Case №705/4132/19 dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds, namely, compensation for expenses for professional legal assistance and conducting expert examinations.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which increased the amount of compensation for the plaintiff’s expenses related to the consideration of the case. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that the dispute arose as a result of the defendant’s illegal actions, and the main part of the claims was satisfied. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court rightfully applied the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allow imposing court costs on the party whose illegal actions led to the dispute. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence of the disproportionality of the costs of legal assistance claimed by the plaintiff. The court of cassation rejected the defendant’s arguments that the dispute arose due to the actions of third parties (the state registrar and the appraiser), as they do not agree with the essence of the claims against the defendant. The court of cassation also supported the decision of the appellate court to recover the costs of legal assistance in the appellate instance, as the plaintiff provided proper evidence of the costs incurred, and the defendant did not refute their amount and validity.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of “Financial Company “Central Finance” LLC without satisfaction, and the постанову [ruling] and additional ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
Case №914/2940/24 dated 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on finding the entrepreneur guilty of anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of the results of the auction, and the imposition of a fine.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which established that FOP [sole proprietor] Pavlenko N.V. and FOP [sole proprietor] Layosh K.V. coordinated their actions during participation in the auction, which is a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The court took into account the totality of evidence provided by the AMCU, in particular, the use of a common IP address, common file properties, synchronicity of actions, involvement of common self-employed persons, which indicate coordination of actions between the participants of the auction. The court noted that the assessment of evidence should be carried out in their entirety, and not separately, and that the plaintiff did not refute the arguments of the AMCU with proper evidence. The court emphasized that its task is to verify the legality of the AMCU’s decision, and not to interfere with the discretionary powers of this body, if they are exercised without arbitrariness. The court also rejected the applicant’s arguments about the violation of her right to participate in the court session, as the consideration of the case had already been postponed at her request.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court
of the court – unchanged.
**Case No. 927/183/24 dated 09/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the communal property lease agreement as invalid, the obligation to return the property and to stop copyright infringement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which declared the lease agreement invalid, obliged to return the property and to stop copyright infringement, since a private company was actually created on the basis of the communal enterprise, which used the property of the communal enterprise to generate profit, which led to the withdrawal of communal property from use and caused losses to the regional budget. The court also took into account that objects that ensure the state performs its functions, in particular, archives and archival institutions, cannot be objects of lease. The court noted that the contract did not meet the principles of good faith and fairness, since the terms of the contract were beneficial only to the private company, and the communal enterprise lost the opportunity to fully carry out its activities. The court of cassation also indicated that the conclusions in the case on the recognition of the contract as valid on the grounds of evasion of notarial certification are not an obstacle to recognizing it as invalid on other grounds.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/12975/24 dated 09/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the goods procurement agreement as partially invalid and the recovery of UAH 33,600.00.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claims, since there was insufficient evidence to apply the VAT benefit. The appellate court found that there was no end-user certificate in the case file, and the terms of the contract do not define a specific final recipient of the goods, as required by the Tax Code for VAT exemption. The court of cassation emphasized that for the application of the VAT benefit, it is important not only who actually received the goods, but also documentary confirmation of this fact, or indication of the final recipient in the terms of the contract. The court also noted that the local council, as the customer, had the opportunity to include in the contract the terms on the final recipient to ensure the application of the VAT benefit. The prosecutor’s arguments that the Novoguyvynka settlement council has the authority to finance defense measures were not accepted by the court, since the documentary confirmation of the final recipient of the goods is decisive. The court of cassation emphasized that there are no grounds to depart from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of the Tax Code in similar cases.
3. The court of cassation dismissed
dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 907/242/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Bohdanivka Village Council for the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot and its return, as it believes that this plot overlaps its lands and contains a communal property object.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that the claim for cancellation of state registration is not a proper way of protection, as it would lead to a gap in the register. Regarding the claim for the return of the plot, the court noted that the plaintiff had not proven its ownership or use rights to the disputed land, as the right of permanent use of the “Rakhiv Forestry Combine” PJSC terminated due to the liquidation of the enterprise, and no evidence of the acquisition of communal ownership of this plot by the plaintiff was provided. Also, the court indicated that the plaintiff filed a vindication claim against an improper defendant, since the owner of the land is the state, and not the Rakhiv District State Administration. The court emphasized that the absence of a violated right of the plaintiff is an independent basis for dismissing the claim.
3. The court of cassation instance amended the decisions of the previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, but left the decision to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 910/6569/25 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from an individual as a guarantor under a loan agreement in favor of the bank.
2. The court of cassation instance considered the issue of the validity of the partial satisfaction of the application for securing the claim, namely, the imposition of an arrest on the funds and corporate rights of the defendant. The court noted that securing a claim is a means that guarantees the enforcement of a court decision in the future. The court took into account that the enforcement of a court decision depends on the availability of the necessary amount of funds from the defendant, and the defendant has the right to dispose of their funds and corporate rights. The court emphasized that the requirement to provide evidence regarding obvious things (the defendant’s right to dispose of their property) is the application of an excessive standard of proof, which contradicts the position of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not take into account the pledge agreements, which already secured the fulfillment of the borrower’s obligations under the loan agreement for a certain amount, and the adoption of measures to secure the claim for the full amount of the claim requirements is premature.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the amount for which the arrest is imposed, and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance regarding the amount secured by the pledge agreements.
Case №908/3018/24 dated 09/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the jurisdiction of the case regarding the change in the wording of the grounds for dismissal of the chairman of the board of the Homeowners Association (HOA) and the recovery of relevant payments.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute concerns the termination of legal relations regarding the management of a legal entity, namely the HOA, and is related to the change in the wording of the grounds for dismissal of the chairman of the board, which is important for determining his rights to payments. The court emphasized that similar cases have already been considered by the Supreme Court, where it was determined that such disputes fall under the commercial jurisdiction, since they concern corporate relations, and not only labor relations. The court took into account previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which have priority, and indicated that the relationship between the chairman of the board and the HOA goes beyond ordinary labor relations, since they are related to the management of a legal entity. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied practice that did not take into account the corporate nature of the dispute, and came to the wrong conclusion about the case being subject to civil jurisdiction.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case to the Commercial Court of Zaporizhia Region for further consideration.
Case №278/1306/17 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim or serious bodily injury).
2. This operative part of the decision does not contain the arguments of the court of cassation. Usually, when considering such cases, the court of cassation checks the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of previous instances, taking into account the arguments of the cassation appeal. The court could agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of the person’s guilt, the correctness of the qualification of his actions, the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedural law, which could lead to the cancellation of court decisions. Also, the court could take into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as the arguments of the defense counsel stated in the cassation appeal, and recognize them as unfounded. For a complete understanding of the court’s position, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case №192/1572/22 dated 09/18/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by persons driving vehicles while intoxicated).
2. This operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeals of the defense and the victims were dismissed, and the decisions of the lower courts were upheld. The full text of the decision, with the court’s reasoning, will be announced later. Therefore, it is currently impossible to provide information on the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the victims.
Case No. 278/1306/17 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic rules, resulting in the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the lower courts reasonably found the defendant’s guilt proven based on the totality of the evidence examined, including witness testimony, protocols of investigative actions, and expert opinions. The court noted that the defendant’s version was thoroughly examined and refuted by the evidence, and that the defendant’s violation of traffic rules was directly related to the consequences of the traffic accident. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the violation of the right to defense, pointing out the absence of significant violations of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court of cassation emphasized that clarifying the factual circumstances of the case, which do not affect the classification of the crime, does not constitute going beyond the scope of the indictment. The court also noted that the appellate court provided exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the defense, upholding the verdict.
3. The court ruled to uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 908/2948/23 dated 09/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to open appellate proceedings based on the bank’s appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance to open proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the bank had not proven valid reasons for missing the deadline for appealing. The appellate court found that the bank, having a registered electronic account in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS), did not substantiate the impossibility of filing an appeal remotely. Also, the bank did not provide evidence to confirm that massive shelling and air raid alerts in the city of Dnipro objectively prevented it from filing an appeal on time. The court of cassation noted that the bank had repeatedly familiarized itself with
materials of the case and participated in court hearings, which indicates the absence of obstacles to timely appealing the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the reinstatement of a procedural term is an exception, not a rule, and requires the existence of objectively insurmountable circumstances. The court of cassation also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding compliance with the principle of legal certainty and reasonable timeframes for the consideration of cases.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/233/25 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Liubotyn City Council to terminate the right of permanent use of a land plot by a farm due to systematic non-payment of land tax.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of the farm. The court noted that the obligation to pay land tax arises for the farm from the moment of state registration of the right of permanent use of the land plot. The basis for termination of the right to use the land plot is the systematic non-payment of land tax by this user, and not by its founder before the creation of the farm. The court rejected the arguments of the city council regarding singular legal succession, since in this case there was no reorganization of the legal entity, but only a change of land user. The court also emphasized that the list of grounds for termination of the right to use the land plot is exhaustive, and actions of authorities aimed at depriving the right to use outside these grounds are illegal. The court indicated that the claim for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the city council is a proper and effective way to protect the violated right of the farm.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Liubotyn City Council, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 8/471-23/1(917/1613/24) dated 09/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the liquidator of SC MREO “Budivelnyk” to transfer, and the Poltava City Council to accept into communal ownership a residential building in which the plaintiffs reside, for the realization of their right to privatize housing.
2. The Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim, stating that the appellate court did not take into account the constitutional right of citizens to housing and the right to privatization, which cannot be realized without the transfer of the building to communal ownership. The court emphasized that the obligation of the liquidator to transfer the housing stock to com
municipal ownership and the obligation of the local self-government body to accept it are clearly established by law. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the inaction of the defendants violates the rights of residents to privatize housing, guaranteed by the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Realization of Housing Rights of Dormitory Residents.” The court took into account that the court decision on the transfer of the building to municipal ownership has not been executed for a long time, which confirms the violation by the liquidator and the city council.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the plaintiffs’ cassation appeal.
Case No. 18/257(917/1747/24) dated 09/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an individual’s claim against the tax service for the return of funds mistakenly paid as contributions to mandatory state pension insurance for a bankrupt enterprise.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that the plaintiff had not proven the fact of mistaken payment of funds specifically as an individual, and not as an official of the bankrupt enterprise, in whose favor the payment was made. The court also took into account that the funds were credited to the account of the bankrupt enterprise in accordance with the purpose of payment indicated by the plaintiff, and that the enterprise has arrears in the payment of a single contribution, which makes it impossible to return the funds. The court noted that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect the violated rights, since the funds were paid to the State Budget, and not to the account of the tax service, against which the claim was filed. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff did not cite a specific legal norm that was incorrectly applied by the appellate court, and did not substantiate the need to form a unified law enforcement practice regarding the disputed legal relations.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 922/532/22 dated 08/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the privatization of municipal property through redemption, the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of this property, and the recovery of the property in favor of the territorial community.
2. The court refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, because it believes that the recognition as illegal of the city council’s decision and as invalid of the contract of sale is not an effective way of protection, since the property has already been resold to a third party. The court noted that the prosecutor did not prove the bad faith of the ultimate acquirer of the property, LLC “DA-VI”, and the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer would violate the principle of proportionality, placing an excessive burden on it. The court took into account that
DA-VI LLC acquired property under a purchase and sale agreement, relying on the data of the State Register of Real Property Rights, where there was no information about encumbrances or violations of the privatization procedure. The court also noted that the prosecutor did not provide evidence of the connection between the defendants, which could indicate their bad faith. The court of first instance established that ONLY DIP LLC did not make any improvements to the leased property during the period the real estate object was leased, therefore there is no evidence to confirm that the Kharkiv City Council has the right to privatize the disputed non-residential premises through redemption.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 904/3025/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of a permanent gratuitous servitude on the basement of an apartment building for the installation and maintenance of a commercial metering unit for centralized water supply.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the Homeowners Association (HOA) is a proper defendant in such disputes, as it is a legal entity with full legal capacity, capable of being a participant in legal relations. The court indicated that the HOA has the rights and obligations to manage the common property of the building, and also represents the interests of the co-owners. Also, the court noted that the HOA did not consent to the installation of the metering unit on the proposed terms, did not offer alternative terms, and did not notify of its intention to install the metering unit on its own. The court emphasized that cassation proceedings depend on the arguments of the cassation appeal, and the burden of proving the existence of grounds for cassation appeal rests on the appellant. The court rejected the HOA’s arguments about the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the question of whether the HOA is a proper defendant in such disputes, since there is already a practice of the Supreme Court on this issue.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the HOA’s cassation appeal, and upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming the legality of the establishment of the servitude.
Case No. 916/3403/24 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership, the recovery of property, and the elimination of obstacles in the possession, use, and disposal of property.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, namely, instead of a vindication claim (for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession), the plaintiff claimed for the cancellation of state registration and the elimination of obstacles. The court found that there are contractual relations between the parties based on the purchase and sale agreement, which has not been declared invalid, which
excludes the possibility of satisfying the claim for recovery of property from unlawful possession. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not proven the lack of awareness of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement, and also did not provide sufficient evidence of the non-conclusion of this agreement. The court took into account that the defendant had been openly using the disputed property for a long time. The court also took into account that the dispute regarding the land plot under the disputed property had already been resolved in another case in favor of the defendant.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 910/5346/20 dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) in favor of Absolute-Climate LLC (LLC) of payment for additional construction works, which, according to the LLC, were necessary but not provided for by the initial design and estimate documentation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the contract between the PFU and the LLC stipulated a fixed price, which could only be changed by agreement of the parties by concluding an additional agreement. The court noted that the LLC had not proven the fact that the PFU agreed to the performance of additional works and the introduction of relevant changes to the design and estimate documentation in the established procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the LLC, having discovered the need for additional work, should have informed the PFU about this and, in the absence of a response, stopped the work, and not performed it at its own discretion, counting on further payment. The court also pointed out the erroneous application by the appellate court of the provisions on representation (Article 241 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) to the legal relations arising from the construction contract. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account that the LLC did not prove the impossibility of predicting additional work before the start of the contract and the inexpediency of stopping work in the interests of the PFU.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy the claim of Absolute-Climate LLC against the Pension Fund of Ukraine for the recovery of debt.
**Case No. 922/1327/25 dated 09/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) and an application for securing the claim by suspending the effect of this decision.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the application for securing the claim, guided by the fact that:
* Securing the claim by suspending the effect of the AMCU’s decision actually leads to the continuation of activities that the AMCU has recognized as illegal, which contradicts the purpose of antimonopoly legislation.
* Taking measures to secure a claim that are identical in content to satisfying the stated claims
requirements, is not allowed if the dispute has not been resolved on the merits.
* The courts of previous instances did not substantiate how the failure to take measures to secure the claim would complicate or make it impossible to effectively protect the plaintiff’s rights or enforce the court decision on the merits of the dispute.
* The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding similar cases, which emphasized the inadmissibility of suspending the effect of AMC decisions as a measure to secure a claim.
* The court emphasized that the security of the claim must be adequate and proportionate, and must not violate the rights of other persons.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts and refused to satisfy the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 910/14130/24 dated 09/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by Neron & Partners LLC in connection with the consideration of a cassation appeal in a commercial case.
2. The Supreme Court granted the application of Neron & Partners LLC, as evidence was provided to confirm the costs incurred, namely a contract for the provision of legal assistance, an additional agreement thereto, an act of services provided, and a warrant of attorney. The court took into account that VKP Avtofurgon LLC did not file a motion to reduce the amount of legal costs and did not file objections to the determined amount of legal assistance. The court emphasized that a reduction in the amount of legal costs is possible only on the basis of a motion from the other party, which must prove the disproportionateness of the costs. The court also noted that it does not have the right to decide on the issue of reducing the amount of legal costs on its own initiative, taking into account the principles of dispositivity and adversariality. The court also took into account the criteria of reality, proportionality and reasonableness of legal costs, as well as the result of the review of the case in the cassation procedure.
3. The court ordered VKP Avtofurgon LLC to pay Neron & Partners LLC UAH 30,000.00 as reimbursement for legal costs for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 990/221/24 dated 09/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to refuse to recommend a person for the position of judge.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HQCJ did not prove with proper evidence the validity of doubts about the plaintiff’s compliance with the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. The court noted that the HQCJ’s decision contains vague wording and far-fetched assumptions, in particular, regarding the plaintiff’s husband providing a loan to his mother and regarding the plaintiff’s professional development. The court emphasized that the HQCJ did not provide objective criteria for assessing integrity and professional ethics, and also did not substantiate which measures to maintain professional levelthe plaintiff should have taken. The court emphasized that the HQCJ’s doubts must be substantiated and based on real facts, not assumptions. The court also considered the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the need for clear and predictable legislation in matters of restricting rights.
4. The court recognized as unlawful and overturned the HQCJ’s decision to refuse to recommend the plaintiff for the position of judge.
Case No. 202/6517/23 dated 09/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment without changes, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively examined the evidence, assessed its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and correlation, and reasonably found PERSON_7 guilty. The court noted that the testimonies of witnesses, protocols of investigative actions, and expert opinions, taken together, confirm the guilt of the convicted person. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the lower courts, and rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and violations of procedural norms. The Supreme Court also indicated that the defense had the opportunity to file petitions for conducting examinations and appeal the actions of the investigator, but did not exercise this right.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court without changes, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.
Case No. 523/14213/23 dated 09/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the calculation of alimony on certain types of income and the issuance of decrees on restricting the debtor’s rights.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the scholarship of the President of Ukraine and the monetary reward for participation in sports competitions received by the applicant are not income that should be taken into account when determining the amount of alimony, since they are awards for sports achievements, are not of a permanent income nature, and are not related to labor activity. The court noted that the list of types of income that are taken into account when determining the amount of alimony is not exhaustive, but the criterion for determining such income is their connection with labor activity. Since the debt on alimony payments was accrued groundlessly, the state enforcement officer had no grounds for imposing an arrest on the property and funds of the alimony payer, as well as for applying the restrictions provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” The court also indicated that the courts’ reference to the previous ruling of the Supreme Court is unfounded, since there were other factual circumstances in that case.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal.
submitted an administrative complaint and found the actions of the state executor unlawful, canceled the resolutions on the accrual of alimony on scholarships and remuneration, removed information about the debtor from the Unified Register of Debtors, and also canceled the resolutions on restricting the debtor’s rights.
**Case No. 308/7502/14-ц dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a real estate purchase and sale agreement as invalid, the recovery of this property, and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights to it.
2. The appellate court accepted the plaintiff’s (LLC “Shoe Store”) waiver of the claim, guided by the principle of dispositiveness of civil procedure, which allows the parties to freely dispose of their rights. The court found that the director of LLC “Shoe Store” had the authority to file such a statement, and his actions did not contradict the interests of the company. The court also took into account that the consequences of waiving the claim were explained to the plaintiff. The defendant’s arguments about the plaintiff’s abuse of procedural rights were rejected, as waiving the claim is a dispositive right. In addition, the court noted that the failure of duly notified participants in the case to appear does not prevent the consideration of the case, and the defendant’s representative was duly notified of the date of the court hearing. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the company director had the right to act on behalf of the legal entity without a power of attorney, and the procedure for notifying the participants in the case was not violated.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 398/1096/24 dated 09/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and moral damages, as the plaintiff was dismissed for absenteeism.
2. The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the Oleksandriia Pedagogical College, where the plaintiff worked, is critical to the functioning of the economy during a special period, therefore the employer had the right to refuse unpaid leave. The court noted that the plaintiff’s stay abroad during this period depended on her will, and she did not provide evidence of valid reasons for her absence. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was duly notified of the need to return to work, but did not do so. The court emphasized that for dismissal for absenteeism, not only the fact of absence is important, but also the validity of the reasons, and in this case they were not established. Also, the court took into account that the employer acted in good faith, and the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №212/4527/23 dated 17/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for public calls for changing the borders of the territory of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment and ruling without changes, emphasizing that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the guilt of the person are based on objectively established circumstances, confirmed by evidence, in particular, protocols of inspection of the Internet page, search, expert opinions. The court noted that the evaluation of evidence is the competence of the court that rendered the judgment, and the cassation court does not have the right to examine evidence or establish circumstances. The court also took into account that the convicted person’s comments were different in content, related to different events, and were not united by a single criminal intent, which indicates the repetition of the crime. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the lack of evidence of the elements of the crime, interference in the comments, and failure to take into account the convicted person’s statement, considering them unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case №382/1864/23 dated 18/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of criminal proceedings by the appellate court in connection with the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period on charges against a person of committing a traffic accident that caused grievous bodily harm.
2. The appellate court closed the criminal proceedings, considering that the pre-trial investigation period had expired and that the provisions on excluding the closure of proceedings for serious crimes against life and health do not apply to Article 286 of the Criminal Code, since it is not included in Section II of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that Article 286 of the Criminal Code (violation of traffic rules) provides for liability for a serious crime, where a person’s health is an additional object of encroachment. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the legal position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, the exception regarding the closure of proceedings applies not only to crimes where life and health are the main object, but also to those where they are an additional object. The court of cassation indicated the obligation to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations, emphasizing that the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case №953/1091/22 (922/5144/23) dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s overturning of the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of proceedings in the case regarding the reinstatement of
