**Case №369/2033/21 dated 08/06/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of a land sale agreement as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of a residential building, the recognition of a mortgage agreement as invalid, and the recovery of property from unlawful possession of another.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not properly investigate the issue of the effectiveness of the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff, namely the recognition of the agreements as invalid and the cancellation of state registration, instead of recovering property from unlawful possession of another. The courts also did not take into account the criterion of proportionality of interference with the property right of PERSON_1 as the ultimate acquirer in accordance with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, did not investigate her good faith, and did not establish grounds for interference with her peaceful enjoyment of property, and also did not assess the burden imposed on her by such interference. In addition, the courts did not resolve the issue of compensation for the value of the house located on the reclaimed land plot, in case of establishment of the good faith of the acquirer. The court noted that the owner can recover his property from the last acquirer, regardless of the number of resales, and for this it is not necessary to challenge the previous transactions.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №991/4835/25 dated 08/08/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is a claim for recognition of assets as unjustified and recovery of land plots acquired by a deputy of the district council to the state revenue.
2. The High Anti-Corruption Court granted the prosecutor’s claim to recover land plots to the state revenue, recognizing them as unjustified assets, since the defendant, being a deputy of the district council, could not confirm the legality of the sources of funds for their acquisition. The court took into account that the defendant admitted the claim, and his wife did not object to the satisfaction of the claim requirements. The arguments of the third party, LLC “MDS-BUD”, about possible losses in connection with investments in construction on these plots, were not taken into account by the court, since the existing superficies agreements provide mechanisms for protecting the interests of the developer in case of termination of the right to use the land plot. The court emphasized that the recovery of assets to the state revenue does not terminate the effect of contractual obligations regarding these assets, and all the rights and obligations of the owner are transferred to the state.
3. The court decided to satisfy the claim and recover.
into the state revenue of seven land plots owned by the defendant.
**Case No. 640/12922/21 dated 08/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an attorney of the provisions approved by the Bar Council of Ukraine, which establish a fee for entering data about an attorney’s assistant and intern into the Unified Register of Attorneys of Ukraine (URAU).
2. The Supreme Court noted that the provisions on the attorney’s assistant and on the organization of internship are regulatory legal acts, as they establish general rules of conduct, designed for an indefinite number of persons and repeated application. The Court indicated that the attorney has the right to appeal the paragraph of the provision on the assistant, as he is the payer of the fee for entering data about the assistant into the URAU. At the same time, the attorney cannot appeal the paragraph of the provision on internship, as he already has the status of an attorney and is not an intern. The Court also noted that the Bar Council of Ukraine rightfully established an additional fee for entering information about the assistant, as this information is not mandatory and is entered at the request of the applicant, and the financing of mandatory information in the URAU is covered by annual contributions from attorneys.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but leaving them unchanged in other parts.
**Case No. 120/19322/23 dated 08/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of a military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman for participation in hostilities.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not conduct a comprehensive assessment of the evidence in the case, in particular, did not investigate the purpose and grounds for issuing a certificate of participation in hostilities, did not check which documents formed its basis, and did not establish whether the serviceman’s direct participation in hostilities is confirmed by other evidence. Also, the appellate court did not clarify what tasks and where the plaintiff performed during the assignment, and whether the performance of these tasks corresponds to the definition of “direct participation in hostilities”, as defined by Order No. 164-AH. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the absence of separate lists or violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot automatically deprive the plaintiff of the right to remuneration, if other evidence indicates actual participation in hostilities. The court also noted that confirmation of a serviceman’s direct participation in hostilities should not be excessively limited, and even if the provided documents have formal shortcomings, they may be sufficient to confirm the right to additional
reward.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 420/2780/22 dated 08/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal by an individual against a clause of the normative legal act of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure for issuing certificates of salary for pension purposes.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed clause of Procedure No. 22-1 defines a clear algorithm for issuing certificates of salary for pension purposes, establishes the procedure for their issuance, and defines the mechanism in case of liquidation of enterprises, institutions, and organizations. The court emphasized that this clause does not contradict normative legal acts of higher legal force, but complies with them. The court also noted that the issue of legal succession of an individual entrepreneur to the Small Enterprise “Firm Integral” is already being considered in another case, and that the plaintiff’s arguments are reduced to disagreement with the refusal of the pension authority to recalculate the pension and with the interpretation of the disputed clause. The court indicated that such reasons are not grounds for declaring clause No. 22-1 of the Procedure illegal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 161/7940/23 dated 08/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s right as a mortgagee to the property that was mortgaged under a loan agreement, but subsequently alienated to third parties.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the bank’s claim, based on the fact that the mortgage remains valid, even if the entry about it was removed from the register on the basis of a court decision that was subsequently overturned. The courts took into account that the repeated transfer of ownership of the subject of the mortgage does not terminate its validity, and the acquirers of the property, including the defendants, cannot be considered bona fide, since they did not exercise due diligence when acquiring the property encumbered by the mortgage and did not study the circumstances of the cancellation of the encumbrance record. The court also noted that the absence of a mortgage record in the register is not irrefutable evidence of the acquirer’s good faith, and the courts must assess all the circumstances of the case, including the behavior of the parties. The court of cassation emphasized that the correct way to protect the mortgagee’s right in this case is to demand recognition of this right, which was satisfied by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the defendants and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 523/2373/20 dated 08/08/2025**
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, for the purpose of оформлення належності до громадянства України [registration of belonging to the citizenship of Ukraine].
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, is of legal significance for establishing belonging to the citizenship of Ukraine in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine.” The court noted that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to confirm his residence on the territory of Ukraine at the time of the declaration of independence, including a birth certificate and a response from the consular department of the Embassy of Ukraine in the Republic of Moldova. The court also emphasized that in such cases, one of the necessary documents may be a court decision confirming the fact of a person’s permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine as of August 24, 1991. The court of cassation rejected the defendant’s arguments that the case should be considered in the order of claim proceedings, since the establishment of the fact of residence in this case is necessary for the realization of the right to obtain citizenship of Ukraine. The court also noted that the establishment of the fact of residence is not a dispute about law, but is a legal fact that is subject to establishment in the order of separate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[Link to court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused by the inaction of officials of the prosecutor’s office and the police during the investigation of criminal proceedings regarding an armed attack on the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, noted that in order to compensate for the damage caused by the inaction of government bodies, it is necessary to establish the inconsistency of the decisions, actions, or inaction of these bodies with the requirements of the law, as well as the fact of causing damage to an individual. In this case, the courts of previous instances established the unlawful inaction and decisions of officials of the prosecutor’s office and the police, which entitles the plaintiff to compensation for moral damage. When determining the amount of moral damage, the court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the principles of reasonableness and fairness, as well as the duration of the pre-trial investigation and the failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. Regarding property damage, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that court costs are not losses subject to compensation. At the same time, the cassation court did not agree with the distribution of court
expenses by the appellate court and redistributed the costs of professional legal assistance and expert research in proportion to the satisfied claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, partially granted the cassation appeal of the Office of the Prosecutor General, amending the appellate court’s decision regarding the distribution of court costs.
Case No. 910/2810/23 dated 08/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is determining the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance that the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) must reimburse BASF T.O.V. LLC in connection with the latter’s successful litigation regarding the appeal of the AMCU’s decision.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially granted the application of BASF T.O.V. LLC for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing their amount from UAH 1,110,686.40 to UAH 310,000. The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, proceeded from the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and justification of such expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the subject of the dispute, and the objections of the AMCU. The court recognized the amount of expenses claimed by BASF T.O.V. LLC as overstated and excluded from reimbursement the expenses for document analysis, development of a defense strategy, analysis of court decisions, obtaining copies of court decisions, and preparation of an application for the distribution of court costs, considering them to be a component of other legal services or not having an independent legal result. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances, and its powers are limited to verifying compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which court costs must be not only actual but also justified.
3. The court decided 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. 420/27192/21 dated 08/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order dismissing the plaintiff from the position of Head of the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Mykolaiv region in connection with the liquidation of the state body.
2. The Supreme Court noted that, according to current legislation, the employer is obliged not only to warn a civil servant about dismissal in connection with reorganization or liquidation but also to offer another equivalent or lower position, taking into account their qualifications; the appellate court erroneously resolv
that the State Fiscal Service had no opportunity to offer the plaintiff another position. The court of first instance found that there were vacant equivalent positions in the territorial bodies of the State Tax Service, which were not offered to the plaintiff, which is a violation of the dismissal procedure. At the same time, the plaintiff’s reinstatement to the position should take place in the body from which he was dismissed (Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Mykolaiv Region), and not in the State Tax Service, since the court cannot interfere in the employer’s discretionary powers regarding appointments to positions.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s decision, upheld the decision of the court of first instance on recognizing the order of dismissal as illegal and reinstating the plaintiff to the position, but changed the reasoning and operative parts of the decision of the court of first instance, indicating reinstatement in the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Mykolaiv Region.
Case No. 620/10334/24 dated 08/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to refuse to grant combatant status to a person who participated in measures to ensure the defense of Ukraine in connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did participate in the measures necessary for the defense of Ukraine, as confirmed by a certificate from the commander of the operational group of troops. The court emphasized that the determining factor for granting combatant status is participation in hostilities, and not the formal submission of documents. The court indicated that the commission should comprehensively verify the circumstances, and not be limited to a formal verification. The court noted that if it is impossible to obtain certain documents, the commission should assist the person in restoring the evidence base, using other indirect evidence. The court emphasized that a formal approach to the consideration of materials, without taking into account the real content and circumstances, is illegal and contradicts the purpose of the legislation on the protection of veterans. The court also took into account the constitutional obligation of the state to provide social protection to citizens who defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 620/9892/24 dated 08/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Commission of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to refuse to grant combatant status to a person who, in her opinion, participated in the measures necessary to ensure the defense of Ukraine.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the determining basis for granting combatant status is confirmation of the fact of direct participation of a person in hostilities or measures to ensure the defense of Ukraine, and not a formal submission of documents.
