**Case No. 387/621/22 dated 09/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the accusation of a person under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments. To analyze them, the full text of the ruling is needed, where the reasons for the decision are stated. Without the full text, it is impossible to understand why the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court and rejected the cassation appeal of the defense counsel. In particular, it is unknown whether there were violations of substantive or procedural law that could affect the legality and validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 922/4780/24 dated 10/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the clauses of the appendix to the application for accession to the agreement on the provision of electricity distribution services, in which the plaintiff is indicated as a consumer for the facilities that no longer belonged to him.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the existence of grounds for recognizing the agreement as invalid, namely a defect in form, will, or law. The appellate court additionally noted that the plaintiff’s actions contradict the principle of good faith, since he had long behaved as an electricity consumer for the disputed facilities, which created legitimate expectations for other participants in the legal relationship. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not promptly notify about the disposal of the property, as provided for by the rules of the retail electricity market, which also indicates bad faith conduct. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should have protected his interests in another way, namely by demanding compensation for expenses from the actual users of electricity.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 910/15064/24 dated 09/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order of the Odesa Regional State Administration on the lease to Elixir Ukraine LLC of a land plot and the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement for this plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the Sea Port Dunay-Kiliya LLC, since the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect its rights. The court noted that the ос
the challenged order had already been implemented through the conclusion of a lease agreement, and its cancellation would not restore the plaintiff’s rights. Regarding the claim for invalidation of the lease agreement, the court indicated that Elixir Ukraine LLC had acquired ownership of the single property complex located on the disputed land plot, and in accordance with the Land Code of Ukraine, had the right to apply to the local self-government body for registration of the lease right to this plot. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of taking actions aimed at resolving the issue of using the land plot from the moment of acquiring ownership of a part of the buildings located on it. In addition, the court of cassation referred to the position of the joint chamber of the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, according to which the recognition of a transaction as invalid is not an effective means of protection if property or funds have already been transferred in execution of this transaction.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Danube-Kilia Sea Port” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 991/5399/23 dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of abuse of office, which led to the non-payment of customs duties.
2. The court of first instance acquitted the accused, and the appellate court upheld this decision, motivating it by the absence of a corpus delicti in the person’s actions and the absence of a causal link between the actions of the accused and the damage caused to the state. The prosecutor appealed these decisions, insisting that the courts did not take into account important evidence, such as video recordings and audit materials, which confirm violations of customs procedures. The prosecutor argued that the actions of the accused directly led to the evasion of customs control and non-payment of customs duties. The Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the previous instances courts regarding the absence of a causal link, pointing out that the actions of the customs inspector, who did not exercise proper control, are directly related to the subsequent non-payment of customs duties. The court also noted that the previous instances courts did not investigate key issues related to the criminal-legal assessment of the committed act.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 911/2702/24 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of “Macpaw Property Management” LLC against the Tsybliv Village
of the village council on признання недостовірною інформації, поширеної головою сільради в інтернеті, зобов’язання її спростувати та стягнення 1 000 000 грн шкоди діловій репутації.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant disseminated the disputed information on the Internet. The court noted that the video recording, in which the head of the village council expressed the disputed statements, was posted on a third-party resource, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence that this was done by the Tsybliv Village Council. In addition, the court pointed out that a significant part of the statements of the head of the village council is of an оценочний nature, and not factual statements that can be verified for accuracy. The court also took into account that the provided video recording was edited, which makes it difficult to establish the context of the statements. The court emphasized that in order to satisfy the claim, it is necessary to prove a set of conditions: dissemination of information by the defendant, the information belonging to the plaintiff, the inaccuracy of the information as a factual statement, and violation of non-property rights. Since the plaintiff did not prove the dissemination of information by the defendant, the court concluded that there were no grounds to satisfy the claim.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 915/596/24 dated 09/23/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – cancellation of the act on compulsory alienation of property and reclamation of the car HYUNDAI SONATA, VIN: NUMBER_2 from Military Unit NUMBER_1 in favor of LLC “Ukravtoimport”.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, which satisfied the claim of LLC “Ukravtoimport” for the reclamation of property. The court of appeal found that Military Unit NUMBER_1 violated the procedure of compulsory alienation of property, as it did not provide evidence of согласование вилучення майна with the regional or district state administration or the executive body of the local council, and also did not prove the existence of circumstances that would allow the seizure without such согласования. In addition, the court noted that Military Unit NUMBER_1 did not prove proper notification of LLC “Ukravtoimport” about the seizure of property and did not provide evidence of оцінки майна at the time of seizure. The court also rejected the reference of Military Unit NUMBER_1 to the fact that LLC “Ukravtoimport” was notified about the seizure of property, as the procedure established by law for вручення акта про вилучення майна was not followed.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Military Unit NUMBER_1, and left the постанову апеляційного суду without change.
n.
**Case No. 926/2137/24 dated September 30, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130707903](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130707903)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and the cancellation of the decision of the Chernivtsi City Council on the termination of the right of permanent use of the land plot that belonged to the Subsidiary Enterprise “Chernivtsiturist”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, indicating that in order to satisfy the claim for recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the termination of the right of permanent use of the land plot, the plaintiff must prove the existence of real property rights to the immovable property located on this plot. The courts found that “Chernivtsiturist” did not provide evidence that would confirm its ownership or other real property right to the real estate on the disputed land. The court also noted that the reassessment of these circumstances is not within the competence of the court of cassation. The plaintiff’s arguments that it has the right of economic management over the property were not supported by evidence. The court emphasized that the absence of evidence of the plaintiff’s real property rights to the immovable property makes the city council’s decision reasonable, since it is aimed at realizing the rights of the owners of the real estate located on this plot.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 387/621/22 dated September 30, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130710733](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130710733)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person found guilty of inflicting minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder.
2. The court of cassation, having reviewed the case materials, agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing the criminal offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the court of appeal thoroughly checked the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided exhaustive answers to them, reasonably rejecting them. In particular, the court of appeal assessed the testimony of witnesses and the victim, recognizing them as consistent and consistent with other evidence. Also, the court of appeal considered the admissibility of expert opinions and records of investigative actions, without establishing significant violations that could affect the legality of the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the previous courts and did not find significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would have prevented the court of appeal from making a legal and well-reasoned
**Case №202/1788/23 dated 17/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority regarding the cancellation of the VAT payer registration.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing out that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the cancellation of the VAT payer registration. The court found that the company was registered as a VAT payer in compliance with the law, carried out economic activities, and submitted VAT returns. The tax authority’s arguments about the fictitious nature of the transactions were not supported by reliable evidence. The court also took into account the fact that the cancellation of VAT registration had a negative impact on the company’s economic activities and violated its rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case №905/1197/24 dated 17/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement from the “Agro-Borova” Farm Enterprise and persons jointly and severally liable with it.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the courts correctly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular Articles 625 and 1048 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, distinguishing between the accrual of interest for the use of the loan and liability for delay in fulfilling a monetary obligation. The court noted that the accrual of interest for the use of the loan is possible only within the term of the loan agreement, and after its expiration, liability for delay in fulfilling a monetary obligation is applied in accordance with Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation instance agreed with the decision on installment payment of the court decision, taking into account the difficult financial situation of the debtor caused by military actions, and the need to ensure a balance of interests of the parties. Regarding the refusal to secure the claim, the court of cassation instance emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that would indicate a real threat of non-execution of the court decision, and the existing means of security are sufficient.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Sense Bank” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №640/27951/20 dated 03/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of Insolvency Officers and the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the application of a disciplinary sanction to the insolvency officer in the form of temporary suspension of the right to practice.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice, partially agreed with the arguments of the appellant regarding the erroneous application by the courts of previous instances of the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, which concerned a different period of regulation of the activities of insolvency officers (the period of validity of the previous law on bankruptcy). The court of cassation instance noted that the courts should have applied the legislation in force at the time of the disputed legal relations, namely the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures and the relevant orders of the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, on the merits of the dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the absence of grounds for bringing the insolvency officer
