/283/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to access to the gas roof boiler room and the obligation to conclude an agreement on the procedure for using common property.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of the Condominium “Super Smart”. The court proceeded from the fact that the disputed gas roof boiler room is the common property of the apartment owners of both buildings, since it was created at the expense of all participants in the construction of the residential complex. The court noted that obstructing the use of common property is a violation of the rights of co-owners. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the legal relations in those cases were different. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments about the inadmissibility of the expert’s opinion, since it was not the only evidence, and the expert was warned about criminal liability. The court of cassation emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 128/4399/24 dated 07/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the imposition of a final sentence for a combination of crimes on a person who was already serving a sentence under a previous verdict.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine when imposing the final sentence on PERSON_6. Since at the time of the new crime there was already a court verdict under which PERSON_6 waswas serving a sentence of probation supervision, the appellate court did not have the right to absorb this sentence with a new one imposed with the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation). The cassation court emphasized that in such a case, each verdict must be executed independently, and the appellate court actually changed the previous verdict, which is unacceptable. The court also referred to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of April 1, 2024, which confirms this position. According to the cassation court, the appellate court committed a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law, which led to the incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 815/5012/15 dated July 10, 2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region to the Private Joint-Stock Company “UKRAINIAN DANUBE SHIPPING COMPANY.”
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. In justifying its position, the cassation court likely agreed with the conclusions of the Odesa District Administrative Court and the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal regarding the legitimacy of the issued tax assessment notices. It is possible that the courts of previous instances established violations of tax legislation by PJSC “UKRAINIAN DANUBE SHIPPING COMPANY,” which became the basis for issuing the appealed tax assessment notices. Also, the courts likely considered the arguments of the tax authority and gave them due consideration, rejecting the arguments of the plaintiff. Since the decision does not provide specific details of the case and the arguments of the parties, it is difficult to make a more detailed analysis.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PJSC “UKRAINIAN DANUBE SHIPPING COMPANY” and leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 195/1886/24 dated July 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the convicted person under Part 2 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of punishment not related to imprisonment).
2. The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the convicted person and decided to grant it partially, amending the appellate court’s verdict. The court excluded references to the imposition of punishment based on Part 1 of Article 71, Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, i.e., provisions on the totality of verdicts and crediting of previous punishment. The Supreme Court left unchanged the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 2 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the term of punishment in the form of restriction of liberty for 1 year. The rest of the appellate court’s verdict remained unchanged. In fact, the Supreme Court corrected a technical error of the appellate court, which concerned the rules for imposing
punishment in the presence of prior convictions.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, amending the appellate court’s verdict by excluding references to Part 1 of Article 71, Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and considering PERSON_7 convicted under Part 2 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to a punishment of restriction of liberty for a term of 1 year.
Case No. 905/45/25 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of “Corum Shakhtspetsbud” LLC at the initiation of the creditor “ALD Engineering and Construction” LLC.
2. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to open bankruptcy proceedings. The court of appeal reasonably noted that the debtor had not provided sufficient evidence to confirm that its single property complex was entirely located in the temporarily occupied territory, in particular, had not proved the impossibility of moving movable property to the territory controlled by Ukraine. Also, the court took into account information about the debtor’s receipt of profit after the beginning of the occupation of a part of the territory of Ukraine, which casts doubt on the complete impossibility of conducting economic activity. The court of cassation emphasized that the court has a duty to carefully verify the validity of the initiating creditor’s claims and ascertain the existence of grounds for opening bankruptcy proceedings, and the debtor did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of grounds for refusing to open proceedings, provided for in paragraphs 1-6 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Corum Shakhtspetsbud” LLC, and the decision of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 600/5520/24-а dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the tax authority to annul the license for retail sale of fuel and the obligation to take actions to renew information about the license in the register.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances on securing the claim, emphasizing that the courts did not adequately substantiate why failure to take measures to secure the claim in the form of suspending the decision to annul the license could significantly complicate the execution of the court decision or the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The court noted that the very fact of making a decision that concerns the plaintiff’s rights does not automatically indicate a complication in the execution of the court decision, and the plaintiff did not prove that the annulment of the license would lead to the suspension of all its economic activities, since it has other types of activities. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts of previous instances, by securing the claim by obligating the State Tax Service to take actions to enter/renew information in the register, exceeded the scope of the types of securing the claim established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts ofof the previous instances and denied the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 280/402/24 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Volyn Customs regarding the adjustment of the customs value of goods and cards of refusal to accept the customs declaration.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of LLC “Bakota”, because it established that the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the administrative court without valid reasons. The court noted that the introduction of martial law in Ukraine is not an automatic basis for renewing the missed deadline, but requires proof of a direct causal link between martial law and the impossibility of timely appealing to the court. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff had already twice appealed to the court with similar claims, but either withdrew the claim or did not appeal the decision to return the statement of claim, which indicates an abuse of procedural rights. The court emphasized that valid reasons for missing the deadline can only be objectively insurmountable circumstances that did not depend on the will of the plaintiff.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and leave the claim of LLC “Bakota” without consideration.
Case No. 908/1196/24 dated 07/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a private joint-stock company in favor of the city council of UAH 18,637,481.78 of unjustifiably retained funds for the use of a land plot of communal ownership without proper legal grounds.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to recover UAH 6,986,511.84 for the period from 07/01/2022 to 12/31/2022 and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court. The court of cassation instance indicated that the appellate court, refusing to recover funds, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 1212-1214 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and did not establish all the circumstances necessary for resolving the dispute, in particular, did not clarify whether the defendant is an entity that has the right to benefits regarding the payment of land rent in connection with hostilities, in accordance with the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also did not establish the amount that the city council should have received under normal conditions for the use of the land plot. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to resolve the dispute, it is necessary to establish the actual user of the land plot, the area of the plot, the amount that the owner should have received under normal conditions, and the period of use without legal grounds.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim for the recovery of UAH 6,986,511.84 and send the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 160/14651/22 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to oblige
To obligate JSC “Kryvorizhgaz” to bring the civil defense protective structure into a state of readiness.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the prosecutor appealed to the court, motivating this by the fact that the SES authority does not have the authority to appeal to the court with a demand to bring the protective structure into readiness, but the court did not agree with this argument, indicating that the SES has the right to appeal to the court with a demand to suspend the operation of the enterprise until the elimination of violations of the requirements of legislation in the field of technogenic and fire safety, which is an effective way to encourage the elimination of violations. The court emphasized that the prosecutor can represent the interests of the state in court only in cases where the protection of these interests is not carried out or is improperly carried out by a state authority, or if there is no authority authorized to protect the legitimate interests of the state. Since the SES has the authority to appeal to the court, there are no grounds for the prosecutor to represent the interests of the state. The court noted that usually the absence of grounds for the prosecutor to appeal to the court entails the return of the statement of claim, but if this is discovered at the stage of the trial, the claim remains unconsidered. The court of appeal mistakenly refused to satisfy the claim, instead of leaving it unconsidered.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decision of the appellate court, namely: the prosecutor’s claim was left unconsidered.
Case No. 371/448/23 dated 07/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, since the plaintiff was dismissed from the position of librarian due to staff reduction.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the employer fulfilled the requirements of the law regarding warning of dismissal and offered the plaintiff available vacancies, which she refused. The court also took into account that when determining employees who have a preferential right to remain at work, the commission reasonably preferred employees with higher qualifications. The appellate court did not agree that the plaintiff was dismissed from the position she did not actually hold, since the assignment of a qualification category is not a transfer to another position. At the same time, the court recognized that the dismissal took place in violation of the two-month warning period, therefore, changed the date of dismissal to a later one. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions of the appellate court, noting that the employer fulfilled the obligation to provide employment, and the preferential right to remain at work was determined reasonably.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 927/401/24 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal actions of LLC “IST AGRO SERVICE” regarding the failure to provide LLC “CORNFIELD LTD” with infor
of information and documents, as well as the obligation to provide copies of these documents.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that a member of a company has the right to receive information about the company’s business activities, and this right cannot be restricted by the company’s internal documents. The court noted that the provisions of Article 43 of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” do not contain an exhaustive list of documents to which a member has the right of access, and courts should give preference to a broad interpretation of this right, allowing access to any documents containing information about the company’s activities. The court also pointed out the error in refusing to provide some documents due to their lack of specificity, as such shortcomings should have been addressed during the case preparation stage. In addition, the court emphasized the need to analyze the possibility of providing documents containing personal data by anonymizing them. Regarding the cassation appeal of IST AGRO SERVICE LLC, the court rejected it, noting that the company had not proven the impossibility of providing certain documents due to their destruction in connection with the expiration of the storage period, and also emphasized the importance of commercial contracts as the main form of business activity.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of CORNFIELD LTD LLC, overturned the decisions of lower courts in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims, and sent the case for a new trial to the local commercial court, and left the cassation appeal of IST AGRO SERVICE LLC without satisfaction.
Case No. 640/758/19 dated 07/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the appellate court’s verdict regarding his conviction under Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s verdict, as the panel of judges did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the law on criminal liability that would be grounds for reversing or changing the appealed court decision. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proof of PERSON_6’s guilt in committing the imputed crime and the correctness of the qualification of his actions. Also, the Supreme Court took into account the prior conviction of the convicted person and other circumstances of the case, which were investigated by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation acted within its powers, verifying the legality and validity of the court decision.
The court decided: The verdict of the Poltava Court of Appeal of January 14, 2025, regarding PERSON_6, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person shall be dismissed.
Case No. 560/1092/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds to repay a tax debt from an individual.
legal entity.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the arguments of the tax authority regarding the receipt by the defendant of tax assessment notices and tax demands, on the basis of which the tax debt arose, referring to the circumstances established in another case that concerned other tax assessment notices; the courts did not take into account the taxpayer’s obligation to report a change of residence and the fact that repeated sending of tax assessment notices is not provided for by tax legislation; the courts did not provide a legal assessment of the established circumstances in conjunction with the evidence obtained, which is necessary when considering each case. The court of cassation emphasized the obligation of the courts to actively clarify all the circumstances of the case and to request evidence that is missing for the proper establishment of the circumstances.
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. 380/20264/21 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv Region (MUPFU) to recalculate the plaintiff’s pension based on new certificates of increased financial support.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal to review the case based on newly discovered circumstances, emphasizing that a change in the legal position of the court in similar cases is not a newly discovered circumstance that would give grounds for reviewing a court decision that has entered into legal force. The court noted that newly discovered circumstances are legal facts that existed at the time of the case but were not known to the applicant and would have a significant impact on the court’s decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is not a way to correct judicial errors, but only to take into account circumstances that were not known at the time of the decision. The court also indicated that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that the circumstances he referred to were unknown to him at the time of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and refused to satisfy the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 472/184/20 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body to transfer the land plot to the defendant’s ownership, the cancellation of the certificate of ownership and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights to this plot, since the plaintiff believes that this plot partially overlaps with her land plot.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, noted that a person has the right to an effective way to protect their rights, which corresponds to the nature of the violation. In this case, the plaintiff chose ineffective ways of protection,
as well as appealing against the decision of a local self-government body and annulment of title documents, instead of a claim for recovery of property from unlawful possession. The court emphasized that the proper remedy in such disputes is a claim for recovery of property from unlawful possession for the recovery of a part of the land plot, which, according to the plaintiff, is illegally in the possession of the defendant. Since the courts of previous instances established the actual circumstances of the case, but were mistaken in the reasons for rejecting the claim, the Supreme Court decided to amend the reasoning parts of their decisions.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but upheld the decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 523/719/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of being in labor relations and the obligation to make corrections to the date of commencement of the plaintiff’s labor relations as a juror.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the dispute regarding the obligation to make corrections to the date of commencement of labor relations and the provision of a copy of the employment contract is public-legal, since it arises from the relations of public service, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The court also noted that claims for establishing the fact of being in labor relations are not subject to judicial review at all, since the plaintiff has the opportunity to appeal the decision of the relevant body in administrative order. The court took into account the special status of a juror, which ensures the participation of the people in the administration of justice, and the need to consider such disputes under the rules of jurisdiction that resolve disputes regarding the passage of public service. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, according to which claims for establishing a fact of legal significance and appealing against a decision of a subject of power cannot be combined in one proceeding, since these claims are subject to the jurisdiction of different courts.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to appeal to the administrative court regarding the claims for the obligation to make corrections to the date of commencement of labor relations and the provision of a copy of the employment contract.
Case No. 200/7055/23 dated 10/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of deducting alimony from the additional remuneration of a serviceman, established for the period of martial law.
The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of a serviceman who challenged the actions of the military unit regarding the withholding of alimony from his additional remuneration, provided for by Cabinet Resolution No. 168. The court noted that in accordance with current legislation, namely Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1263 of 11.11.2022, additional remuneration paid to servicemen for the period of martial law
explicitly defined as a type of income from which alimony is withheld. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about the inconsistency of the regulations and the non-permanent nature of this payment, emphasizing that the Cabinet of Ministers clearly defined it as a source for alimony collection. The court also referred to the previous legal position of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 209/3260/13-c, which confirms this approach, and found no grounds to deviate from it.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the legitimacy of withholding alimony from the additional remuneration of a serviceman.
Case No. 520/4975/25 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the court’s refusal to open proceedings on a claim for the recovery of funds necessary to enforce a previous court decision.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings, since the plaintiff was trying to recover funds necessary to enforce an existing court decision, instead of using the mechanisms for monitoring the enforcement of the decision provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAS of Ukraine), in particular, filing an application to recognize the defendant’s inaction regarding the enforcement of the court decision as illegal within the case in which this decision was made. The court noted that there are special methods of judicial control over the execution of decisions, namely: obliging the subject of power to submit a report on the execution of a court decision, establishing or changing the method and procedure for the execution of a court decision, recognizing decisions, actions or omissions of the subject of power committed in execution of a court decision as illegal. The court emphasized that failure to comply with a court decision cannot be an independent subject of separate court proceedings, but must be resolved within the framework of procedures for monitoring the enforcement of court decisions. The court indicated that the plaintiff incorrectly chose a method of protection, trying to force the defendant to fulfill the previous decision through a new lawsuit, although there are special mechanisms for monitoring the enforcement of court decisions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 906/3/24 dated 07/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of decisions of state authorities regarding the transfer for lease and sale of land plots, which, according to the plaintiff, violate his right of permanent use of land.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, as they did not properly investigate the issue of the plaintiff’s choice of an effective way to protect the violated right, namely, whether in this case the claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession (vindication claim) is more appropriate, considering that the right of ownership to the disputed land plots is registered with
