Case No. 920/999/23(920/1157/23) dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract of purchase and sale of an unfinished construction object and the return of this object to communal ownership due to the buyer’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the completion of construction within the established period.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, took into account that the buyer (ABM Investor Group LLC) took certain actions to fulfill the contract, in particular, paid the full price, concluded contracts for connecting communications, engaged contractors, and partially completed construction. The court also took into account that objective circumstances, such as the economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and military actions, hindered the completion of construction. It is important that the court emphasized the need to take into account the interests of all parties, in particular, investors who invested in construction, and that the termination of the contract may cause significant damage to the obligated party if the breach of the terms of the contract is not significant. In addition, the court noted that the bankruptcy case of ABM Investor Group LLC is in the liquidation stage, and the disputed object is included in the liquidation estate, at the expense of which the creditors’ claims, including investors, will be satisfied. The court indicated that the appellate court did not properly assess these circumstances and did not comply with the requirements for a comprehensive and objective clarification of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim for termination of the contract.
Case No. 914/2954/24 dated 10/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection of economic competition and imposition of a fine on an individual entrepreneur (IE) Bielash Vasyl Volodymyrovych.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the AMCU, supporting the position of the courts of previous instances, which established that IE Bielash V.V. and IE Shynkaruk V.V. coordinated their actions during participation in the tender, which led to the distortion of its results. The court noted that the use of shared IP addresses, communication between participants, consistency in loading documents, common features of tender proposals, and actions that did not contribute to the victory of one of the participants indicate anti-competitive concerted actions. The court did not accept the arguments of the complainant about the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since sufficient grounds for this were not provided. The court also rejected the arguments about the violation of the right to defense, since the IE had the opportunity to provide evidence in court, which was not submitted during the consideration of the case by the AMCU. The court emphasized that in cases of distortion of bidding results, the establishment of market boundaries is not
is mandatory.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of FOP Bielash Vasyl Volodymyrovych and to uphold the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 902/538/16 dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of Public Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Innovation Company” against Limited Liability Company “Riton” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, noted that the appellate court mistakenly qualified the principal amount of the debt as unjustly acquired funds, since there was a credit agreement between the creditor and the debtor, which provided for the possibility of granting a loan in foreign currency, and the currency conversion operations carried out by the bank were conducted within the framework of this agreement. The court also emphasized that the amendments to the credit agreement, in particular regarding the loan amount and interest rate, were duly agreed upon by the parties in supplementary agreements, and therefore, the creditor’s claims are justified and secured by collateral and mortgage. In addition, the court of cassation instance indicated that making changes to the main obligation secured by the mortgage, without the consent of the property guarantor, does not change the scope of the guarantor’s liability, as determined by the mortgage agreement and the law. The court of cassation instance also emphasized the importance of the court examining all the evidence in its entirety and giving it proper assessment when considering creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of the creditor’s monetary claims.
Case No. 759/2958/24 dated 09/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the release of a person from criminal liability for illegal possession of narcotic drugs without the purpose of selling, based on voluntary referral to a medical institution.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which released the person from criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, based on Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering that the person voluntarily sought medical assistance and began treatment for drug addiction. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the availability of a certificate of registration and commencement of treatment for drug addiction is a sufficient basis for release from criminal liability. The court of cassation instance also noted that the appellate court had the right to consider the person’s appeal, since he appealed the verdict of the local court on the grounds of non-application of the provisions of Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is not prohibited by procedural law. The court of cassation instance emphasized that no significant violations of the criminal procedural law were found.
or incorrect application of criminal law, which would be unconditional grounds for the reversal of the appellate court’s decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 369/11620/20 dated 09/26/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation, recognition of ownership of property (an apartment and movable property), and its division between former spouses.
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff proved the fact of cohabitation with the defendant as one family without registration of marriage in the period from June 01, 2012, to November 22, 2013, which is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses, photographs, and other evidence. The court took into account that, in order to purchase the apartment, the plaintiff sold his share of another apartment. The defendant did not provide evidence to confirm the availability of personal funds for the purchase of the disputed apartment. The court also took into account the electronic correspondence, where the defendant offered the plaintiff compensation for his share in the apartment. Regarding the division of movable property, the court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the market value of the property and the circumstances of its acquisition. The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 756/16645/18 dated 08/20/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state registrar on the registration of ownership of the apartment by the bank and the eviction of the former owner and his child from this apartment.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not properly investigate the evidence regarding the borrower’s receipt of a written demand to remedy violations under the loan agreement, which is a mandatory condition for foreclosure on the mortgage item in extrajudicial procedure. The court did not pay attention to the absence of the post office stamp of the recipient on the postal documents, which casts doubt on the proper notification of the debtor. Also, the court did not take into account that, according to the mortgage agreement, the date of receipt of the notification is the date of personal delivery or the date of the post office stamp of the recipient, which was not confirmed in this case. Considering that the courts of previous instances did not establish the actual circumstances of the case, the cassation court decided that the decision of the appellate court is subject to cancellation in the part of the claim for cancellation of the decision on registration of ownership and eviction.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the appellate court in the part of the claim for cancellation of the decision on registration of ownership and eviction, sending the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, initiated by Joint Stock Company “Accént-Bank” against PERSON_1.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance. The court noted that, according to the case file, the bank received the decision of the court of first instance electronically through the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System, which is the official way of receiving documents. The bank’s arguments that the appeal was timely submitted to the courier service were not accepted by the court, as this service is not a postal operator registered in the prescribed manner. The court also emphasized that the courier service’s waybill is not proper evidence of timely filing of the appeal. Considering these circumstances, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that there were no grounds for reinstating the deadline for appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Joint Stock Company “Accént-Bank” and upheld the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal.
Case No. 761/24280/24 dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the tax authority’s application for the bank to disclose information containing banking secrecy regarding the movement of funds in the accounts of LLC “YE Energia” to verify compliance with валютного [currency] legislation.
2. The court refused to grant the tax authority’s application because sufficient evidence of the impossibility of conducting the audit in the usual way was not provided. The court noted that LLC “YE Energia” is located at the place of registration, notices of the audit were served, and the company provided documents, albeit with some delay. The tax authority suspended the audit and then refused to accept the documents prepared by LLC “YE Energia”. The court also emphasized that the tax authority’s request to disclose banking secrecy for archival accounts and all current accounts goes beyond the scope of the necessary audit. The court indicated that the tax authority had not proven that conducting the audit in another way was impossible or that there was an objective need to disclose banking secrecy.
3. The court upheld the casrejected the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes, confirming the refusal to disclose banking secrecy.
Case No. 925/322/23(925/875/23) dated 09/24/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery from the bank in favor of the company of UAH 1,400,000.00 of lease payments paid towards the cost of the leased asset under the contract that was terminated.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claims of the company, based on the fact that the financial leasing agreement is a mixed agreement, which contains elements of lease and sale, and lease payments include both payment for the use of property and part of the value of the property to be transferred to the ownership of the lessee after the expiration of the contract. Since the contract was terminated and the property was returned to the lessor, the lessee had the right to demand the return of funds paid in the part that compensated for the value of the property. The court also took into account that the bank, objecting to the claim, referred to the set-off of counter homogeneous claims, although it had previously objected to such a set-off in another case, which indicates the bank’s contradictory behavior. The court rejected the bank’s arguments about violation of the principle of freedom of contract, since the provisions of Part 2 of Article 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine contain an imperative norm regarding the buyer’s right to demand the return of funds paid in case the goods are not transferred into ownership. The court also rejected the bank’s motion to transfer the case for consideration by the joint chamber, as it saw no grounds to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Part 2 of Article 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes, refusing to satisfy the bank’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 521/3319/20 dated 10/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on the registration of the bank’s ownership of the apartment, which was the subject of the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court mistakenly refused to satisfy the claim, considering the claim to cancel the decision of the state registrar as an ineffective method of protection, since at the time of the appeal to the court, the ownership of the apartment was registered to the bank-mortgage holder. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to change the subject of the claim after the end of the preparatory proceedings, and the claim to cancel the decision of the state registrar was an effective method of protection at the time of filing the claim. The court also noted that satisfaction of the claim would not violate the rights of the bank, since the issue of depriving it of ownership is not the subject of consideration in this case. In addition, the appellate court could involve a third party in the case,
whose rights may be violated by the court decision. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring effective protection of the violated rights of the plaintiff, which is the task of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the claims against the bank and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 903/1067/24 dated 09/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “Westavtotrade” LLC to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against “Venagro” LLC due to outstanding debt for delivered goods.
2. The court refused to initiate proceedings because there is a dispute over law between the creditor and the debtor, namely: the debtor denies the fact of receiving the goods and the existence of debt, contacted the police regarding possible falsification of documents, and filed a lawsuit to invalidate the sale agreements. The court noted that the absence of a dispute over law is a mandatory condition for initiating bankruptcy proceedings, and a dispute over law consists of ambiguity regarding the parties to the obligation, the essence, the basis of origin, the amount, and the term of performance of the obligation. The court also took into account that the creditor applied to the court with a bankruptcy petition without waiting for a response to the claim and did not provide evidence of sending a copy of the petition to the debtor. The court emphasized that the establishment of a dispute over law occurs by assessing the validity of the creditor’s claims and the debtor’s objections, as well as determining the proper procedural form of legal proceedings. The court indicated that in the case where procedural actions characteristic of claim proceedings are required to investigate the validity of the claims, this indicates the existence of a dispute over law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 487/5185/23 dated 25/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the application of the Mykolaiv City Council to recognize the inheritance as ownerless regarding the apartment, since, in their opinion, after the death of the owner, no one accepted the inheritance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the application of the Mykolaiv City Council, as the existence of a dispute over law was established. The courts established that after the death of PERSON_1, his daughter applied to the notary with a statement of acceptance of the inheritance, which indicates the acceptance of the inheritance in accordance with the established legal procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to inheritance arises from the moment of its opening, and the absence of a certificate of the right to inheritance does not deprive the heir of the right to it. The court also noted that recognition of inheritance as ownerless is possible only in the absence of heirs by will and by law, their removal from the right to inherit, their non-acceptance of the inheritance, or their refusal to accept it, which is not the case in this case.
as established. The court of cassation also emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Mykolaiv City Council, and the resolution of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/1986/25 dated 02/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a procurement contract, where the plaintiff demanded joint recovery of the debt from the primary debtor, as well as from the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) and the company to which ARMA transferred these assets for management.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, stating that ARMA is not the legal successor of the debtor and is not liable for its debts, since the property transferred to ARMA for management has the status of physical evidence in criminal proceedings. ARMA acts within the powers defined by law and does not become a party to the obligations of the asset owner. Agreements concluded by the asset owner with third parties do not have binding force for ARMA or the manager it appointed. The court also noted that there are no grounds for deviating from previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court on this issue, as no errors were found in previous decisions, changes in legislation, or in the social context that would require a different approach. The court emphasized that there must be weighty reasons for deviating from the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, such as inefficiency, vagueness, or erroneousness of previous decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the recovery of debt only from the primary debtor.
Case No. 991/7476/25 dated 02/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the application of a sanction in the form of recovery of assets of a person to whom a sanction in the form of asset blocking was applied, as well as assets in respect of which such person may perform actions identical in content to the exercise of the right to dispose of them through a related person, to the state revenue.
2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, considering the appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, concluded that the court of first instance had mistakenly applied the norms of substantive law. The court of appeal noted that the legislator singled out a category of assets in respect of which a person indirectly performs actions identical in content to the exercise of the right to dispose of them, in order to cover property that does not formally belong to the sanctioned person, but which they informally control. The court emphasized that the content of the right of joint joint ownership of spouses includes the possibility of one of the spouses directly or indirectly performing actions in respect of joint property, regardless
depending on who of them the ownership right is registered to. The court also took into account that the interests of other persons who may be affected as a result of the application of the sanction can be protected outside of this administrative case by means of private law. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the claims regarding the apartment, the ownership of which was acquired as a result of privatization, since the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of joint ownership of this property.
3. The court of appeal partially satisfied the appeal, overturned the decision of the court of first instance in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim for the recovery of assets into the state revenue and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim in this part, ordering the recovery into the state revenue of all property acquired by the sanctioned person and his wife during their marriage, regardless of who of them the ownership right is registered to.
Case No. 947/7879/20 dated 06/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which resulted in the death of the victim or grievous bodily harm).
2. This operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments, as only the operative part of the decision was announced. The full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the decision, will be announced later. Usually, when considering such cases, the court of cassation checks the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, in particular, whether the norms of substantive and procedural law were applied correctly, whether all the circumstances of the case were taken into account, and whether the evidence of the person’s guilt is sufficient and admissible. Also, the court of cassation can check whether the courts of previous instances committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, which could affect the legality and validity of the court decision. The defense lawyer probably appealed the verdict of the appellate court, presenting arguments regarding the incorrect application of the law or the incompleteness of the judicial review.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the verdict of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding the convicted person was left unchanged.
Case No. 482/1589/22 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions, the protocol of their conduct, the act on the conduct of auctions and the certificates of ownership of the property that was sold at these auctions as invalid.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the funds received by her ex-husband under the loan agreement were not used in the interests of the family. The court took into account the presumption of the community of interests of the spouses.
and noted that the spouses are liable for joint obligations with all their property. Also, the court of cassation took into account that the plaintiff had previously admitted the fact of using credit funds for the needs of the family in another court case. The court of cassation emphasized that the division of property of the spouses should not be used to avoid paying debts, and that the actions of the spouses aimed at avoiding recovery of the debtor’s property may be regarded as unfair.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 509/2527/17 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of a person from the right to inherit by law on the grounds of evading the provision of assistance to the testator, who, due to old age, was in a helpless state.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance due to the consideration of the case in the absence of the plaintiff, who was not properly notified of the hearing, which is a violation of the right of access to court. The appellate court, considering the case on its merits, noted that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the testator’s need for assistance specifically from the defendant, as well as the defendant’s evasion of providing such assistance, knowing about his duty and having the opportunity to provide it. The court of cassation emphasized that to be removed from inheritance, a combination of circumstances is necessary: evasion of assistance, the testator’s helpless state, and the need for assistance specifically from this person, and all these circumstances must be proven. The court of cassation also noted that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 707/324/21 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused by illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office.
2. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and evidence in the case, in particular, the duration of the criminal proceedings, the impact of the investigative actions on the plaintiff’s normal activities and moral state. The court indicated that the courts limited themselves to awarding the minimum amount of moral damage, without taking into account the nature and duration of the plaintiff’s moral suffering, the degree of the defendant’s fault, and the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality. Also, the court of cassation did not agree with the conclusion of the appellate court that the claim for compensation for property damage should be filed against the organizations to which the property was transferred for storage, since the responsibility for damage caused by illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies
waived by the state. The court emphasized that in case of non-return of property seized as material evidence, the owner has the right to compensation for property and moral damage at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine. Regarding the reimbursement of legal aid costs, the court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal, noting that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of incurring such costs during the criminal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of compensation for property and moral damage and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and in the part of compensation for professional legal assistance costs, left the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 497/2150/24 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the calculation of alimony arrears.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which dismissed the complaint of PERSON_1 without consideration, since it was established that the complaint was filed after the expiration of the established ten-day period provided for appealing the actions of the state executor. The court took into account that the debtor was familiarized with the disputed debt calculation on August 26, 2024, and filed a complaint only on September 6, 2024, while not providing evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline and did not file a motion to restore it. The court emphasized that the deadlines established by law are mandatory for compliance, and failure to comply with them, in the absence of valid reasons, entails negative consequences for the applicant. The court also noted that the practice of applying part five of Article 74 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” is constant, and when resolving the issue of appeal deadlines, it is necessary to be guided by the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which define the calculation of deadlines in calendar days. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot overturn a decision that is correct in substance and legal on purely formal grounds.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
Case No. 204/14098/23 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of the land plot and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the residential building.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, since the defendant died before the Dnipro City Council filed the claim. The court noted that in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, at the time of filing a claim with the court, the defendant must be alive, otherwise the proceedings in the case cannot be opened or are subject to closure. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring legal certainty.
KlA key factor in the decision was the confirmation of the defendant’s death before the opening of proceedings in the case. The court emphasized that the rule on the closure of proceedings in the event of the defendant’s death is mandatory and must be applied regardless of the number of procedural actions performed by the courts and participants in the proceedings.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case.
**Case No. 754/12013/22 dated 01/10/2025**
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 person for robbery committed under martial law.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts because the court of first instance committed a significant violation of the criminal procedure law, namely, it did not explain to the accused his right to have the criminal proceedings considered collegially by a panel of three judges, as provided for in Part 4 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code for crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 10 years. The court of cassation emphasized that the failure to explain this right deprived the accused of the opportunity to exercise his right to choose between a single judge and a collegial composition of the court, which is important to ensure a fair trial. The appellate court did not correct this violation, which also became the basis for overturning the decisions. The court emphasized that ensuring the right to defense is one of the principles of criminal proceedings, which affects the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruling of the lower courts and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance, choosing a measure of restraint for the accused in the form of detention.
**Case No. 713/2905/24 dated 30/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of acceptance of inheritance and recognition of ownership of inherited property.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff filed the claim against an improper defendant. The courts of previous instances established that the plaintiff filed a claim against another heir under the will, but did not provide evidence that the latter had accepted the inheritance. The court noted that in cases concerning the recognition of ownership of inherited property, the proper defendant is the heir who accepted the inheritance, and in his absence, the territorial community represented by the local government body. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, indicating that the plaintiff had not proven that the defendant had accepted the inheritance, and therefore the claim should be filed against the territorial community. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the plaintiff who determines the circle of defendants, but the court is obliged to establish the proper defendants.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
Case №523/109/21 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the recovery of the amount of the advance payment made under the preliminary contract of sale of land plots, which was never concluded.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the amount of USD 150,000 transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant is an advance payment that is subject to return, since the contract of sale was not concluded. The court noted that an advance payment, unlike a deposit, does not have a security function and is subject to return regardless of whose fault the obligation was not fulfilled. The court also took into account that the defendant did not provide evidence of non-receipt of funds, and the fact of receipt is confirmed by her personal signature on the receipt. The defendant’s arguments that the term of performance of the obligation has not yet arrived, since the arrests were not lifted from the property, were not taken into account, since the courts reasonably noted that the rights of the plaintiff, who for a long time cannot use the transferred funds, are subject to protection. The court of cassation also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case №761/23109/23 dated 24/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for aiding and abetting the aggressor state (Part 1 of Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the convicted person and her defense counsel regarding the lack of evidence to prove that PERSON_7 provided assistance to the occupation administration of the aggressor state specifically for the purpose of ensuring the transportation of military equipment and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The court of first instance did not confirm with proper evidence that the actions of PERSON_7 were aimed at helping the aggressor state, and the appellate court did not correct these shortcomings. The appellate court did not analyze what specific evidence confirms that PERSON_7 provided assistance to the occupation administration of the aggressor state specifically for the purpose of ensuring the transportation of military equipment and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which is important for establishing the circumstances of the criminal proceedings and realizing the right to defense. Given that the court of cassation has no right to examine evidence, establish and recognize as proven circumstances that have not been established in the appealed court decision, or decide on the credibility of any particular piece of evidence, the Supreme Court is unable to independently eliminate these violations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
