Case No. 991/2778/25 dated 06/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a plea agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the accused in a case of corruption and other criminal offenses related to the illegal sale of claims under loan agreements.
2. The court, in approving the agreement, was guided by the fact that it complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, the consent of the victim is present, the accused exposed other accomplices to the crime, damages are partially compensated, and the public interest in a prompt investigation and judicial proceedings is taken into account. The court took into account the voluntary nature of the agreement, the possibility of the accused fulfilling the obligations undertaken, the existence of factual grounds for admitting guilt, and the compliance of the agreed punishment with the requirements of the law, in particular, exemption from punishment under certain articles due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court also emphasized the importance of ensuring prompt and objective judicial proceedings, exposing a greater number of persons who committed criminal offenses, and preventing the commission of new crimes.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and rendered a guilty verdict, imposing the punishment agreed upon by the parties, releasing the defendant from serving the sentence with probation, and canceling the precautionary measures and property seizures.
Case No. 754/3801/23 dated 17/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances, namely the possible bad faith of the parties to the loan agreement, which may have been aimed at avoiding the division of jointly owned property of the spouses. The court also noted that the formal indication in the loan agreement of the borrower’s wife’s awareness is not unconditional proof that the funds were taken in the interests of the family. In addition, the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the appeal regarding abuse of rights in order to create a prejudicial court decision on the recovery of a non-existent debt in order to avoid a fair division of property. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to reject or accept the arguments of the parties, giving them due assessment. Given these violations, the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court did not verify the arguments of the appeal on the merits, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 755/19075/21 dated 25/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation in kind of a share from common shared ownership in an apartment and the recognition of ownership of a separate apartment.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff had not proven the technical feasibility of allocating a share without violating building codes and without interfering with the load-bearing structures of the house, and had not provided permits for the apartment’s remodeling, which had been carried out. The court noted that the allocation of a share in kind is possible only if there is a technical possibility of allocating to each party a separate part of the house with an independent exit or the possibility of converting the house into isolated apartments. The court took into account that there are discrepancies in the technical documentation for the apartment, and the defendants object to the allocation of a share, claiming unauthorized interference with load-bearing structures. The court also emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances it relies on as the basis for its claims, and that proof cannot be based on assumptions.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 761/42070/23 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling refusing to reinstate the time limit for appealing the decision of the court of first instance in a case of administrative offense.
2. A judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is considering the defender’s application for review of the appellate court’s ruling based on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Ukraine had violated its international obligations in connection with the denial of access to a higher court. The defender requests that the appellate court’s ruling be overturned and the case be remanded for a new trial. The judge of the Grand Chamber found that the application meets the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUoAP) and that there are no obstacles to opening proceedings. In order to consider the case, an authentic translation of the ECHR’s decision was requested from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Considering the received translation and guided by the articles of the CUoAP, the judge decided to open proceedings in the case.
3. The court decided to open proceedings on the defender’s application for review of the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling and to request the case file from the court of first instance.
Case No. 155/18/24 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as legally incapacitated and the appointment of a guardian for him/her.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which declared the person legally incapacitated, and the appointment of a guardian was denied. The court proceeded from the fact that a mandatory condition for the appointment of a guardian is the existence of a submission from the guardianship authority, which must be substantiated and meet the requirements of the law. In this case, although the guardianship authority requested that the applicant be appointed as guardian, their opinion does notof the necessary information and evidence that would confirm the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of a guardian and would be in the best interests of the incapacitated person. The court also noted that the personal participation of the person in respect of whom the issue of incapacity is being considered is not mandatory if their interests are represented by a lawyer and their state of health makes it impossible to provide explanations.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 393/541/24 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings accusing PERSON_6 of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the justification of the court’s position. The full text of the resolution will be announced later, therefore it is currently impossible to provide information on the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 760/19023/18 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement between individuals.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, supporting its arguments, namely:
* The presence of a written loan agreement signed by the parties is proof of its conclusion.
* The circumstances established in another case (prejudice) are relevant to this case, in particular, the fact that the contract was signed by the defendant and that he partially fulfilled his obligations.
* The appellate court reasonably took into account the arithmetic error in the contract regarding the interest rate and recalculated the amount of interest.
* The court of cassation does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
* There are no grounds for accruing interest after the expiration of the loan agreement.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court and boil down to disagreement with the established circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the appellate court’s decision unchanged, renewing its enforcement.
Case No. 344/7040/18 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the release of property from seizure and recognition of ownership of the apartment.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the need to involve all the heirs of the plaintiff in the case on the claim for the removal of seizure from property, since the removal of seizure from property does not affect the inheritance rights and obligations of the heirs, but is only ti
temporary restriction of the right of ownership. The court of cassation noted that the law does not require the mandatory involvement of heirs in the case on the claim for the removal of seizure of property, and if the owner of the property dies, the process of removing the seizure may be continued by the heirs. The court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal violated the norms of procedural law when it concluded that the claim should be dismissed due to the non-involvement of all the heirs of the plaintiff in the claim for the removal of seizure of property. The court of cassation noted that seizure is a temporary restriction of the right of ownership, and not a cancellation of the right itself, and after the seizure is lifted, if there are grounds for this, the property is returned to the possession of the owner.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for the release of real estate from seizure and recognition of ownership of real estate and transferred the case in this part for consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 210/891/23 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation, recognition of property as jointly owned, and recognition of ownership of a part of the property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the claim for establishing the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage and recognizing property as jointly acquired property, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the conduct of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses during the period when the disputed property was acquired. The court noted that witness testimony and joint photographs are not irrefutable evidence of the existence of established family relations inherent in spouses. The court of cassation emphasized that the mere fact of cohabitation without proving the conduct of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations does not indicate the existence of established relations inherent in spouses. Also, the court took into account that in the contract of sale of the garage, the deceased indicated that he was not married and did not live with anyone as one family without registration of marriage.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 484/2599/22 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for committing theft involving unlawful entry into a dwelling, and fraud.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, agreeing with the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court proceeded from the fact that the guilt of the convicted person in committing the crimes imputed to him has been proven by relevant and
admissible evidence, assessed by the courts of first and appellate instances in their entirety. The Supreme Court reviewed the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal regarding the incompleteness of the judicial review, incorrect assessment of evidence, and the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person, and found them to be unfounded. The court of cassation emphasized that the review of court decisions in the cassation procedure is limited only to questions of law, and not to the establishment of factual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court stated that the courts of previous instances complied with the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the consideration of the case and the adoption of decisions.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 953/19731/20 dated 09/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a land plot of forestry designation to private ownership and its reclamation into state ownership.
2. The court of cassation noted that the prosecutor does not have the authority to represent the interests of a state enterprise in court, therefore, the claims in the interests of the SE “Kharkiv Forest Research Station” are not subject to consideration. Regarding the claims in the interests of the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine, the court indicated that the claim for the reclamation of the land plot is an effective method of protection, and the claims for appealing the decisions of local self-government bodies and canceling the state act are not proper methods of protection. The court also noted that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish whether PERSON_1 is a bona fide acquirer, taking into account the changes to the legislation regarding the protection of the rights of bona fide acquirers, as well as from what time the ownership right of the first acquirer was registered. Since the appellate court did not investigate these circumstances, the case regarding the reclamation of the land plot must be sent for a new consideration. The court partially deviated from previous conclusions regarding the distinction between vindication and negatory claims, clarifying that the determining criterion is the presence or absence of the plaintiff’s possession of the property, which is determined based on the principle of registration confirmation of possession.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the claims in the interests of the SE “Kharkiv Forest Research Station”, left the claim in this part without consideration, changed the reasoning part of the decision of the appellate court regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim on recognizing the decisions of the local self-government body as illegal and canceling the state act, and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal regarding the claims for the reclamation of the land plot.
**Case No. 309/1100/22 dated 09/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation
Subject of the dispute: vindication of a land plot from another’s illegal possession, as the plaintiff believes that their land plot overlaps with the plot owned by the defendant.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by admitting a new piece of evidence (expert opinion) that was not submitted to the court of first instance, without proper justification as to why this evidence could not have been submitted earlier. The appellate court did not establish whether there were objective obstacles to submitting this evidence in the court of first instance and did not provide reasons for accepting this evidence at the stage of appellate proceedings. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court cannot establish circumstances based on evidence that was not examined in the court of first instance, unless the impossibility of submitting it earlier is proven. The court of cassation noted that each party must prove the circumstances they rely on and that the evidence must be relevant, admissible, reliable, and sufficient. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court prematurely overturned the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 583/5271/21 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal acquisition, storage, transportation of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain any arguments of the court. Therefore, it is impossible to provide information about the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 760/19023/18 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a ruling on securing a claim by imposing an arrest on the property of the defendant in a case on the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which granted the application for securing the claim, motivating this by the fact that securing the claim is justified, as there is a real threat of non-execution of the court decision if the claim is satisfied, and the measures taken are commensurate with the claims. The court noted that the seizure of property is a temporary measure that does not restrict the rights of possession and use of property, but only the right to dispose of it, and that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the non-application of counter-security by the courts of previous instances do not affect the correctness of the conclusions regarding the existencegrounds for taking measures to secure the claim, since the chosen type of securing the claim does not affect the defendant’s financial condition and does not lead to additional costs. The court also took into account that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the established circumstances of the case and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 686/6227/23 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation under Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide the court’s arguments. To clarify them, it is necessary to read the full text of the ruling, which will be announced on September 30, 2025. Usually, when considering cases regarding encroachment on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the court takes into account evidence confirming the intentional actions of a person aimed at changing the borders of the territory of Ukraine, committed publicly or using mass media. It is important to establish a causal link between the actions of the accused and the consequences in the form of violation of territorial integrity. Also, the court takes into account the status of the accused, in particular, whether he is a representative of the authorities of another state, which may indicate a greater public danger of his actions. The court assesses the evidence in its totality, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, and verifies the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 4813/2108/2409/2024/001 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court refusing to issue an execution writ for the compulsory execution of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but upheld the decision to refuse to issue an execution writ. The court proceeded from the fact that the appellate court erroneously referred to the cancellation of the arbitral tribunal’s decision at the time of consideration of the application for the issuance of an execution writ, since the ruling on cancellation had not yet entered into legal force. However, the Supreme Court noted that there is another ground for refusing to issue an execution writ, namely: the arbitral tribunal decided on the rights and obligations of a person (heir) who did not participate in the case, since the claim was filed against a deceased person. The Supreme Court emphasized that appealing to the court with a claim
concerning the deceased person is inadmissible, and in such a case, the arbitration court decides on the rights and obligations of the legal successors who were not involved in the case. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the agreement on legal assistance with an incapacitated person is considered approved if the guardians have not expressed any objections.
3. The Supreme Court decided to amend the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, leaving in force the refusal to issue an enforcement order.
Case No. 215/3916/24 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Ternivska District Council in Kryvyi Rih regarding the refusal to issue a work record book and the recovery of moral damages.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts without changes, confirming that the dispute between the plaintiff and the district council is a public-law dispute, as it concerns the exercise of владних управлінських функцій [exercise of authoritative management functions] by a local self-government body. The court noted that administrative jurisdiction extends to cases where a subject of владних повноважень [authoritative powers] exercises владні управлінські функції [authoritative management functions] and violates the rights of an individual within the framework of public-law relations. At the same time, the court took into account that the plaintiff filed claims for compensation for damages caused by violations committed by the subject of владних повноважень [authoritative powers], in the same proceedings with the claim to resolve the public-law dispute. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which distinguishes between cases of civil and administrative jurisdiction, emphasizing that cases where actions or inaction of authorities in the exercise of владних функцій [authoritative functions] are challenged, fall under administrative jurisdiction. The court emphasized that within the framework of civil proceedings, it is impossible to investigate the legality of the actions of officials, since this is the competence of administrative jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/7880/24 dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” of debt under the contract for the purchase and sale of electricity generated from alternative sources, as well as accrued 3% per annum and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which partially satisfied the claim of LLC “ETH Solar 5”. The court proceeded from the fact that SE “Guaranteed Buyer” improperly fulfilled its obligations under the contract regarding the timely and full payment for electricity. The arguments of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” regarding the right to reduce the level of payments to the plaintiff by the amount of the unpaid share of compensation for the cost of balancing electricity were rejected, since the defendant did not exercise this right. The court also noted that there are no grounds for forming a conclusion regarding the application of legal norms, since the respThe submitter did not substantiate the incorrect application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that it does not re-evaluate evidence, but checks the correct application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances based on the circumstances established by them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts – without changes.
Case No. 906/994/24 dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Pulyny Settlement Council of funds in the amount of UAH 1,797,949.87 to compensate for damage caused to the environment as a result of illegal logging of trees.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, noting that according to Article 107 of the Forest Code of Ukraine, if the persons guilty of causing damage to the forest are not identified, the damage is compensated by the local self-government body on whose territory the forest is located. The court took into account that the fact of logging trees in the territory of the Pulyny community was established, the perpetrators were not found, and the settlement council did not properly fulfill the obligation to protect the forest and control environmental legislation. The court also referred to Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection”, which assigns responsibility to local councils for the state of the environment in their territory. The court pointed out that the inaction of the settlement council led to illegal logging, which indicates a causal link between its actions and the damage caused. The court emphasized that the defendant’s guilt is presumed and was not refuted by him.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Pulyny Settlement Council without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
Case No. 916/5182/23 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from an associated member of a service cooperative for the payment of membership fees, penalties, inflation losses, 3% per annum and a fine.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which partially satisfied the cooperative’s claim, motivating it as follows:
* The defendant’s motion to suspend the proceedings in the case was rejected, as the available materials allow the court to independently establish the circumstances regarding the defendant’s membership in the cooperative.
* The court found that the defendant is a member of the cooperative, as there is no evidence of his withdrawal from the cooperative, and there is no information about the liquidation of the cooperative.
* Changing the organizational and legal form of the cooperative is not a basis for terminating the defendant’s membership.
* There is no evidence that the cooperative carried out housing construction activities involving funds from individuals and legal entities, which could affect the stof an associate member.
* The court noted that the appellant had not proven the fact that the courts of previous instances had established circumstances of significant importance based on inadmissible evidence in the case.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
**Case No. 916/4532/24 dated 25/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Dariivka Village Council for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office, incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court.
2. The court granted the application of the Dariivka Village Council, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made. The court took into account the evidence provided, including the contract for the provision of legal assistance, the act of acceptance and transfer of services, travel tickets, as well as a detailed description of the work performed by the lawyer. The court noted that the costs of professional legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, the scope of services provided, and the importance of the case for the party. Importantly, the court emphasized the need to prove the disproportionateness of the costs by the party filing a motion to reduce the costs of legal assistance. The court also took into account that the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office had not filed any objections to the application for reimbursement of expenses.
3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 11,368.10 of expenses for professional legal assistance from the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office in favor of the Dariivka Village Council.
**Case No. 463/2671/17 dated 22/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the district court and the appellate court in the criminal proceedings against PERSON_11, accused of committing criminal offenses under Parts 3-5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (appropriation, embezzlement of property or acquisition of it by abuse of official position).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not state the court’s arguments.
3. The court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the rulings of the courts of previous instances, and order a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 766/11746/23 dated 24/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return of the lawyer’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal, as the appellate court, in the opinion of the SC, groundlessly found that the lawyer had not corrected the deficiencies in the appeal. The SC emphasized that the appellate court cannot analyze the validity of the arguments of the appeal at the stage of resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings. The reporting judge should only re-view
to ascertain the existence of formal requirements for the complaint, and the assessment of arguments is carried out collectively during the appeal review. The Supreme Court emphasized that a party has the right to freely choose the method of substantiating its claims, and this cannot be a basis for returning the complaint. Also, the Supreme Court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the appellate court must take into account the freedom of the parties in using their rights and cannot consider it a defect of the complaint that the party did not indicate certain arguments or indicated them in a way that the court considers unconvincing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 445/2417/24 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of aiding and abetting the aggressor state as part of an organized group, by preparing design and technical documentation for Russian nuclear power plants.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his lawyer, who argued that the imposed punishment did not correspond to the severity of the crime and the person of the convicted person, in particular, that the courts did not take into account mitigating circumstances, such as sincere remorse, active assistance in solving the crime, the presence of two minor children and elderly parents in care, as well as mobilization to the National Guard of Ukraine. The court of cassation took into account the position of the prosecutor, who consistently asked to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and impose a punishment in the form of a fine, and also not to apply additional punishments, taking into account the convicted person’s useful professional knowledge for the energy system of Ukraine. Also, the court took into account that within the framework of the criminal proceedings on this fact, there are seven verdicts by which the courts approved agreements on recognition of guilt, according to which the punishment for the convicted persons was imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account all the circumstances, the court came to the conclusion that it is possible to mitigate the imposed punishment.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, changing the court decisions in the part of the imposed punishment, reducing the term of imprisonment and the term of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities.
Case No. 918/983/24 dated 09/26/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Ivanna” in the court of cassation.
The court satisfied the application of LLC “Ivanna”, motivating it by the fact that everyone has the right to professional legal assistance, and one of the main principles of commercial court proceedings is the reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made. The court took into account the evidence provided, which confirms the actual provision of legal assistance by the lawyer, as well as the fact that the declared amount of expenses corresponds to the criteria of proportionality, reality and reasonableness. The court also noted,
that Titan Alliance LLC did not exercise its right to object to the reduction of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance. In this case, the court referred to the practice of the ECHR, according to which only expenses that were necessary and constitute a reasonable amount are reimbursed. The court also noted that obligations between a lawyer and a client, in particular regarding a “success fee,” are not binding on the court, but in this case, the claimed amount of expenses is justified.
The court ruled to recover UAH 80,000 from Titan Alliance LLC in favor of Ivanna LLC for professional legal assistance expenses incurred in the court of cassation.
Case No. 916/3547/24 dated 09/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of payment for the actual time of grain storage after the expiration of the storage agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous courts that granted the counterclaim for the recovery of payment for grain storage, reasoning that the courts did not take into account the grain warehouse’s obligation to return the grain at the first request of the depositor, and did not clarify whether the grain warehouse was entitled to continue charging fees after receiving such a request. The court noted that failure to return the grain at the depositor’s request affects the duration of the storage period for which the fee is charged and may lead to an artificial increase in this period by the grain warehouse. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed that the grain warehouse has the right to set its own storage rates after the expiration of the agreement and is not obliged to agree on them with the depositor. The court also pointed out the errors of the previous courts regarding the crediting of funds paid by the depositor towards the payment of penalties under the agreement, which had already expired.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the counterclaim and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 759/1074/17 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the life annuity agreement concluded between the plaintiff’s father and his sister (the defendant) as invalid due to the father’s inability to understand the meaning of his actions at the time of the conclusion of the agreement.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim based on the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination, which established that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the plaintiff’s father suffered from a mental disorder that deprived him of the ability to understand the meaning of his actions and control them. The courts took into account that the defendant did not object to the previous expert opinion in the case of recognizing the father as legally incapacitated, which also confirmed the presence of a mental illness in him. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the erroneousness
expert’s opinion, noting that it is assessed by the court in conjunction with other evidence. Also, the appellate court rejected the defendant’s reference to the certificate that the father was not registered with a psychiatrist, as this does not exclude his inability to understand his actions at the time of the contract. The court of cassation supported these conclusions, noting that the courts of previous instances properly investigated and evaluated the evidence in their entirety.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 761/13905/20 dated 09/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state executor regarding the non-termination of enforcement proceedings due to the liquidation of the debtor bank.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the state executor rightfully did not terminate the enforcement proceedings, since the debtor in the enforcement proceedings is not the bank itself, but the authorized person of the Deposit Guarantee Fund of Individuals (DGF) for the liquidation of the bank, which is a separate subject of legal relations. The court noted that the authorized person of the DGF acts as an official of the bank during liquidation, and therefore cannot be identified with the bank as a legal entity. The court also emphasized that the bank’s being in the liquidation procedure does not prevent the commission of enforcement actions aimed at executing the court decision. The court of cassation indicated that for the termination of enforcement proceedings on the basis of paragraph 4 of part one of Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the debtor must be the bank as a legal entity, and not its representative in the person of the authorized person of the DGF. The court emphasized that court decisions that have entered into legal force are binding on all state authorities and individuals.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 755/2699/22 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the loan agreement concluded between two individuals as invalid, since the plaintiff claimed that she did not consent to the conclusion of this agreement while married to the borrower.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her rights when concluding the loan agreement, since the written consent of the other spouse is not required for the conclusion of such an agreement. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the funds received under the loan agreement were not used for the needs of the family. In addition, the courts referred to the fact that the conclusion of the loan agreement and the receipt of funds had already been established by previous court decisions, which have preclusive effect. SupremeThe Supreme Court emphasized that in order to impose an obligation on one of the spouses under a loan agreement concluded by the other spouse, it is necessary to prove that the agreement was concluded in the interests of the family and that the funds received were used for its needs, which was not proven in this case. The court also emphasized that a loan agreement is not a transaction regarding the disposal of joint property of the spouses, therefore, the consent of the other spouse to its conclusion is not required.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 583/5271/21 dated 09/24/2025
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 for illegal purchase, manufacture and storage of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale (Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the verdict and ruling, as the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence and reasonably found the person guilty of committing the crime. The court noted that the conclusions of the courts are based on a set of evidence, in particular, the search protocol, the protocol of the investigative experiment, the testimony of witnesses and the conclusions of expert examinations. The court of cassation instance rejected the arguments of the defense counsel regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the search protocol, noting that the violations indicated by the defense counsel are not significant and did not lead to a violation of the rights of the convicted person. The court also took into account that the court of appeal properly checked the arguments of the appeal and gave them a reasonable assessment. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence and establish circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court ruled: To uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 335/9748/21 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the will drawn up by the plaintiff’s father in favor of the defendants as invalid, since the plaintiff believed that the father was mistaken as to the nature of the transaction, intending to conclude a life annuity agreement.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the testator’s error regarding the nature of the will, and the very fact of drawing up the will and the absence of its cancellation during the testator’s life indicate his actual will. The court also took into account the testimony of the notary, who assured that the will was drawn up from the words of the testator, who understood the consequences of his actions. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff did not refute the fact of friendly relations between the defendants and the testator. The court of appeal emphasized that the very fact
advanced age and state of health of the testator are not an unconditional ground for признання the will invalid, unless it is proven that the person was not aware of the significance of their actions. The court of cassation agreed with such conclusions.
2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal без задоволення, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
Case №733/924/25 dated 26/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the motion of the defense counsel to send the criminal proceeding from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the motion of the defense counsel, without providing any arguments in the operative part of the ruling. The court refers to Part 2 of Art. 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows to limit the drafting and announcement of only the operative part of the court decision, if the drafting of the full text requires significant time. Thus, the motives that guided the court in making the decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. At this time, it is impossible to establish why the court decided not to satisfy the motion of the defense counsel, since only the operative part is available.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the motion of the defense counsel to send the criminal proceeding from one court to another.
Case №903/749/24 dated 23/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of land lease agreements, признання invalid of the lease agreement and the return of land plots, initiated by the prosecutor in the interests of the state.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case, taking into account all the circumstances in their entirety and the correct application of the norms of substantive law. The court pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account the specifics of the reorganization of the enterprise, in particular, that the right of lease was not transferred under the distribution balance sheet, and did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the voluntary waiver of the right of lease and restrictions on the disposal of the right of lease. Also, the Supreme Court drew attention to the need to verify the legality of the transfer of land plots at the time of such actions, and not at the current moment. The court emphasized the importance of analyzing the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of land for lease in the context of its compliance with the law and the consequences for the parties.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №609/549/24 dated 26/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property damage caused by a criminal offense, by the head of the Kremenets District Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the state represented by the Shumska City Council.
