[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130923008](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130923008)
**Case No. 415/6909/17 dated 02/10/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of the head of the Lysychansk Interdistrict Medical and Social Expert Commission, who was accused of receiving unlawful gain for extending a disability group.
The cassation court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the acquittal of the court of first instance. The courts of previous instances concluded that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a crime under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of PERSON_7. The appellate court, having reviewed the case materials, found no evidence of a prior agreement on unlawful gain, and the mere fact of finding money in the defendant’s office is not sufficient evidence of extortion and receipt of a bribe. The cassation court also noted that it does not have the right to overturn an acquittal solely on the grounds of a significant violation of the defendant’s rights. The cassation court emphasized that the appellate court acted in accordance with the legal opinion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court of September 4, 2023, according to which, in the event of the death of the accused during appellate proceedings, the court must complete the consideration of the case, ensuring the participation of a defense attorney, and render a decision taking into account the circumstances of the case.
Court decision: The verdict and ruling regarding PERSON_7 were left unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130956195](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130956195)
**Case No. 910/9762/24 dated 14/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 45,850,818.15.
2. The decision does not provide any arguments of the court, so I cannot analyze them. Only the introductory and operative parts are presented.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130956542](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130956542)
**Case No. 727/195/23 dated 09/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily injury resulting in the death of the victim).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the reasoning of the cassation court’s position. It appears from the text that the cassation appeals of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the convicted person have been partially granted. The decision of the appellate court was reversed and remanded for a new appellate review. Also, the cassation court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days. The full text of the decision will be announced later, where the reasons for such a decision will be set out.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling
of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
Case No. 761/32897/21 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s refusal to restructure the loan debt as unlawful and the obligation to carry out the restructuring in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Lending”.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* It is necessary to distinguish between real estate objects and shares in the right of common ownership to them, therefore, the plaintiff was not obliged to indicate in the application for restructuring the property registered to the wife.
* The courts of previous instances mistakenly took into account the wife’s real estate as an obstacle to restructuring, since Law No. 1381-IX does not provide for such a basis for refusal.
* The proper way to protect in this case is to oblige the bank to carry out restructuring, and not to recognize the bank’s actions as illegal.
* The bank is obliged to carry out restructuring if the borrower meets the requirements of Law No. 1381-IX and has submitted an application within the established period.
* The courts did not take into account that the proper method of protecting the violated right or interest must correspond to the content of the relevant right or interest, the nature of its violation, non-recognition or dispute, and the consequences caused by these actions.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the request to oblige the bank to carry out restructuring and made a new decision to satisfy this request, and also changed the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of other requirements.
Case No. 531/1420/21 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the father’s request to take the child away from the mother and return the child to the place of residence with the father on the basis of a notarized agreement.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances, namely the right of the father who lives separately from the child to personal communication with him and the mother’s obligation not to interfere with this communication, if it does not harm the child. The court emphasized that the state should not allow a long-term loss of contact between the father and the child during the court dispute. Also, the appellate court did not investigate whether the mother actually obstructs the father’s communication with the child, and whether such obstacles are justified. The court of cassation referred to the practice of the ECHR, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to the
towards children, especially during legal proceedings. The court also noted that any family dispute regarding a child must be resolved taking into account the best interests of the child.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 466/448/24 dated 10/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Main Department of the National Police in the Lviv Region and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages caused, as she claims, by unlawful actions of the pre-trial investigation body.
2. The court of cassation instance, agreeing with the decision of the appellate court, refused to satisfy the claim, since the criminal proceedings, in which the plaintiff considers herself a victim, were not finally closed on rehabilitating grounds. The court noted that for the right to compensation for damages, provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Engaged in Operative-Search Activities, Bodies of Pre-Trial Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court,” to arise, full rehabilitation of the person is necessary. In this case, the decision to close the criminal proceedings was canceled, and the pre-trial investigation is ongoing, therefore, there are no grounds to consider the actions of the investigative bodies unlawful in a context that gives the right to compensation for moral damages. The court also emphasized that the list of grounds for compensation for damages, defined by the specified law, is exhaustive, and since the proceedings have not been completed by rehabilitation, there are no legal grounds for satisfying the claims. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the closure of the proceedings on another basis were not taken into account, as they were not raised in the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 442/1751/22 dated 10/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of the apartment by way of entry and a counterclaim for deprivation of the right to use the residential premises.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which granted the original claim and refused to satisfy the counterclaim, based on the fact that the disputed apartment is housing for the plaintiffs, which they acquired not with credit funds. The court took into account that the Supreme Court in a previous case had already confirmed the plaintiffs’ right to reside in this apartment until they were provided with other housing. The court also noted that the defendant’s attempt to review the circumstances established by the previous decision of the Supreme Court through a counterclaim is inadmissible.
y. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the plaintiffs never lived in the apartment, since these circumstances had already been established in the previous case and are not subject to repeated proof. The court also indicated that the existence of other housing for the plaintiffs should be investigated within the framework of the eviction case, and not in the dispute over the elimination of obstacles in the use of housing.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 724/316/24 dated 10/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of criminal proceedings by the appellate court regarding persons accused of illegal crayfish fishing, which, according to the prosecution, caused significant damage to the environment.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and closed the criminal proceedings, citing the fact that the prosecution did not prove the fact of causing significant damage to the environment by the actions of the accused, as well as the fact that the place of crayfish fishing belongs to the nature reserve fund, which requires the application of other norms for calculating damages. The court of cassation did not agree with these conclusions, pointing out the prematurity of the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the absence of significant damage, since the appellate court, without proper justification, attributed the territory to the nature reserve fund and independently calculated the damages, without disclosing the calculation methodology. In addition, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the testimony of witnesses regarding the method of crayfish fishing using lighting, which also requires verification. The court of cassation pointed out the need for a comprehensive and complete analysis of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, taking into account all arguments, in particular regarding the significance of the damage and the method of committing the offense.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 207/4752/23 dated 10/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they violated the rules of territorial jurisdiction by considering a case that is subject to consideration by the commercial court, and not the court of general jurisdiction. The court noted that the dispute arose between the financial director and the joint-stock company, and the relationship between them is corporate, which, in accordance with the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, assigns the case to the jurisdiction of the commercial court. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances unlawfully considered the dispute, which sto
concerns the management of a legal entity, which is also within the competence of the commercial court. The court stated that the courts did not take into account the ruling of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of June 24, 2024, in case No. 554/7669/21, and did not take into account the conclusion regarding the application of the norms of Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, informing the plaintiff that the consideration of this case belongs to the jurisdiction of the commercial court.
Case No. 910/11048/24 dated October 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in favor of the Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” of the amount of UAH 6,219,728.16.
2. The court of cassation instance closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the cassation appeal filed on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the Supreme Court did not find grounds for considering the appeal in this part, possibly due to the absence of violations of the norms of procedural law that would make it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case or the incorrect application of the norms of substantive law. In the other part, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, which indicates the Supreme Court’s agreement with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the validity of the claims of “Ukrainian Railways” against the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. The court probably agreed that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, established all the circumstances relevant to the case, and came to a reasoned conclusion that there were grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову [resolution] of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 916/5177/24 dated October 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of rent arrears, termination of the lease agreement, and eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises.
2. The court satisfied the application for securing the claim, imposing an arrest on the funds and property of the defendant within the amount of the claim, based on the validity of the plaintiff’s claims and the existence of grounds for securing the claim. The court took into account that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision in case of satisfaction of the claim, and the imposition of arrest will ensure a balance of interests of the parties. The court also noted that in case of satisfaction of the claim, the debtor will have the opportunity to calculate
with the plaintiff without foreclosure on property. The Commercial Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the defendant had not proven the inappropriateness or disproportionality of the measures taken to secure the claim. The court of cassation also emphasized that in cases of recovery of funds, it is the defendant who must prove the inappropriateness of taking measures to secure the claim.
3. The Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 671/1108/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for knowingly false reporting of a crime and knowingly false testimony of a witness.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the court’s conclusions regarding guilt are based on objectively established circumstances, confirmed by evidence assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, the court took into account the defendant’s admission of guilt, the expert’s opinion confirming the authenticity of the defendant’s signature in the relevant documents, as well as other written evidence. The court found no grounds for recognizing the evidence as inadmissible, as it was obtained as part of an investigation initiated at the request of the defendant herself. Also, the court agreed with the appellate court’s refusal to apply the article on exemption from criminal liability due to a change in circumstances, as the loss of social danger by both the accused herself and her actions was not established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgments of the previous instances.
Case No. 359/3929/21 dated 23/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_9 and PERSON_10 for fraud with land plots and forgery of documents.
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment and ruling, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances comprehensively examined the evidence, assessed it in its entirety, and reached a reasonable conclusion that the guilt of PERSON_9 and PERSON_10 was proven. The court noted that the arguments of the defenders regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, violations of procedural rules, and the absence of elements of a crime are unfounded. The court also indicated that the courts ensured equal rights for the parties to collect and submit evidence, and the defense’s motions were considered in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the courts correctly applied the provisions of Article 49 of the Criminal Code regarding exemption from punishment due to the expiry of the statute of limitations.
regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the accused did not consent to being released from criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the defenders and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 454/2122/23 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a court judgment approving a plea agreement of a person convicted of illegal smuggling of persons across the state border, and the ruling of the appellate court, which amended this judgment.
2. The court of cassation considered the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence of a person who was not a party to the plea agreement, due to the indication of their data in the judgment. The court noted that information about the time, place, method, and other circumstances of the crime, including data on persons illegally transported across the border, is necessary for proving the case in criminal proceedings and reflecting it in the judgment. The court rejected references to previous decisions, as they concerned the indication in the judgment of the surnames of accomplices who were not subject to judicial review, and not the circumstances to be proven. The court also recognized as justified the appellant’s argument that the appellate court did not completely remove the reference to the appellant’s position in the judgment, which could identify him as an accomplice to the crime.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the judgment and ruling, excluding from their text the reference to the position of the person who filed the appeal, but otherwise left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 454/2122/23 dated 09/10/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case 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 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal smuggling of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the lawyer, pointing out the need to exclude from the reasoning part of the court decisions the mention of the position of PERSON_7, namely “junior inspector of the border service of the 1st category of the 2nd group of border control inspectors of the border service department (type A) of the border service department «INFORMATION_2» (type B) INFORMATION_3”. The court presumably found that this information is not decisive for the qualification of the actions of the convicted person or the establishment of his guilt in the commission of the crime. However, the Supreme Court left unchanged the judgment and ruling regarding the proof of guilt and the measure of punishment.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the lawyer, amending the court decisions in the part of excluding the mention of the position of a certain person, but leaving them unchanged in the other part.
