**Case No. 459/331/23 dated July 9, 2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the provision of legal services and the invalidation of this contract, concluded between LLC “Advocate in Europe” and individual PERSON_1.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that LLC “Advocate in Europe” fulfilled its obligations under the contract, ensuring that PERSON_1 received insurance compensation, and PERSON_1 did not fulfill the obligation to pay for services. The court found no grounds for invalidating the contract, as PERSON_1 did not prove that the contract was concluded under the influence of difficult circumstances and on extremely unfavorable terms, because receiving compensation indicates the advantageous terms of the contract for PERSON_1. The court also noted that the costs of legal aid are subject to reimbursement regardless of whether they have already been actually paid, and reduced the amount of compensation, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the health condition of PERSON_1. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s reference to the failure of the courts of previous instances to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, since they are formulated under other factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 826/3687/18 dated July 8, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices and the decision on the results of the review of the complaint regarding the accrual of income tax and value added tax to LLC “Ecoway Waste Management” (formerly LLC “Ave Lviv”) based on the results of the verification of business transactions with counterparties.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, because the courts did not investigate the evidence collected in the case in the context of each counterparty separately, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances important for the correct resolution of the case, and did not comply with the requirements of the previous decision of the Supreme Court on a new hearing; the courts did not establish a complete list of business transactions that were questioned during the inspection, and the grounds for this; the courts did not verify the actual performance of business transactions for the provision of services in the context of each counterparty separately, did not establish the circumstances of establishing business relations between the plaintiff and its counterparties, did not provide a proper legal assessment of the primary documents regarding their execution, did not evaluate the evidence in aggregate regarding each counterparty separately, did not investigate the calculation of tax liabilities and penalties in the context of each violation and counterparty, and also did not provide a legal assessment of the circumstances regarding the accrual of tax liabilities, taking into account the non-
submission of primary documentation, including that seized during the criminal proceedings. The cassation court did not recognize as justified the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the bias of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and remand the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 694/1425/22 dated 07/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of a court order for the recovery of alimony based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The cassation court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed PERSON_2’s application for review of a court order for the recovery of child support based on newly discovered circumstances, as the debtor did not prove the existence of newly discovered circumstances, namely, the fact that the child lived with him at the time the court order was issued, and also did not refute the fact that the child lived with the mother. The court took into account that the decision of the local government body determined the place of residence of the child with the mother, as well as the decision of a foreign court, which refused the father to return the child to Ukraine, based on the best interests of the child. The court noted that the existence of a dispute regarding the place of residence of the child and the fact that the child lives with the mother are not grounds for canceling a court order based on newly discovered circumstances, but may be grounds for reducing the amount of alimony. The court also emphasized that circumstances based on a reassessment of evidence that has already been assessed by the court during the trial cannot be considered newly discovered.
3. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the district court and the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 916/1736/24 dated 07/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s cancellation of the rulings of the court of first instance approving the debtor’s debt restructuring plan and closing the insolvency proceedings based on a complaint from a creditor who did not participate in the case.
2. The cassation court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the rulings of the court of first instance, on the grounds that the debtor did not provide complete information about all creditors, in particular, about the creditor whose claims were confirmed by a court decision that had entered into legal force, but were not filed in the insolvency case. The court also took into account that the appellate court correctly noted that in the event that a creditor did not apply with monetary claims to the debtor in the bankruptcy case, but refers to such claims, challenging the rulings approving the debtor’s debt restructuring plan and closing the insolvency proceedings.
in connection with the debtor’s implementation of the debt restructuring plan, considering the legal nature and consequences of these rulings, as well as by virtue of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine, they are court decisions rendered regarding the rights and obligations of such a creditor within the meaning of the first part of Article 254 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that in such cases, the court of first instance must oblige the restructuring manager to notify the creditor of the consequences of not filing claims within the established period. Furthermore, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the debtor acted too quickly in agreeing to the restructuring plan, which could have limited the creditor’s right to file claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 922/2156/24 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the prosecutor’s office, in the interests of the state, of forest land plots from the illegal possession of Reform-Invest LLC.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which had dismissed the claim for the reclamation of land plots, arguing that Reform-Invest LLC had acquired ownership of the disputed plots through their purchase from a person who had received them in settlement of a debt under a court decision, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, constituted the realization of property in the course of enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court had not investigated the issue of Reform-Invest LLC’s good faith in acquiring the property, considering that the plots were forest lands and the prosecutor had argued that the defendant was aware of this. The court of cassation emphasized that for a proper resolution of the dispute, it was important to establish whether the defendant had exercised reasonable care in acquiring the property, especially considering its specific status. Additionally, the court of cassation pointed out the need to verify the defendant’s arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, which had not been properly considered by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 902/983/23 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a state property lease agreement and an additional agreement to it as invalid, as well as the obligation to return the leased property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which found that the state property lease agreement had been concluded in violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Education,” as the premises of the state educational institution were not used for educational purposes. The appellate court correct
applied the provisions on the statute of limitations correctly, taking into account the extension of the statute of limitations for the duration of quarantine and martial law. The court also took into account that the additional agreement to the lease agreement continued the illegal use of the property for purposes other than those intended. The arguments of the cassation appeal that the statute of limitations began to run earlier than the appellate court established are unfounded, as no evidence was provided that the Ministry of Education knew or could have known about the violation of its right earlier. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that was examined by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 922/4297/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to oblige Private Enterprise “Rybkhoz” to vacate the Oleksandrivske Reservoir and return it to the administration of the Kharkiv Regional Military Administration due to the enterprise’s lack of legal grounds for using this water body.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that legal grounds, such as ownership, permanent use, or lease, are necessary for carrying out fish farming activities on water fund lands. Since Private Enterprise “Rybkhoz” is not the owner or permanent user, and the Oleksandrivske Reservoir is a reservoir for complex purposes, which cannot be leased, the enterprise uses the water body without proper legal grounds. The court also emphasized that the existence of the Fisheries Operation Regime and the Permit for Special Use of Aquatic Bioresources are not title documents for land or a water body. The court indicated that the use of a water fund land plot is possible exclusively under the terms of a lease or with the consent of the owners/users of the land plots. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances reasonably established the absence of legal grounds for Private Enterprise “Rybkhoz” to use the water fund land plot.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Private Enterprise “Rybkhoz” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the enterprise’s obligation to vacate the water body.
Case No. 380/5244/22 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of Head of the Department of Cash Payments and Compensation in connection with the reduction of the position.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings, since the defendant acted within the law.
regarding the dismissal of the plaintiff. The court noted that the employer is obligated to offer all available vacancies, and not to create new ones or dismiss other employees. The court also indicated that the defendant fulfilled its obligation by offering the plaintiff all available vacancies, which she refused. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the preferential right to remain employed, as there were no other candidates for the vacant positions. The court also noted that the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, to which the plaintiff referred, did not prohibit the reduction of the number of employees in the Lviv region at the time of dismissal.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/2640/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the appellate court regarding the refusal to include the monetary claims of “Aldiva” LLC in the register of creditors’ claims of “Refill” LLC in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that “Aldiva” LLC did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the debt of “Refill” LLC under the agreement on the provision of revolving financial assistance, in particular, there was no proof of agreement between the parties on changing the purpose of payments, and it was not justified why additional evidence could not be submitted to the court of first instance. The court also noted that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within the competence of the cassation court, and references to the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the significance of data from the Unified State Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (USJITS) and the Electronic Court are not proper justifications for forming such a conclusion in this case. In addition, the court of cassation instance emphasized that the obligation to prove the validity of the creditor’s claims rests with the applicant, and “Aldiva” LLC did not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of proper confirmation of the stated claims.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Aldiva” LLC and to uphold the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 128/789/17 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of land lease agreements and the return of these plots due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim for termination of land lease agreements and return of land plots, as the fact of systematic non-payment of rent by the defendant, which is a violation of the terms of the agreements, was established. The court rejected the arguments of the defendant’s cassation appeal, as they amounted to a re-evaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court, and were notconfirmation of reference to non-consideration of the Supreme Court’s conclusions in similar cases. The court also noted that the prosecutor reasonably appealed to the court in the interests of the state, as the authorized body did not take measures to protect the interests of the state. The court of cassation did not find grounds to deviate from the legal position set out in the Supreme Court’s decision of November 20, 2024, in case No. 918/391/23, and did not establish that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law or violated the norms of procedural law when adopting the appealed court decisions.
The Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 461/6414/24 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling to close the proceedings in the case on the claim of the bank against an individual for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, since there is already a court decision that has entered into legal force, made between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous courts to close the proceedings, as it considers that the bank’s claims against an individual are identical to the claims in the previous case, where a decision was already made to refuse to recover the debt under the same loan agreement. The court noted that the identity of claims is determined by the coincidence of the parties, grounds, and subject of the dispute. A change in the amount of debt that the bank is trying to recover is not a change in the grounds for the claim, as the original circumstances remain unchanged. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty, according to which a court decision that has entered into legal force cannot be questioned. The court also supported the decision to recover legal aid costs, as the defendant provided the necessary evidence and justification for these costs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 521/18197/22 dated 09/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the debtor’s complaint about the inaction of the state enforcement service regarding the failure to remove the seizure of property in enforcement proceedings, which were completed by returning the writ of execution to the creditor.
The court of cassation noted that the return of the writ of execution to the creditor is not an unconditional basis for removing the seizure of the debtor’s property, since the creditor has the right to re-present the writ of execution for enforcement within the statutory deadlines. At the same time, the court indicated that the state executor, upon receiving an application for the cancellation of the seizure within the destroyed enforcement proceedings, must take measures to restore the materials of the enforcementof the enforcement proceedings and establish specific grounds for its termination, and then make a decision on the application. The appellate court did not examine the materials of the renewed enforcement proceedings and did not establish the circumstances and grounds for its termination, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case. The court of appeal should have obliged the Suvorov District State Executive Service to provide the materials of the renewed enforcement proceedings, establish the grounds for the termination of these enforcement proceedings, and, depending on this, make a decision on the complaint.
The court decided to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 520/1680/24 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the State Institution “Territorial Medical Association of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Kharkiv Oblast” regarding the failure to include information on monthly additional payments in the updated certificate of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance for the recalculation of the pension.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, which closed the appellate proceedings, arguing that the Regional Service Center of the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is not a legal entity and, accordingly, does not have administrative procedural capacity. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the CAS of Ukraine, a subject of power may be a defendant in a case, even if it does not have the status of a legal entity. The court took into account that the Regional Service Center is responsible for issuing certificates of monetary allowance for the recalculation of pensions, which makes it a subject of power. The court also took into account that the court of first instance replaced the party to the enforcement proceedings with the Regional Service Center of the Main Service Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kharkiv, Poltava, and Sumy Oblasts. The Supreme Court emphasized that a similar legal position has already been expressed in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 911/657/24 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership, the recovery of property from another’s illegal possession, and the recognition of ownership of a sewage pumping station (SPS).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision on state registration of ownership of the SPS by PetroPavlivske LLC, since the facility was not put into operation and, therefore, could not be the subject of state registration as an object of immovable property. The court noted that PetroPavlivske LLC “”Petropavlivske” did not acquire property rights to the CNS, and the university, as the developer, owns the materials used in the construction. The court also pointed out that the state registrar did not verify the fact of commissioning the object, which is a violation of the law. The arguments of the cassation appeal of “Petropavlivske” LLC that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were rejected, since the legal relations in those cases are not similar. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments about the need to involve the local self-government body and the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Planning in the case, since the dispute does not concern the legalization of unauthorized construction.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision on state registration of ownership of the sewage pumping station by “Petropavlivske” LLC.
Case No. 921/457/23 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement regarding the extension of the lease term.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of Private Entrepreneur Yaremchuk I.V. on the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement. The courts found that Private Entrepreneur Yaremchuk I.V. properly notified the Zbarazh City Council of his intention to extend the land lease term, on which there are perennial plantations, proposing a lease term that meets the requirements of current legislation (at least 25 years for such plantations). The Zbarazh City Council did not provide reasonable objections to the extension of the lease term, and its decision of 02.09.2022 was regarded by the courts as consent to the lessee’s proposal. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the Zbarazh City Council regarding the failure of the courts of previous instances to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the legal relations in those cases were not similar to this case. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the decision on partial reimbursement of Private Entrepreneur Yaremchuk I.V.’s expenses for professional legal assistance, since the courts of previous instances properly investigated and substantiated the amount of compensation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Zbarazh City Council, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 915/1222/19 dated 07/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Mykolaiv City Council on the transfer of land plots to “Nereyintertrans” LLC for lease, the recognition of lease agreements as invalid and the return of these plots to the disposal of the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the previous
of their courts, noting that the prosecutor legitimately appealed to the court in the interests of the state, since the Mykolaiv City Council, being an authorized body, itself violated the interests of the territorial community by adopting a decision to lease land plots that contradicts urban planning documentation. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor became aware of the violation only after publication on the Internet in 2018, and therefore did not miss the statute of limitations. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the prosecutor should have contacted the city council before filing the lawsuit, since the city council itself was the defendant in the case. In addition, the court noted that satisfying the claims is an effective means of protection, since the challenged decision effectively changes the designated purpose of the land plot.
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Nereyintertrans” LLC and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/18308/21 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of SE “NNEGC “Energoatom” of inflationary losses accrued in connection with the untimely fulfillment of monetary obligations under the agreement on balancing electricity.
2. The court of cassation instance left unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of SE “NNEGC “Energoatom” for the recovery of inflationary losses. The court noted that the provisions of Article 75 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Electricity Market” do not contain an imperative prohibition regarding payment for electricity only with funds from an account with a special mode of use, and the debtor has the opportunity to deposit funds from other accounts. The court also emphasized that the existence of a special account does not exempt the consumer from liability for overdue monetary obligations, including the payment of inflationary losses. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to round the inflation index, since the calculation provided by the plaintiff already contained rounded values. The court also emphasized that the courts of previous instances examined the calculation of inflationary losses provided by the plaintiff and established its compliance with the requirements of the law, and the use of the “LIGA:ZAKON” system to verify calculations is an established practice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 420/29881/24 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the tax notice-decision, which increased the amount of personal income tax for the plaintiff and accrued penalties in connection with the non-inclusion in the taxable income of funds received from
liquidation of a foreign company.
2. The court, granting the claims, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff fulfilled all the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine (TC of Ukraine) for applying the benefit for taxation of income received as a result of the liquidation of a foreign legal entity, namely: the liquidation procedure was initiated and completed within the established deadlines, the plaintiff submitted all the necessary documents, including an application for exemption from taxation and financial statements of the foreign company. The court noted that the TC of Ukraine does not contain a specific list of documents required to confirm the right to the benefit, and that the tax authority does not have the right to demand additional documents not provided for by law. The court also took into account that tax legislation does not provide for an assessment of assets or an audit of the financial statements of a foreign company for the purpose of applying the benefit. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not provide proper evidence that would refute the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s application of the benefit, and also took into account that the State Tax Service of Ukraine in a similar situation with another shareholder of the same company concluded that there were no violations of tax legislation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/2640/23 dated 08/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance to reject the monetary claims of Borey-S LLC against Refill LLC in the bankruptcy case of the latter.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, supporting the conclusion that Borey-S LLC did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the debt of Refill LLC under the agreement on the provision of repayable financial assistance. The court noted that the payments were made with different purposes, and there is no evidence of agreement on changing this purpose between the parties. Also, the appellate court rightly disregarded the agreement on the termination of the supply agreement, since Borey-S LLC did not provide a copy of it to the appellate complaint, did not file a motion for its retrieval, and did not justify the impossibility of submitting this evidence to the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is beyond its competence, and the burden of proving the validity of the claims rests with the creditor. The court also rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations, since they amounted to denying the circumstances established by the courts and revaluing the evidence.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 420/4875/20 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices by which the plaintiff had the amount of tax liability increased for income tax, VAT, personal income tax, and military tax.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, which found that the plaintiff rightfully included in the expenses and tax credit the amounts for business transactions with counterparties, since these transactions are confirmed by proper primary documents, real changes in the property status of the taxpayer occurred, and business transactions caused changes in the structure of assets and liabilities of the taxpayer, contributed to income generation. The court also noted that violations of tax discipline by the plaintiff’s counterparties cannot be the basis for depriving the plaintiff of the right to form a tax credit if the plaintiff has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed by law and has the necessary documentary evidence. Regarding the accrual of personal income tax from dividends, the court agreed that since the minutes of the general meeting determined the period of accrual and payment of dividends, and the tax agent taxed this income at the time of its accrual, there are no grounds for allegations of violation of tax legislation. The court of cassation emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the lower courts.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 686/23478/17 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Khmelnytskyi City Council regarding the inclusion of the basement of an apartment building in the list of communal property objects and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this premises by the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which found that the plaintiffs did not prove that the disputed basement is an auxiliary room intended for servicing the building and its residents, since the expert examination established the possibility of using the premises as a separate object under certain conditions. The court noted that the presence of communications in part of the premises does not make the entire premises auxiliary. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiffs did not dispute the use for a long time
the premises by another person and did not prove the existence of obstacles in accessing utilities. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is beyond its powers, and it sees no grounds for overturning the decisions of the previous instances. The court of cassation noted that the conclusions of the previous instances do not contradict the legal positions of the Supreme Court, which the applicant referred to in the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged.
Case No. 520/35598/24 dated July 10, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the tax authority’s decision to cancel the registration of an individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances to secure the claim, proceeded from the fact that failure to take measures to secure the claim may significantly complicate the effective protection of the entrepreneur’s rights, since the cancellation of registration as a single tax payer will lead to a change in the taxation system, the application of penalties, suspension of activities, and termination of contractual relations. The court noted that taking measures to secure the claim is a temporary measure aimed at ensuring the execution of the court decision if the claim is satisfied. The court also took into account that the chosen method of securing the claim is proportionate to the stated requirements and is aimed at preserving the existing situation until the case is considered on its merits. The court emphasized that in order to secure a claim, it is necessary to be convinced that the threat of complicating the execution of the court decision or the effective protection of the right actually exists and is directly related to the object of the dispute. The court indicated that the previous instances reasonably pointed to the existence of grounds for taking measures to secure the claim, since the purpose is to avoid possible violation of the plaintiff’s rights and to ensure the real execution of the court decision.
3. The court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 495/4735/23 dated July 09, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of ownership of inherited property in the order of inheritance by law of the fourth degree, where the plaintiff asked to recognize her ownership of the apartment after the death of the person with whom, as she claimed, she lived as one family for more than five years.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that the fact of cohabitation of the plaintiff and the testator was confirmed only by the testimony of witnesses and the act drawn up by the same neighbors, which is insufficient evidence to establish
