Case No. 635/12429/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of an employee based on absence from work for more than four months, when the employer knew about the reasons for the absence.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the employee was dismissed on the basis of paragraph 8-3 of part one of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (absence from work for more than four months), but at the time of dismissal he was on unpaid leave for the period of martial law, granted at his request and оформленій by the relevant orders of the employer. The court emphasized that for a lawful dismissal on this basis, the simultaneous presence of two conditions is necessary: actual absence from work for more than four months and the absence of information from the employer about the reasons for such absence. Since the employer knew about the employee’s leave, there were no grounds for dismissal. The court also rejected the employer’s arguments that the duration of the leave should be limited to the terms of martial law established at the time of its granting, since martial law in Ukraine continues continuously. The court noted that the employer did not provide evidence of taking measures to recall the employee from leave.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 195/1886/24 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the imposition of punishment based on the aggregate of sentences.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, because the appellate court incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, namely the provisions of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, regarding the imposition of punishment based on the aggregate of sentences. The Supreme Court noted that for the application of Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the presence of two conditions is necessary: the commission of a new crime after the verdict, but before the full serving of the sentence under the previous verdict, and the presence of an unserved part of the sentence under the previous verdict at the time of sentencing under the new verdict. In this case, at the time of the verdict of the appellate court, the convicted person had already been released from punishment under the previous verdict, therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the application of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is absent. Accordingly, the appellate court had no reason to apply the provisions on sentencing based on the aggregate of sentences.
3. The Supreme Court changed the judgment of the appellate court, excluding from it the reference to the imposition of punishment on the basis of Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and considered PERSON_7 convicted only under Part 2 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to punishment in the form of restriction of liberty for a term of 1 year.
Case No. 990/383/24 dated 03/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the judge’s appeal against the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the appointment of a repeated qualification assessment for compliance with the position held.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff’s qualification assessment procedure was completed, since the HQCJ panel had already decided on the judge’s compliance with the position held, and the High Council of Justice (HCJ), taking into account this decision, submitted a motion to the President of Ukraine to appoint the plaintiff as a judge. The court emphasized that the actions of the HQCJ regarding the repeated assessment go beyond the procedure defined by law, violate the principle of legal certainty and the plaintiff’s right to respect for private life in the aspect of access to the profession. The court also noted that the HCJ, when deciding to submit a motion to the President, took into account the existing conclusion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC), which indicates the completion of the assessment procedure. The court indicated that the limits of the HQCJ’s discretion are not unlimited and must be exercised in a manner prescribed by law. The court rejected the arguments of the HQCJ regarding the incompleteness of the assessment procedure, emphasizing that the decision of the HCJ to submit a motion to the President was made on the basis of current legislation.
3. The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeals of the HQCJ and the plaintiff.
**Case No. 990SCGS/29/24 dated 03/07/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on bringing the judge to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a motion for dismissal from office.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to dismiss judge PERSON_1 of the Donetsk District Administrative Court, as the HCJ found that the judge obtained citizenship of the russian federation after the occupation of Crimea, did not take any action to renounce it, and used a russian passport, which is a violation of the judge’s oath and undermines the authority of justice. The court noted that obtaining citizenship of the aggressor country, especially by a judge, is unacceptable and indicates non-compliance with the position held. The court also took into account that the judge did not provide convincing explanations regarding the circumstances of obtaining russian citizenship and did not refute the evidence of its use. The Grand Chamber emphasized that the HCJ acted within its powers and in compliance with the necessary procedures, and the established facts are sufficient for the application of a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal. The court also noted that the violation is ongoing, as the judge has still not taken any measures to renounce citizenship of the russian federation.
3. The court dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision of the High Council of Justice.
**Case No. 990SCGS/14/25 dated 03/07/2025**
**Case on appealing the decision of the High Council of Justice regarding disciplinary action against a judge**
The subject of the dispute is the judge’s appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on her being held disciplinary liable in the form of a submission for dismissal from office.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSC SC) upheld the HCJ’s decision, noting that the judge engaged in conduct that discredits the title of judge, namely, expressed support for the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The GCSC SC emphasized that the HCJ reasonably established the presence in the judge’s actions of the elements of a disciplinary offense under paragraph 3 of part one of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” as her statements undermine the authority of justice, especially in times of war. The court took into account that disciplinary proceedings are autonomous, and the HCJ independently assessed the evidence obtained in the criminal proceedings, as well as the judge’s own explanations. The GCSC SC also noted that the disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal from office is proportionate to the committed offense.
The court upheld the HCJ’s decision without changes.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128813075](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128813075)
**Case No. 991/6894/25 dated 07/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawyer’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from the High Anti-Corruption Court to the Sosnivskyi District Court of the city of Cherkasy.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. It only states that the full text of the ruling will be prepared later, and only the operative part is announced now, guided by Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the preparation of the full text requires considerable time. The court does not provide any reasons why it rejects the lawyer’s motion to change jurisdiction. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot provide information about the court’s arguments.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the lawyer’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from the High Anti-Corruption Court to the Sosnivskyi District Court of the city of Cherkasy.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128813067](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128813067)
**Case No. 932/5463/23 dated 07/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of a piece of physical evidence – an unfinished building – in criminal proceedings that have been closed.
2. The court of first instance refused to grant the motion for the return of the physical evidence, reasoning that the property right to the object is registered to a deceased person, and the heirs do not have sufficient legal grounds to file such a motion, and there is also a dispute over the property right to the object between the heirs and the city council. The appellate court agreed that the applicant had legal grounds to file the motion, but upheld the decision of the court of first instance, as both the applicant and the city council claim the object simultaneously, each considering themselves the owner, so the dispute must be resolved in civil proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, noting that there is a dispute over the ownership
property rights, which must be resolved through civil proceedings, and the applicant has not provided evidence of such dispute resolution. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the unlawful composition of the appellate court, as the judge’s participation in previous court decisions did not constitute repeated participation in the criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 234/4789/21 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of debt for unrecorded electrical energy, charged as a result of a detected violation – the use of a “dummy neutral.”
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, which found that the act of violation was drawn up by authorized persons of the distribution system operator (DSO) in the established order, based on which the calculation of damages was lawfully carried out in accordance with the Retail Electricity Market Rules (REMR). The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that a mandatory condition for charging the cost of unrecorded electricity is the detection of the “dummy neutral” connection point, since the consumer’s authorized person admitted the fact of the violation. The court also noted that the consumer’s mother, who allowed DSO representatives to the facility and signed the act of violation, is an authorized person. The court rejected the arguments regarding the impossibility of detecting the violation during previous inspections, as the violation was hidden and detected using special means. The court emphasized that the calculation of the volume of unrecorded electricity was carried out in accordance with the terms of the contract and the requirements of the REMR, and the appellant’s arguments amount to a reevaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 922/534/22 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of a contract for the sale of communal property, the cancellation of the city council’s decision on privatization, and the return of the property to communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection by demanding the cancellation of the city council’s decision, which had already been executed, and also missed the statute of limitations for appealing the sale contract, established by the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property.” The court noted that a shortened statute of limitations of three months applies to claims for the recognition of the invalidity of a privatization contract, rather than the general three-year period. Since the prosecutor appealed to the court after the expiration
if this term has expired, the claim should be denied. Regarding the return of property, the court stated that since there are no grounds to признання the contract invalid, there are no grounds for the return of property either.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the claim and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 741/168/22 dated 20/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_5 and PERSON_6 for committing criminal offenses under the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which included robbery, illegal handling of weapons, and unauthorized appropriation of authority.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, reclassifying the actions of the convicted persons from Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code (robbery committed by a prior conspiracy by a group of persons, combined with intrusion into a dwelling, other premises or storage) to Part 3 of Article 15 – Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code (attempted robbery, combined with intrusion into a dwelling, other premises or storage). The court likely took into account that the crime was not completed for reasons beyond the control of the convicted persons. Also, the court left unchanged the qualification of PERSON_5’s actions under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code (illegal handling of weapons) and both convicts under Part 2 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code (unauthorized appropriation of authority). PERSON_5 was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, and PERSON_6 – 7 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, by absorption of less severe penalties by more severe ones.
The court decided to amend the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, reclassifying the actions of PERSON_5 and PERSON_6 from Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code to Part 3 of Article 15 – Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 607/16655/20 dated 27/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_6, accused of official negligence, which allegedly caused severe consequences to the state budget.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the acquittal of the court of first instance, since the prosecution did not prove the presence of all elements of the crime under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of PERSON_6. The court noted that the charge was unspecific, the time of transfer of case materials to PERSON_6 was not established, his inaction was not proven, and there was no direct causal link between the actions (inaction) of PERSON_6 and the damage to the state budget. The court also took into account that the availability of funds for financing the translator’s services was not proven. The appellate court properly considered the prosecutor’s arguments and made a reasoned decision that meets the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
The court посestablished: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, and to leave the ruling of the Ternopil Court of Appeal of November 06, 2024, regarding PERSON_6, unchanged.
Case No. 922/2524/24 dated 07/15/2025
The subject of the dispute is the claim of an individual against LLC “UKN” to recognize the termination of labor relations and to remove the entry from the information about the manager.
The Supreme Court made the decision based on the following: firstly, the cassation proceedings were closed partially, as one of the grounds for cassation appeal did not meet the requirements of the procedural law. Secondly, regarding the other ground for cassation appeal, the court found no grounds to grant the appeal, as the courts of previous instances had made lawful and justified decisions. The court of cassation instance verified the arguments of the cassation appeal but did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that would lead to the annulment of court decisions. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the application of legal norms by the courts of first and appellate instances. The defendant did not appear, but this did not affect the consideration of the case on its merits, as the court considered the available materials.
The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast and the постанову (ruling/resolution) of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 914/1218/24 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the courts of previous instances to declare LLC “Lviv Road Service” bankrupt and to initiate liquidation proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that to declare a debtor bankrupt, it is necessary to establish its insolvency, that is, the insufficiency of property to satisfy the claims of creditors. The courts of previous instances established that the asset manager fulfilled the obligation to analyze the financial and economic condition of the debtor, and the courts verified the completeness of the measures taken and examined the evidence provided. It was also taken into account that the debtor ceased economic activity, did not provide documents to the asset manager, and there were no proposals for reorganization. The court of cassation instance rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the existence of receivables and the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, as they do not disprove the grounds for declaring bankruptcy under the established circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 904/1926/23 dated 06/12/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – appealing the decision of the appellate court to overturn the declaration of LLC “Borivazh” as bankrupt and return the case to the stage of asset management.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision.
of the appellate court, emphasizing that to declare the debtor bankrupt, it is necessary to establish its inability to restore solvency and satisfy creditors’ claims, which requires a thorough analysis of assets and liabilities. The court agreed with the appellate court that the value of the debtor’s assets was determined improperly, as no market valuation of financial investments, in particular, shares in the authorized capital of other enterprises, which were accounted for at book value, was conducted. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the analysis of the debtor’s financial and economic condition, conducted by the property manager, contained significant shortcomings, namely, references to an outdated regulatory act and the absence of copies of documents on the basis of which the analysis was conducted. The court of cassation noted that conclusions about the impossibility of restoring the debtor’s solvency should be clear and unambiguous, and not based on assumptions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 710/776/21 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to overturn the guilty verdict and close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of misappropriation of another’s property (Part 1, Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the judgment of the first instance court due to the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case and violation of the right to defense. The appellate court found that the court of first instance qualified the actions of PERSON_7 as theft, although she was accused of misappropriation of property under her control, and the prosecutor did not change the charge. Also, the appellate court noted that there was not enough evidence to unequivocally confirm that PERSON_7 misappropriated funds, and the cancellation of the check is not proof of criminal acts. The court of cassation emphasized that the prosecution did not prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and all doubts must be interpreted in favor of the accused.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/11961/24 dated 15/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. In this case, LLC “Innovation Company “Vizerion” appealed the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, but the courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case in cassation proceedings, agreed with the conclusions of the previous judicial instances. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case.
you, properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In particular, the courts found that the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine adopted the appealed decision on the basis of the law, within its powers and in compliance with the procedure provided for by the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The arguments of the cassation appeal of “Innovation Company “Vizerion” LLC were found to be unfounded and did not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Innovation Company “Vizerion” LLC and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the постанову (resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 507/164/22 dated 13/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of appeal regarding a person convicted of a number of serious crimes, including intentional murder, theft, robbery and illegal seizure of a vehicle.
In the cassation appeal, the defender tried to appeal the verdict of the court of appeal, but the Supreme Court did not find grounds for its cancellation. The court of cassation instance, having examined the case materials, agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal instance regarding the proof of the convict’s guilt in committing the crimes imputed to him and the correctness of the application of the criminal law. Also, the court of cassation instance recognized that the court of appeal properly considered all the arguments of the defender’s appeal and reasonably rejected them, citing the reasons for the decision. During the cassation hearing, no significant violations of the criminal procedural law were established that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the verdict of the court of appeal.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the verdict of the court of appeal.
Case No. 990/191/25 dated 10/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court on the transfer of the administrative case based on the claim of an individual to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal according to jurisdiction to the окружний (district) administrative court.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance to transfer the case to the court of first instance, since the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal is not included in the list of subjects for which cases are subject to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance, this list is exhaustive. The court noted that the plaintiff violated the rules of instance jurisdiction by applying to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance. The Grand Chamber emphasized that the issue of compliance of the statement of claim with the requirements of the CAS of Ukraine should be resolved by the competent court, i.e. the Kyiv окружний (district) administrative court. The court also rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding the lack of authority of
of the court and the absence of signatures on the decision, since the copy of the ruling is not an original, and the presence of the decision in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions confirms its validity.
3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/866/20 dated July 10, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the review based on newly discovered circumstances of the rulings of the court of first instance on the recognition of creditor claims of one company against the debtor and on the replacement of the creditor with its successor in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision because the appellate court failed to comply with the instructions of the Supreme Court given during the previous cassation review of the same case, namely, it did not establish the actual date when the appellant learned about the circumstances that became the basis for reviewing the court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances that would indicate that the appellant knew about the invalidity of the assignment agreement before the appellate court issued the previous decision. The Supreme Court noted that the investigation of evidence and the establishment of circumstances are not within its powers, but without clarifying these circumstances, the decision cannot be considered lawful. The court also emphasized that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done, and the court’s decision must be lawful and justified.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 507/164/22 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on the convicted PERSON_6 for committing a series of serious crimes, including murders and robbery.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, justifying this by the fact that the appellate court, when imposing the punishment of life imprisonment, took into account the severity of the crimes committed, the circumstances of their commission (in particular, murders for mercenary motives and particular cruelty), as well as data on the identity of the convicted person, who has outstanding convictions and did not express a desire to reform. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably excluded sincere repentance as a mitigating circumstance, since it was not sincere, but was only aimed at mitigating the punishment. The court also rejected the arguments about violation of the right to defense, since hearing the opinion of the representative of the victims is not a violation of procedural rules. The court of cassation emphasized that the imposed punishment is necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes, taking into account his antisocial orientation and danger to society.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s judgment.
Case No. 161/19851/23 of 06/03/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the judgment and decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed on a large scale and illegal handling of weapons.
The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, citing that there were grounds for closing the criminal proceedings regarding the charge of theft, as the statutory pre-trial investigation period had expired. The court noted that the appellate court had failed to pay attention to the violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law committed by the court of first instance, which led to the unfounded conviction of the person under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the charge under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code, reclassifying the punishment and determining the final punishment by partially adding the unserved part of the sentence under the previous judgment. The court also excluded the reference to Part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code from the judgment.
The court ruled to amend the judgment and decision of the appellate court, close the criminal proceedings regarding the charge under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, recognize the person as convicted under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code, and impose a final sentence of imprisonment for a term of 5 years and 3 months.
Case No. 237/3510/23 of 07/14/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Clause 8, Part 2, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide committed with particular cruelty).
The Supreme Court, considering the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, found no grounds for granting it, but decided to amend the judgments of the previous instances. The court, agreeing with the classification of the convicted person’s actions as intentional homicide committed with particular cruelty, nevertheless reduced the term of punishment to 10 years of imprisonment. Also, considering the circumstances of the case, the court applied a compulsory medical measure to the convicted person in the form of providing outpatient psychiatric care in a compulsory manner at the place of serving the sentence. The court of cassation instance, having reviewed the case materials, did not establish any significant violations of the criminal procedure law that would have prevented the courts of previous instances from fully and comprehensively considering the case.
The court ruled: to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, to amend the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, imposing a punishment of 10 years of imprisonment and applying a compulsory medical measure.
Case No. 640/758/19 of 07/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted person against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the imposition of punishment.
regarding Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal border crossing of persons across the state border of Ukraine), considering it too severe.
2. The appellate court, when overturning the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the penalty, reasonably indicated the absence of grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the court of first instance did not substantiate how the mitigating circumstances significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the committed crime. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the presence of minor children and positive character references do not diminish the public danger of the crime. The Supreme Court also noted that there are no grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the sanction of Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for imprisonment for a term of seven to nine years, which makes it impossible to apply exemption from serving the sentence with probation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions is mandatory, regardless of whether the convicted person held a position at the time of the crime.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/93/25 dated 07/10/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding the renaming of the populated area in which they reside, arguing that this violates their rights and interests.
The court noted that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada is the sole body of legislative power, and its powers regarding the organization of the territorial structure, including the renaming of populated areas, are a form of realization of its constitutional powers, not administrative functions. The court emphasized that administrative courts consider disputes arising from the exercise of administrative functions by a subject of power, not the legislative activity of the Verkhovna Rada. The court also took into account that the issue of the constitutionality of acts of the Verkhovna Rada is decided by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, not administrative courts. The court indicated that appealing a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada on the grounds of its non-compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine or violation of the procedure for its adoption is not subject to review in administrative proceedings. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which had already expressed a similar position in previous decisions.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to open proceedings in the case.
Case No. 990/109/25 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against actions/inaction of state bodies regarding the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, in particular, the right to professional legal assistance and access to justice, as well as the obligation to perform certain actions.
including appeals to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
2. The court of first instance returned the statement of claim because the plaintiff combined in one statement claims that are subject to different courts, namely, claims against the President of Ukraine, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a court of first instance, and claims against the Supreme Court, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the district administrative court. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that the CAS of Ukraine clearly defines the jurisdiction of administrative cases and does not allow the combination in one proceeding of claims that must be considered by different courts. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the violation of the right to access to court, as the return of the statement of claim does not deprive him of the right to re-apply to the court with a properly оформленим claim. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to apply for free legal aid if he believed he needed it. The court emphasized that the appealed ruling was issued in compliance with the norms of procedural law.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/146/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the judge’s appeal against the decisions and inaction of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the consideration of his resignation application, as well as the recovery of material and moral damages.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the HCJ took active steps to consider the judge’s resignation application, but for objective reasons (lack of a rapporteur, the need for additional processing of materials, waiting for responses to requests) the consideration was not completed within the established period. The court noted that the issues regarding the non-inclusion in the agenda of the HCJ meeting and the postponement of the consideration of the application were оформлені by protocol rulings, the appeal of which is not provided for by current legislation. The court also took into account that the consideration of the resignation application was suspended by a ruling of the HCJ, which is not the subject of appeal in this case, which makes the consideration of the application currently impossible. The court also rejected the claims regarding the non-consideration of the plaintiff’s appeals, as the HCJ provided responses to them within the established period. The plaintiff’s arguments about discrimination and violation of procedural rights were also rejected by the court.
3. The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal.
Case No. 922/1137/20 dated 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the alienation of communal property, the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of this property, and the return of the property to the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, came to the following main conclusions: firstly, the prosecutor justifiably applied to the court, since KharkivskThat the City Council, in adopting the disputed decision, acted contrary to the interests of the territorial community, and therefore, the state; secondly, the claim for recognition of the City Council’s decision as illegal is an ineffective means of protection, since the decision has already been executed, therefore, this part of the claim is not subject to satisfaction; thirdly, the claim for cancellation of the state registration of ownership is also not a proper means of protection, as it will lead to a gap in the register; fourthly, the sale and purchase agreement is subject to invalidation, as it was concluded in violation of the requirements of the legislation on privatization, namely without grounds for applying the redemption procedure; fifthly, the property transferred on the basis of an invalid agreement is subject to return to the territorial community in the order of restitution. The court also noted that the deprivation of Sніzhynka LLC of property does not violate Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since such alienation occurred in violation of the law and as a result of the bad faith actions of the company itself.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of recognizing the City Council’s decision as illegal and canceling the state registration, and left them unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 503/1578/21 of 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the acquittal of PERSON_8 on charges of theft of a bicycle, committed repeatedly with penetration into a utility room (Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court did not fully comply with the requirements of the criminal procedural law, namely: it did not thoroughly analyze all the arguments of the prosecutor set forth in the appeal, did not provide exhaustive answers to them, and did not convincingly refute them in its ruling. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence, in particular, the protocols of inspection of the scene and the testimony of witnesses, and also did not take into account important circumstances, such as the discovery of the stolen bicycle at the defendant’s place of residence and the lack of explanations from the defense regarding this fact. Also, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not assess the fact that the defense did not dispute the ownership of the bicycle found at the place of residence of PERSON_8 to the victim, and did not put forward another logical explanation for this fact, unlike the prosecution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 203/2326/23 of 07/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, and the establishment of
applicant’s identity.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, reasoning that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the impossibility of obtaining a passport of a citizen of Ukraine earlier, the loss of the USSR passport was not officially confirmed, and the testimony of witnesses did not agree with the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court disagreed with all the motives of the appellate court, noting that the courts did not take into account the procedure for establishing identity through the court in the event that it is impossible for the migration service to identify it. At the same time, the Supreme Court indicated that the applicant did not provide evidence of appealing to the competent authorities of Azerbaijan for information about her citizenship and identity documents, which is necessary to resolve the issue of establishing her identity and belonging to the citizenship of Ukraine. Since the applicant did not provide evidence of the identification and establishment of her identity, the impossibility of carrying out these procedures out of court, the appellate court correctly refused to satisfy the application for establishing the identity of the applicant, but was partially mistaken in the motives for such a decision.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but leaving the decision to refuse the application unchanged.
Case No. 369/4007/23 dated 09/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an advance payment, three percent per annum and inflation losses under a preliminary apartment sale agreement that was not concluded.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance and sent the case to the commercial court, since the insolvency proceedings against the defendant were opened only after the decision of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the dispute is determined at the time of the opening of proceedings in the case in the court of first instance, and the appellate court should have verified the legality of the decision of the court of first instance within the circumstances that existed at the time of the case’s consideration by this court. The court of cassation noted that the transfer of the case to the commercial court on the basis of Article 7 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP) is possible only at the stage of consideration of the case in the court of first instance and before the decision on the merits. The opening of bankruptcy proceedings after the decision of the court of first instance is not a basis for canceling the decision during appellate review, except in cases where the decision of the court of first instance is subject to cancellation with the referral of the case for a new trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
