w/129497044″>Справа №910/7407/24 від 31/07/2025
1. Предметом спору є визнання недійсним рішення тендерного комітету про відхилення тендерної пропозиції ТОВ “Будівельна компанія “ДБК-Запоріжжя” у процедурі закупівлі робіт з капітального ремонту.
2. Суд першої інстанції задовольнив позов, визнавши рішення тендерного комітету недійсним. Апеляційний суд скасував рішення суду першої інстанції та відмовив у задоволенні позову. Суд касаційної інстанції залишив постанову апеляційного суду без змін, з огляду на таке:
* Відхилення тендерної пропозиції ТОВ “Будівельна компанія “ДБК-Запоріжжя” було обґрунтовано невідповідністю вимогам тендерної документації, зокрема, відсутністю необхідних документів, що підтверджують наявність обладнання, матеріально-технічної бази та технологій.
* ТОВ “Будівельна компанія “ДБК-Запоріжжя” не надало належних доказів наявності в нього необхідного досвіду виконання аналогічних робіт.
* Суд касаційної інстанції погодився з висновком апеляційного суду про те, що тендерний комітет діяв у межах своїх повноважень та з дотриманням вимог законодавства про публічні закупівлі.
* Доводи касаційної скарги не спростовують висновків апеляційного суду та не містять належних підстав для скасування його постанови.
3. Касаційну скаргу ТОВ “Будівельна компанія “ДБК-Запоріжжя” залишено без задоволення, а постанову апеляційного суду – без змін.
**Case No. 2-5723/2010 dated July 30, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of the state executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and the seizure of her funds.
2. The court of first instance granted the complaint, recognizing the actions of the executor as unlawful, since the claimant missed the deadline for re-presenting the writ of execution, as well as due to the prohibition of opening enforcement proceedings in the territories where hostilities are taking place, which include the city of residence of the complainant. The appellate court overturned this decision, considering that the term for presenting the writ of execution had not been missed, since it was interrupted by the previous presentation, and that the prohibition on opening enforcement proceedings did not apply to the locality where the complainant actually resides. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, pointing out that the term for presenting the writ of execution expired even before the re-presentation and was not renewed by the court, and therefore the actions of the executor were unlawful. The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court’s reference to the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” of 2016 is erroneous, since the Law in force at the time the writ of execution was issued is subject to application.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, granting the complaint of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 912/3035/19 dated July 31, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the issue of prohibiting an individual entrepreneur (IE) from using the trademark “UKRZOLOTO”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the following arguments:
* IE Pogribna L.V. appealed the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the distribution of court costs, arguing that the involvement of Markholder LLC as a third party was “arbitrary”, and therefore the costs of its participation should not be reimbursed.
* The Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that the courts reasonably involved Markholder LLC, since the decision in the case could affect its rights and obligations, taking into account the previous ownership of the trademark rights by Markholder LLC and the existence of another case on the recovery of damages for the illegal use of this trademark.
* The court also took into account that Markholder LLC was the plaintiff in the case before the replacement by the legal successor, and the court costs incurred by it were aimed at protecting its intellectual property rights.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the formal violations committed by the court of first instance were corrected by the appellate court and are not a basis for overturning a correct decision on the merits.
* The court also referred to the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for final court decisions.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of IE Pogribna L.V., and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/7407/24 dated July 31, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the tender committee to reject the tender offer of Budivelna Kompaniya DBK-Zaporizhzhya LLC in the procurement procedure for capital repairs.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, recognizing the decision of the tender committee as invalid. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, considering the following:
* The rejection of the tender offer of Budivelna Kompaniya DBK-Zaporizhzhya LLC was justified by non-compliance with the requirements of the tender documentation, in particular, the absence of necessary documents confirming the availability of equipment, material and technical base and technologies.
* Budivelna Kompaniya DBK-Zaporizhzhya LLC did not provide sufficient evidence of its necessary experience in performing similar works.
* The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the tender committee acted within its powers and in compliance with the requirements of the legislation on public procurement.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court and do not contain sufficient grounds for overturning its decision.
3. The cassation appeal of Budivelna Kompaniya DBK-Zaporizhzhya LLC was dismissed, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
w/129526479″>Case No. 553/2113/20 of 08/06/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of a person as having lost the right to use a dwelling, the elimination of obstacles in the use of property by eviction.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not assess the proportionality of the eviction of the defendants, did not check whether they were provided with other housing, and whether the eviction would be an excessive burden for them, which is important in view of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court noted that the courts should have taken into account the balance of interests of the parties, in particular, the presence or absence of other housing for the defendants. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the mere fact of cancellation of the legal basis for using the dwelling is not sufficient for eviction, it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances of the case. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the claim for the elimination of obstacles in the use of property by eviction is an effective way to protect the violated right of the owner, but noted that this issue should be investigated by the court in a new trial.
3. The decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are canceled, the case is referred for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 760/34080/21 of 08/14/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the employee’s appeal against the order of dismissal for absenteeism and the demand to change the ground for dismissal to dismissal at own request due to the employer’s violation of labor laws.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that the employee did not provide proper evidence of violations of labor laws by the employer at the time of submitting the application for dismissal at own request on the basis of the third part of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, and therefore the employee’s absence from work was regarded as absenteeism. The court noted that submitting an application for dismissal at own request does not release the employee from the obligation to perform labor duties until the moment of dismissal. The court also indicated that for dismissal on the basis of the third part of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove the fact of violation by the employer of labor laws in relation to the employee at the time of submitting the application for dismissal. Since the employee did not provide such evidence, the courts concluded that the dismissal for absenteeism was lawful.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 757/37432/23-ц of 08/06/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of arrears in the payment of contributions for the maintenance of the building and the adjacent territory in favor of the association of co-owners of an apartment building.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court on clinitiation of appellate proceedings, as the appellate court did not take into account that the appeal was filed through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, which requires the presence of an electronic cabinet and appropriate personal authentication. The court also did not verify the presence in the electronic case file of a power of attorney generated in electronic form, which is automatically added to documents sent by a representative through the “Electronic Court,” which is proper confirmation of the representative’s authority in court. In addition, the cassation court overturned the appellate court’s ruling refusing to issue an additional decision on the distribution of court costs, as the appellate court erroneously believed that a review of a court ruling on procedural issues deprives the party of the right to reimbursement of legal aid expenses. The court noted that the distribution of court costs is carried out by the court that makes the final decision in the case. Also, the cassation court drew attention to the fact that the courts of previous instances did not properly identify the plaintiff in the case.
3. The cassation court decided to overturn the appellate court’s rulings and refer the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 911/639/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Public Joint Stock Company “Centrenergo” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of the amount of UAH 584,398,723.95.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, agreeing with the decisions of the courts of previous instances. In justifying its position, the courts probably proceeded from an analysis of the circumstances of the case, the evidence provided by the parties, and the norms of substantive and procedural law governing the disputed legal relations. It is possible that the courts of previous instances found no grounds for satisfying the claims, for example, due to the plaintiff’s improper performance of its obligations, the absence of evidence of damage, or the application of the statute of limitations. Also, the courts could take into account the financial condition of the defendant and the consequences of satisfying the claim for its activities. In any case, the Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no grounds for their cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/2810/23 dated 08/14/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the AMCU’s cassation appeal and upheld the additional resolution of the appellate court, thus supporting the decision of the appellate court. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the legality and validity of the claims of BASF T.O.V. LLC. The cassation court probably found no grounds for cancellation
the appellate court’s decision, based on the arguments of the AMCU’s cassation appeal and the case materials. This may indicate that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when adopting the additional ruling. The decision is based on an analysis of the case’s circumstances and an assessment of the evidence provided by the parties.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and to leave the additional ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/11038/24 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of PrJSC “Ukrhydroenergo” for electricity, as well as 3% annual interest and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances, when considering the dispute regarding the recovery of inflation losses, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court dated June 26, 2020, in case No. 905/21/19, regarding the methodology for calculating inflation losses, in particular, the rule for rounding the value of the consumer price index increase to a decimal number after the decimal point. The Supreme Court emphasized that these conclusions are binding on courts of all instances when applying part two of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Since the courts of previous instances did not properly verify the calculation of inflation losses made by the plaintiff, taking into account the mentioned conclusions of the Supreme Court, this led to the adoption of unlawful decisions. In this regard, the court of cassation concluded that it was necessary to cancel the court decisions in the part of resolving the dispute on the recovery of inflation losses and to send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts regarding the recovery of inflation losses and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 599/1579/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of the apartment by evicting the former husband, who, according to the plaintiff, violates the rules of cohabitation.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s systematic violation of the rules of cohabitation and the ineffectiveness of influence measures. The court took into account that the eviction of the defendant, for whom the disputed apartment is the only dwelling, would be a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also took into account the previous decision in a similar case between the same parties, where eviction was also denied. The court noted that although there are hostile relations between the parties, this is not enough for eviction, and that the plaintiff has not proven that the defendant makes it impossible for other persons to live in the apartment.
three. The court emphasized that the facts of обращения to the police without proven futility of the applied measures of influence are not sufficient grounds for eviction.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, refusing to evict the former husband.
Case No. 686/32094/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for material and moral damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, recovering from the russian federation in favor of the plaintiff UAH 50,000 for moral damage, based on the fact that the armed aggression caused the plaintiff mental suffering, stress and fear for her safety, and disrupted her normal life connections. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the claims for compensation for property damage, since the plaintiff had not proven that such damage was caused specifically to her, and also refused to recover moral damage from Ukraine, since the unlawful inaction of the state, which led to the damage, had not been proven. The court took into account that appealing to a Ukrainian court is the only reasonably available means of protecting the plaintiff’s right. The court also noted that the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined taking into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, confirming the partial satisfaction of the claim for compensation for moral damage at the expense of the russian federation.
Case No. 371/741/22 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot and the recognition of the invalidity of the lease agreement for this plot, since the plaintiff believes that she has the right to inherit this land.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the disputed legal relations are regulated by the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR, and not by the current Civil Code of Ukraine, since the inheritance was opened before 2004. According to the norms of the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR, second cousins are not included in the circle of heirs by law, therefore the plaintiff does not have the right to inherit. The court also noted that the fact of extending the term for accepting the inheritance does not automatically make the plaintiff an heir. In addition, the court took into account that the disputed land plot automatically became the property of the state, since the heirs did not accept the inheritance within the established period, and therefore the provisions of the current Civil Code of Ukraine regarding unclaimed inheritance do not apply to these legal relations. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the principle of legal certainty, since the previous court decisions did not establish the fact that the plaintiff is an heir by law.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 908/3274/23 dated 08/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by JSC “OTP BANK” in the court of cassation instance in the case of recovery of joint and several debt.
2. The court partially satisfied the application of JSC “OTP BANK”, motivating it by the fact that the costs of legal assistance must meet the criteria of necessity, validity and reasonableness, and their amount must be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court took into account that the plaintiff’s legal position was consistent, the regulatory framework did not change, and the lawyer was aware of the circumstances of the case, being the plaintiff’s representative from the appellate instance. Also, the court noted that the cassation review concerned mainly procedural issues and did not provide for a review of the case on the merits. The court acknowledged that some of the services declared by the bank partially overlap with others, and the necessity of some services was not proven. Taking these circumstances into account, the court decided to reduce the amount of legal aid costs to be reimbursed.
3. The court ordered the defendants to pay JSC “OTP BANK” UAH 30,000 for legal aid costs in the court of cassation instance, distributing this amount among the defendants in equal parts of UAH 7,500 each.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129522105″>**Case No. 910/12759/21 dated 08/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the State Organization “Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovations” as illegal and the obligation to perform certain actions.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial. The court of cassation probably found violations of the norms of procedural or substantive law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the decision. At the same time, the appellate court’s ruling of 11.01.2023 was partially closed and partially left unchanged, which may indicate the existence of several issues that were considered in the ruling, and on which the court of cassation took a different position. A new hearing of the case in the appellate court is aimed at eliminating the identified violations and ensuring a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case. The absence of the full text of the decision does not allow to establish the specific arguments of the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129522104″>**Case No. 911/639/24 dated 08/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Centrenergo” in favor of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of debt, 3% per annum, inflation losses, 20% per annum and penalties, accrued in connection with violation of the terms of the electricity purchase and sale agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which
and established that the parties reached an agreement on the termination of the electricity sale and purchase agreement, as evidenced by their correspondence, namely the exchange of letters in which both parties expressed their desire to terminate the agreement due to the impossibility of its execution. The court noted that since the agreement was terminated, the accrual of 20% per annum and penalties after the termination date is unlawful, as the contractual obligations ceased. The court also indicated that the appellant’s reference to the lawfulness of accruing interest for the use of credit until the actual return of funds is unfounded, since this case concerns contractual obligations that ceased due to the termination of the agreement. The court of cassation also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law, as it was not proven that the correspondence between the parties was obtained in violation of the law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances courts in the appealed part.
Case No. 292/621/24 dated 07/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim for land plots from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court erroneously overturned the decision of the court of first instance on replacing one measure to secure the claim with another, because the appellate court did not verify the original electronic warrant submitted by the representative of agricultural company “Tetirske” for the presence of an electronic digital signature (EDS). The court of cassation emphasized that the original electronic document is precisely the electronic copy with EDS, and the paper copy is only a visual representation. The appellate court’s failure to verify the EDS made it impossible to establish important circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not take into account that access to the verification of the electronic signature is open, and the court is obliged to reliably establish whether the person signed the procedural document with an electronic signature, which is equivalent to a handwritten one.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/6904/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 3,990,261.97.
2. The decision does not provide the court’s reasoning for its decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. There is no reasoning part that would reveal the justification for the position of the court of cassation. Therefore, it is impossible to determine why the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercialof the Commercial Court of Appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 914/2230/24 dated 08/06/2025
The subject of the dispute was the recognition as invalid of a clause in the procurement agreement regarding the inclusion of VAT in the total price and the recovery of the paid VAT, since the city council believed that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution, a zero VAT rate should be applied to such transactions, as the goods were intended for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The court of cassation instance noted that for cassation appeal based on failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, it is necessary that the legal relations in the cases are similar, which was not established in this case. The court also indicated that the appellant’s arguments about the incomplete examination of evidence by the courts of previous instances are insufficient, since the ground for cassation appeal related to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court was not confirmed. The judges emphasized that cassation appeal has certain limitations that comply with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and are aimed at ensuring the efficiency of justice and the uniformity of judicial practice.
The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings in the part of the ground related to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and in the other part – to dismiss the cassation appeal, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, resuming the execution of the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 906/1254/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by Joint Stock Company “Zhytomyroblenergo” in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal of “Yula-Torg” Limited Liability Company.
2. The court based its decision on the fact that JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo” applied for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in accordance with the procedure established by law and within the specified time limits. The court took into account that the applicant complied with the requirements of Articles 80, 124, 126, 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that LLC “Yula-Torg” did not exercise its right to file objections regarding the disproportionality of the defendant’s expenses and did not submit a motion to reduce the costs of legal assistance. The court, guided by the criteria of the reality of attorney’s fees, their necessity, proportionality, fairness and reasonableness of the amount, concluded that the amount of the fee is commensurate with the work performed in the court of cassation instance. The court also referred to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the amount of the fee and the assessment of expenses for professional legal assistance.
3. The court ruled to grant the application of JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo” and to recover from LLC “Yula-Torg” UAH 15,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 910/12688/24 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is
knowledge of invalidation of refusal to grant supplementary protection for an invention and obligation to carry out state registration of the patent.
2. The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments in this resolution, as it is only the introductory and operative parts of the decision. From the text of the resolution, it is only evident that the courts of previous instances made decisions with which the Supreme Court disagreed. To understand the argumentation, it is necessary to analyze the full text of the court decision. However, the fact that the decisions of the previous courts were overturned may indicate that the Supreme Court found violations of substantive or procedural law committed by these courts during the consideration of the case. It is possible that the courts incorrectly applied intellectual property law or did not take into account important circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
Case No. 916/2750/24 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the renewal of the land lease agreement and the recognition of an additional agreement concluded between “Blaz” LLC and the Odesa City Council.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the claim of “Blaz” LLC, based on the fact that the company duly notified the Odesa City Council of its intention to renew the land lease agreement, attaching a draft additional agreement. The City Council, in turn, did not express any objections to the renewal of the agreement within the established period and did not conclude an additional agreement, although there was correspondence between the parties on organizational issues. The court emphasized that “Blaz” LLC complied with all the requirements of the law necessary for the renewal of the agreement, and the City Council neglected its duty to conduct negotiations in good faith. The court also took into account that the land plot contains real estate owned by “Blaz” LLC, which makes it impossible to lease this plot to other persons. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal of the Odesa City Council, noting that the conclusions of the previous courts do not contradict previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Odesa City Council and to leave the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 911/3777/23 dated 08/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decisions of the Myronivka City Council and the recognition of the right of permanent use of land plots by a peasant (farmer) enterprise.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the claim of the farmer enterprise, arguing that the courts did not take into account that at the time of the land distribution of the farmer enterprise, the law did not provide for the automatic termination of the right of permanent use of the entire plot. The court noted that the division of the land plot does not change the scope of the rights of the land user.
uch, and the right of permanent use can be terminated only on the grounds defined by Article 141 of the Land Code of Ukraine, the list of which is exhaustive. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, aimed at preserving the right to land use of farm enterprises, and to the fact that the division of a land plot does not prevent the protection of rights to it. At the same time, the cassation court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse to cancel the decisions of the Myronivka City Council, as it chose an ineffective method of protection.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusing to recognize the right of permanent use of land plots, and recognized the right of permanent use of these plots for the farm enterprise, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 265/2189/20 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state of Ukraine for compensation for moral damage in the amount of UAH 1,000,000.00 caused by mutilation and injury to health as a result of a terrorist act.
2. The court of cassation, agreeing with the appellate court, refused to satisfy the claim, motivating it by the fact that a special law is needed to compensate for damage caused by a terrorist act, which would determine the compensation mechanism, and there is no such law. The court also noted that the state is not responsible for all crimes that remain unsolved, and that the plaintiff did not prove that the state knew about the possibility of shelling and did not take measures to prevent it. In addition, the court took into account that Ukraine is the object of armed aggression and does not always have the ability to control all territories and prevent terrorist acts. The court also noted that the state has undertaken to determine the damages caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation, and failure to fulfill this obligation may be a separate basis for the claim. The court did not establish any violations by the state of the negative, positive material, or positive procedural obligation to guarantee the plaintiff’s right to health.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decision of the Dnipro Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 939/31/23 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the apartment donation agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not prove that at the time of the conclusion of the donation agreement he was mistaken about the nature of the transaction or that the defendant deliberately misled him about the circumstances that were essential for the conclusion of the agreement. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of error or deception. The court also took into account that the text of the donation agreement states that the parties acted freely, purposefully,
consciously and voluntarily, understanding the meaning of their actions and controlling them, not being mistaken about the circumstances, and that the transaction corresponds to their actual intentions. The cassation court emphasized that the fraud must be proven by the plaintiff, and that the circumstances regarding which the party to the transaction was mistaken must exist at the time of the transaction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 910/15790/23 dated 08/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights to an invention, namely, whether the Center’s actions to register the defendant’s medicinal product, which, according to the plaintiff, infringes its rights to the invention, are lawful.
2. The cassation court, reversing the appellate court’s decision, noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the measures taken to secure the claim are related to the plaintiff’s stated claims, since the issuance of conclusions and recommendations by the Center regarding the state registration of a medicinal product is part of the general procedure for placing a medicinal product into civil circulation. Also, according to the Supreme Court, the appellate court did not take into account that there are circumstances indicating that these measures to secure the claim are aimed at stopping the likely infringement of the plaintiff’s rights to the relevant intellectual property object. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prohibition imposed by the procedural law on a person to perform certain actions is not an interference with the powers of the Center, but acts as a reasonable restriction of its actions solely for the purpose of ensuring the enforcement of the court decision. The cassation court also emphasized that during the consideration of a motion to cancel the measures to secure the claim, the court does not assess the legality and legitimacy of such measures, but only выясняет whether the need for securing the claim has disappeared or certain circumstances have changed.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which refused to cancel the measures to secure the claim.
**Case No. 760/24971/24 dated 13/08/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
The Supreme Court denied the defense counsel’s motion, citing the fact that the defense counsel did not provide sufficient grounds for the transfer of the case. The court noted that there are certain criteria that a motion to transfer a case must meet, in particular, justification of the impossibility of an objective consideration of the case by this court. In this case, according to the court, such justifications were not provided. The court also took into account the stage of the criminal proceedings, namely that the case is already being considered by the court of first instance, which also affects the possibility of transferring the case to another court. The judges were guided by Articles 32, 34, 376 of the Criminal Procedure
of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The court ruled: To leave the defense counsel’s motion without satisfaction.
Case No. 910/3374/24 of 14/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding certain actions of the Limited Liability Company “UTB-Engineering.”
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The courts of previous instances presumably proceeded from the fact that the AMCU acted within its powers, did not violate the procedure, and reasonably applied sanctions to the Company. Possibly, the courts also took into account the evidence provided by the AMCU, which confirms the violation of competition law by the Company. The court of cassation instance agreed with the assessment of evidence and legal justification provided by the courts of the first and appellate instances. Also, the court could take into account the practice of the AMCU and case law regarding similar cases.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of UTB-Engineering LLC, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 686/22931/20 of 14/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Joint-Stock Company “Khmelnytskoblenergo” of damages in the form of lost profits and moral damage caused by the allegedly illegal use of the plaintiff’s property.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all elements of the civil offense necessary for the recovery of damages. In particular, the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the defendant acquired the property without sufficient legal basis and used it groundlessly, and also did not prove the real possibility of obtaining income from the lease of the property, which he was allegedly deprived of due to the defendant’s actions. The court noted that in order to recover lost profits, it is necessary to prove not only the unlawful behavior of the defendant, but also the real possibility of obtaining income, as well as the measures taken by the plaintiff to obtain it. Since the plaintiff did not prove these circumstances, the court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the claims. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of the first and appellate instances.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 914/2182/24 of 12/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on recognizing concerted anti-competitive actions as distortion of bidding results.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the AMCU, since the AMCU did not prove the existence of concerted anti-competitive actions between the companies. The court noted that
