Case №760/16017/24 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of the appeal in the case of compensation for damage caused by false testimony.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to return the appeal, since the plaintiff did not pay the court fee and did not eliminate the shortcomings of the appeal within the prescribed period. The court noted that the exemption from payment of court fees in accordance with paragraph 2 of part one of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee” applies only in cases of compensation for damage caused by mutilation or other injury to health, as well as the death of an individual. In this case, the plaintiff demanded compensation for moral damage caused by the defendant’s false testimony, which does not fall under the above-mentioned benefit. The court also emphasized that the return of the appeal does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to re-apply to the court after the elimination of the circumstances that became the basis for the return of the appeal. In addition, the court indicated that the plaintiff has the right to file a motion for deferral, рассрочки, reduction or exemption from payment of court fees, if her property status makes it impossible to pay the fee.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case №912/2404/23 dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal decisions of the city council on the seizure of land plots, the recovery of damages and moral damage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, canceling one of the decisions of the city council on the seizure of the land plot, but refused to recover damages and moral damage. The court agreed that the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the existence of damages and a causal link between the decisions of the city council and the damages incurred, and did not confirm the fact of causing moral damage. The court noted that the cancellation of another decision of the city council will not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights, since the lease agreement had already been terminated by a court decision. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the real possibility of obtaining income under the investment agreement and the causal connection between the decisions of the city council and the termination of financing of the agreement.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case №910/17033/23 dated 10/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual due to the lack of an agreed debt restructuring plan and the debtor’s integrity.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the proceedings in the case of insolvency
the debtor did not propose a realistic restructuring plan, which indicated an intention to avoid fulfilling obligations to creditors. The court emphasized that the insolvency procedure is not a mechanism for debt write-off, but requires the debtor’s bona fide cooperation with creditors and the court. Also, the court took into account that the debtor did not provide reasonable explanations regarding the causes of insolvency and the expenditure of received funds. The court noted that the absence of an agreed restructuring plan within the established period may be grounds for closing the proceedings, especially when the debtor’s behavior indicates bad faith. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of the debtor and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings of individuals.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 587/799/21 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership by inheritance according to the law for a residential building and a land plot.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the nullity of wills certified by an official of the local self-government body who was dismissed from work at the time of their certification, as the appellate court did not take into account that assigning responsibility for violations of the law by an authorized person to the testator and heirs violates the principle of respect for the testator’s will. The court noted that such a violation does not cancel the free will of the testator and does not indicate the nullity of the wills. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not fully establish the factual circumstances of the case, which led to the incorrect application of substantive law. Considering this, the court of cassation pointed out the need for a complete and comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case by the appellate court.
3. The decision of the appellate court was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 761/8972/24 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation of an individual, refutation of inaccurate information disseminated on the Facebook social network, and compensation for moral damage.
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the information disseminated by the defendant about the plaintiff, in particular, allegations of illegal superstructure and infliction of bodily injuries, is unreliable, as it is not supported by proper evidence. The court took into account that permission was obtained for the reconstruction of the building, and the prescriptions do not directly concern the plaintiff. Also, the court took into account the expert’s conclusion about the negative nature of the information and its presentation in the form of factual statements. The appellate court further emphasized that information about the infliction of bodily injuries was disseminated
that negatively affects the honor, dignity, and business reputation of the plaintiff, and the presumption of innocence guarantees that a person cannot be considered guilty of committing a crime without a corresponding court verdict. The court also noted that the defendant did not prove the truthfulness of the disseminated information and did not provide evidence that the lawsuit was filed to pressure the public.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances without changes, recognizing the disseminated information as unreliable and obliging the defendant to refute it.
Case No. 916/2314/24 dated 09/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s decision regarding the recognition of a court order on the collection of a fine for violation of customs rules in the case of insolvency of an individual as unenforceable.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of insolvency of individuals, in contrast to the bankruptcy of legal entities, there are two regimes: satisfaction of claims (forgiveness of debts) and discharge from debts. The court noted that financial sanctions, including fines for administrative offenses, if they were not paid before the completion of the debt repayment procedure, are considered repaid. The Supreme Court emphasized that a fine for violation of customs rules is a financial sanction that is subject to forgiveness if not paid due to insufficient property of the debtor. The court also took into account the practice of the ECHR, which recognized the recovery of a fine in the amount of 100% of the value of the undeclared goods as a disproportionate interference with property rights. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the fine for violation of customs rules is not subject to enforcement, as the debt is considered repaid.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling in the part regarding the recognition of the court order on the collection of a fine for violation of customs rules as unenforceable.
Case No. 754/9473/13-ц dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the agreement on the establishment of a limited liability company and the recognition of ownership of the property complex.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, arguing that the agreement on the establishment of the LLC terminated its effect before the plaintiff appealed to the court, therefore, it is impossible to terminate it. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm ownership of the disputed property complex, in particular, there are no proper documents for the land plot and permits for construction. In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s ownership right, which makes it impossible to apply Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine on the recognition of ownership. The appellate court emphasized that the ownership of newly created property cannot arise by a court decision if the legality of its creation and the existence of a violated right that needs protection are not proven. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions.
underlining that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 759/1627/25-ц dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the bank’s decision to refuse to maintain business relations with the client due to the establishment of an unacceptably high level of risk.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the client’s claim against the bank. The courts found that the bank acted lawfully, as the analysis of the client’s financial transactions revealed signs of suspicious transactions, such as the inconsistency of the sources of funds, a significant number of transactions from various individuals without the identification of payers, and the subsequent transfer of funds through payment systems. The client did not provide evidence to refute the validity of the bank’s suspicions regarding the fictitiousness of the transactions. The bank, as a subject of primary financial monitoring, is obliged to apply a risk-oriented approach and refuse to maintain business relations with clients who have an unacceptably high risk, in order to prevent the legalization of proceeds of crime. The courts also took into account that the client voluntarily closed the account with the bank, which indicates the termination of business relations between the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 727/11069/23 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order on the dismissal of the lyceum director for systematic failure to perform трудових duties, reinstatement to work, payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and compensation for moral damage.
2. The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff systematically failed to perform her трудових duties, which was confirmed by previous disciplinary sanctions that she appealed, but the courts recognized them as lawful in the part establishing the fact of committing disciplinary offenses. The court took into account that after the reprimands were announced, the plaintiff did not correct her behavior and did not eliminate the violations revealed during the inspection. The court also noted that for dismissal on the basis of paragraph 3 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the presence of a set of conditions is necessary, in particular, the employee’s systematic failure to perform his or her duties without valid reasons after the application of disciplinary sanctions. The court concluded that the defendant lawfully dismissed the plaintiff, as the requirements of labor legislation regarding the procedure for dismissal and the existence of grounds for this were observed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances provided a legal assessment of the nature of the violations of labor discipline committed by the plaintiff, their number and consistency, and took into account the plaintiff’s behavior after their detection, and also
and the procedure for imposing disciplinary penalties on her.
2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 205/2982/21 of 08/10/2025**
3. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the power of attorney and the apartment sale and purchase agreement as invalid, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights to it.
4. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal did not take into account the existence of a previous court decision in the case between the same parties, with the same subject matter and on the same grounds, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court of appeal did not substantiate why the grounds for the claim in the new case differ from the previous one, in particular, did not analyze the content of the stated claims. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal did not fulfill the obligation to substantiate the court decision, which makes it illegal. Also, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the principle of legal certainty, which stipulates that a court decision that has entered into legal force cannot be questioned.
5. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
**Case No. 742/5135/24 of 08/10/2025**
6. The subject matter of the dispute is a claim for the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her minor daughter.
7. The court refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as there was not enough evidence of the mother’s conscious and systematic evasion of fulfilling her parental responsibilities, despite warnings and measures of influence. The court noted that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in cases where it is impossible to change the parents’ behavior, and only if they are at fault. The court also took into account that the mother’s refusal of the child is illegal and contradicts the interests of the child, and the conclusion of the guardianship authority was recognized as insufficiently justified. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the deprivation of parental rights would not be in the best interests of the child. The court of cassation also emphasized that personal misunderstandings between parents cannot be the basis for the deprivation of parental rights, since ensuring the best interests of the child is of paramount importance. The court of cassation noted that it is not justified to deprive the mother of the right to contact the child and her upbringing, as this does not meet the criterion of proportionality.
8. The court left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal regarding the deprivation of parental rights.
**Case No. 524/1902/23 of 06/10/2025**
9. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of the Homeowners Association (HOA) as illegal.
regarding the refusal to grant permission for temporary connection to the electric networks and the obligation of the Condominium Association to approve such connection.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, as the Condominium Association acted within its competence by making decisions regarding the use of the common property of the apartment building, namely the electric networks. The court noted that according to the law, the management of the apartment building is carried out by its co-owners, and decisions regarding the use of common property fall under the exclusive competence of the general meeting. The refusal of the Condominium Association to grant consent to increase the power supply to the plaintiffs’ apartments does not violate their rights as co-owners to operate the electric networks on an equal footing with other co-owners, since all apartment owners are provided with the same power supply. The court also took into account that at the meeting of the board of the Condominium Association, the majority of co-owners opposed the increase in power, as they believed that the power should be distributed among all residents of the building. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the procedure for holding the general meeting, since the plaintiff did not refer to such circumstances in the statement of claim and did not specify what the violation specifically consisted of.
4. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 206/869/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the apartment purchase and sale agreement as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of the mortgage on this apartment.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection, and did not properly assess the legality of the state registrar’s decision on the state registration of the mortgage. The court noted that the cancellation of the state registration of the encumbrance of property rights may lead to the restoration of the violated rights of a person without the use of additional methods of protection, if the court resolves the dispute on the law between the parties. The appellate court did not establish whether the right of the plaintiff in the counterclaim was violated, and prematurely concluded that the claim should be dismissed on the grounds of choosing an ineffective method of protection. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is to effectively protect violated rights, and the appellate court did not ensure this in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part of the counterclaims for cancellation of the state registration of the mortgage and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 638/14535/21 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the debtor’s property, which is not registered in accordance with the procedure established by law.
2. The court granted the submission
As a state enforcement officer, since the debtor owns a share of a non-residential premise but has not registered the ownership right, which complicates the enforcement of the court decision on debt collection. The court noted that the state enforcement officer is obliged to take all possible measures to enforce the court decision. The debtor’s arguments about the availability of funds to pay the debt were rejected, since the recovery of pension is suspended during the period of martial law (except for certain cases that do not apply to this case). Also, the debtor did not provide evidence of taking actions to execute the writ of execution. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/3252/22(200/19245/21) dated 09/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, by which the enterprise was additionally charged value added tax and income tax.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, indicated that for taxation purposes, in particular, the reality of business transactions and the good faith of the taxpayer are important. The enterprise acted within its business activities, concluded contracts with counterparties, оформлювало operations with primary documents, which indicates the reality of business transactions. The tax authority’s reference to violations by the enterprise’s counterparties is not sufficient proof of the unreality of transactions, unless the concerted actions of the enterprise with unscrupulous suppliers or its awareness of their violations are proven. The tax authority did not provide evidence of the bad faith of the taxpayer or the fictitiousness of its suppliers, and its conclusions are based on assumptions about the activities of counterparties. The court also took into account that the taxpayer is not obliged to control compliance with tax legislation by all suppliers in the supply chain. Regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute, at the time the decision was made by the court of cassation, disputes regarding tax obligations within the framework of the bankruptcy case are considered by the commercial court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized the tax assessment notices as illegal and cancelled them.
Case No. 916/5140/24 dated 09/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the closure of proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual due to the debtor’s provision of unreliable information about the property status and the creditors’ refusal to approve the restructuring plan.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances courts, noting that the debtor provided incomplete and unreliable information about his property andconcealment of family members in declarations, which is a violation of the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP). The court emphasized that the debt restructuring procedure requires the debtor’s bona fide cooperation with creditors and the court, and the provision of unreliable data indicates dishonest behavior. It was also taken into account that the creditor did not approve the debtor’s proposed restructuring plan, and the creditors’ meeting decided to apply to the court with a motion to close the case. The court rejected the debtor’s arguments regarding the failure to consider force majeure circumstances, as they do not exempt from the fulfillment of obligations in the bankruptcy procedure, which is governed by special norms of the CUoBP.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the closure of the insolvency case remained unchanged.
Case No. 485/552/25 dated 07/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living as a family without registration of marriage for the realization of civil rights after the death of the man.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which left the application for establishing the fact of living as a family without consideration, since a dispute arose between the applicant and the mother of the deceased regarding the right to receive a one-time financial assistance as a family member of the deceased soldier. The courts noted that establishing the fact of living as a family in the order of separate proceedings is impossible when there is a dispute about the right that must be resolved in the order of claim proceedings. The court took into account that the mother of the deceased disputed the fact of cohabitation of the applicant and her son, believing that the applicant is not entitled to payments. The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of a dispute about the right must be real, not hypothetical, and in this case, such a dispute exists. The court also noted that it found no grounds for deviating from its previous conclusions, since the circumstances of the case differ from those considered in previous decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 932/4330/21 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions and a number of contracts resulting from these auctions as invalid, as well as the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, initiated by the tenant of the real estate, who believes that he had a preferential right to purchase this real estate.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, noted that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights as a result of the conclusion of the disputed contracts, and also did not provide evidence of the non-compliance of these contracts with the requirements of the law. The court emphasized that the lease of real estate does not give the tenant a preferential right over the mortgagee to satisfy claims at the expense of the subject of the mortgage. In addition, the court indicated that the plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed apartment, therefore, he has no rightto reclaim it from another’s possession based on Articles 387, 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a real desire to acquire the disputed real estate. Importantly, the court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which appealing the auction protocol is an ineffective method of protection, since it is necessary to appeal the sales contract concluded at the auction itself.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 943/2482/20 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the approval of the land management project and the recognition as invalid of the contract of sale of the land plot, as well as the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to process documents regarding the purchase of this land plot.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove that her testator had the right to use the land plot with an area of 0.1942 hectares and the formation of this plot as an object of civil rights. The court noted that in order to acquire ownership of a land plot, it is necessary to go through several stages, including obtaining permission to develop a land management project, approving this project, and transferring the land plot to ownership. In this case, the testator of the plaintiff received permission to develop a land management project, but did not apply to the local self-government body to approve this project and transfer the land plot to ownership. The court also took into account that the decision to grant permission to develop a land management project is not a title document and does not guarantee a person the acquisition of ownership of a land plot. In addition, the court noted that a legitimate expectation to formalize rights to a land plot arises from the moment of applying to the local self-government body with a request to approve the agreed land management project, and until that moment, the person must be aware that the land plot may be granted to another person.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 308/3056/19 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of the joint property of the spouses, namely an apartment acquired during the marriage.
2. The court of appeal, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the presumption of joint property of the spouses, according to which property acquired during the marriage is jointly owned, unless otherwise proven. The defendant tried to refute this presumption, arguing that the apartment was purchased with his personal funds received on credit, loan, and from his mother. However, the court of appeal, assessing the evidence provided by the defendant, concluded that they do not confirm the fact that the apartment was purchased with his personal funds. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal, noting
establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. Also, the court of cassation noted that the conclusions of the appellate court do not contradict the legal conclusions set forth by the Supreme Court in the resolutions mentioned in the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 462/1067/25 dated 06/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court’s decision to destroy the material evidence – a forged vehicle registration certificate that was used by the accused.
2. The court of first instance decided to destroy the forged vehicle registration certificate, and the appellate court agreed with this decision, considering that only original documents should remain in the materials of the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor appealed this decision, arguing that the destruction of the material evidence would make it impossible to investigate the criminal proceedings regarding the forgery of this document. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusion, noting that it is not based on the norms of the current criminal procedural law, namely paragraph 7 of Part 9 of Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that documents that are material evidence must remain in the materials of the criminal proceedings throughout their storage period. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not matter whether the document is original or forged; if it is material evidence, it must be preserved.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and changed the decisions of the previous courts, ordering that the forged vehicle registration certificate be left in the materials of the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 678/1535/24 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her two minor children.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s conscious evasion of parental duties. The court took into account that the mother lives abroad, but maintains contact with the children, is interested in their lives, and wishes to participate in their upbringing, which indicates her interest in the children’s lives. The court also took into account the opinion of the children, who did not express their consent to the deprivation of the mother’s parental rights. The court noted that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that is applied only in cases where it is impossible to change the parents’ behavior, and warned the defendant about the need to change her attitude to raising children, entrusting the guardianship authority with control over her fulfillment of parental duties. The court emphasized the importance of preserving family ties, except in cases where the family is particularly unfchild.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 344/7036/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the court decision on foreclosure on the mortgage item, which entered into legal force and established the fact of the existence of debt on the principal amount of the loan. The appellate court also did not verify the validity of the claims for the recovery of interest and commission accrued until the change in the loan term. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the existence of an unexecuted decision on foreclosure on the mortgage does not deprive the creditor of the right to satisfy its claims in other ways and is not a double recovery. The court of cassation instance indicated that the appellate court did not clarify whether the defendant paid funds to repay the debt after the decision on foreclosure on the mortgage item was made. Considering the indicated violations of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to make a legal and justified decision, the Supreme Court decided to cancel the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to recover the debt on the principal amount of the loan, interest, and commission, and to send the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the rejection of the claim for recovery of the debt on the loan, interest, and commission, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/6207/22 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by “Venzabud” LLC for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation in the case where the original and counterclaim between “Alliance Service Eurobud” LLC and “Venzabud” LLC were considered.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application of “Venzabud” LLC for the distribution of court costs, took into account that the case is partially returned for a new trial to the court of first instance, and therefore the issue of the distribution of costs related to the cassation review of the canceled decisions should be resolved by the court of first instance after the new trial. Regarding the costs incurred in connection with the cassation review of the complaint of “Alliance Service Eurobud” LLC against the decision of the appellate court on the distribution of court costs, the Supreme Court noted that these costs are subject to reimbursement, since the cassation appeal of “Alliance Service Eurobud” LLC was rejected. The court also took into account the contracts for the provision of legal assistance, acts of acceptance and transfer of services, detailed descriptions of the work, as well as the criteria of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness of court costs, taking into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the financial condition of the parties. The Supreme Court referred to the practice of the ECHR and its own previous decisions regarding the criteria for reimbursement
