**Case No. 760/15737/23 dated 15/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision regarding the registration of ownership of a share of non-residential premises.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, indicated that the condominium association’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice did not meet the requirements of the law, as it did not contain the date of compilation, was signed by persons without proper authority, and the Ministry of Justice unlawfully did not consider the application to withdraw the complaint. In addition, the court emphasized that the Ministry of Justice did not ensure proper notification of the plaintiff regarding the consideration of the complaint, as posting an announcement on the website without confirmation of timeliness and without additional means of communication (telephone, e-mail) is not sufficient. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not provide grounds for the conclusion that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law and violated the norms of procedural law, which led or could have led to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 175/17354/24 dated 15/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state executor regarding the imposition of seizure on the debtor’s funds in enforcement proceedings, namely on the funds that the applicant receives as a pension.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the executor is obliged to take measures for the compulsory execution of decisions, but these actions must be legal and not violate the rights of citizens. The court emphasized that there is a list of funds that are prohibited from being seized, including funds that have a special regime of use, as well as pension payments. The court took into account that at the time the state executor issued the order to seize the debtor’s funds, the norm of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” was in effect, which temporarily suspended the recovery of pension. The court also noted that the bank’s failure to notify the executor about the special regime of the account does not relieve the executor of the obligation to remove the seizure if the debtor provides the relevant documents. The court emphasized that leaving the seizure on pension funds makes it impossible for the debtor to receive the only source of livelihood, which is unacceptable.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which satisfied the complaint.
**Case No. 910/14544/24 dated 21/10/2025**
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the Limited Liability Company “MVV Instruments”.
The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the courts of the previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence and came to a reasonable conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the legality of the decision of the AMCU. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to indicate the illegality of the AMCU decision. Also, the court of cassation took into account that the AMCU acted within its powers defined by the legislation on protection of economic competition. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should not re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the AMCU within its competence.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of “MVV Instruments” Limited Liability Company, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/10946/24 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 485,173,391.98.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, thus supporting the decision to recover a significant amount of funds. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, presumably regarding the validity of the claims and the absence of violations of substantive or procedural law in the consideration of the case. Also, the Supreme Court renewed the execution of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which were suspended during the cassation proceedings. This indicates that the court found no grounds for further suspension of the execution of the court decision. The decision has entered into legal force and is not subject to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances on the recovery of funds unchanged.
Case No. 914/2709/24 dated 10/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the obligation to perform certain actions, initiated by Levgalbud LLC against Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine LLC.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings opened on the basis of paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), and dismissed the cassation appeal in the part of the ground provided for in paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the CPC of Ukraine. This means that the court found no grounds to review the decisions of the previous instances in this part. The court presumably concluded that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and also fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case. The lack of detailed information about the court’s motives in the introductory and operative
that the cassation appeal did not contain sufficient arguments to overturn or amend the appealed decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Levgalbud” and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Lviv Region and the постанову of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case №686/28590/23 dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the change in the method of alimony collection from a share of income to a fixed monetary amount and an increase in the amount of alimony for the maintenance of the child.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances, namely: did not properly assess the significant improvement in the defendant’s financial situation, which was confirmed by evidence of significant receipts to his bank accounts and the acquisition of property; did not take into account that the amount of alimony should be necessary and sufficient to ensure the harmonious development of the child, based on the standard of living that he/she would have if the parents lived together; did not take into account that the plaintiff’s failure to prove expenses is not an unconditional basis for refusing to increase alimony; did not respond to the plaintiff’s argument about the immediate execution of the court decision regarding the collection of alimony within the amount of the payment for one month, as provided for by procedural law. The court of cassation instance also emphasized that the appellate court should have provided specific circumstances that indicate why the amount of alimony determined by it is necessary and sufficient, taking into account the interests of the child and the capabilities of the alimony payer.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the постанову of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims of PERSON_1 and remanded the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.
Case №907/257/23 dated 08/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of additional monetary claims of the Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank” against the Limited Liability Company “Strong Bridge Alliance” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since they did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not take into account the fact of termination of the leasing agreement and return of the leasing object, which significantly affects the obligations of the parties. The court noted that the previous court decisions were based solely on the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv, which was made under different factual circumstances, when the leasing agreement was still in effect. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to apply an increased standard of proof to the additional monetary claims of the bank, taking into account the changes in the legal relations between the parties after the termination of the agreement.
leasing. Also, the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of the terms of the Leasing Agreement, which establish the structure of lease payments, and provide for the lessee’s obligation to return only the remuneration for the use of the object of leasing. The court of cassation emphasized that in such cases it is necessary to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding similar legal relations, and also drew attention to the need to take into account the court decision of 25.02.2025 in case No. 907/257/23 (907/929/23) in the claim of the Debtor against the Bank for the recovery of lease payments paid towards the cost of the leased object under the Leasing Agreement.
3. The court overturned the постанову of the appellate commercial court and the ухвалу of the commercial court of the first instance, remitting the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance.
Case No. 990/376/24 dated 02/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the application of personal sanctions to her.
2. The court dismissed the claim without consideration, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the court, and the reasons for the omission were not recognized as valid. The court noted that the previous claim with similar claims was dismissed without consideration due to the repeated failure of the plaintiff to appear, and this is not a valid reason for renewing the deadline. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not appeal the ухвала on dismissing the first claim without consideration, thereby agreeing with it. The court also pointed out that the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff could be the basis for an appeal against the previous ухвала, but are not the basis for renewing the deadline in a new case. The court emphasized that valid reasons are only objectively insurmountable circumstances that did not depend on the will of the plaintiff. The court explained that the procedural law allows to return to the issue of compliance with the deadline for appealing to the court even after the opening of proceedings, if new circumstances are revealed.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 761/2686/22 dated 27/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the apartment sale and purchase agreement as invalid, the cancellation of the notary’s decision on state registration of rights, the cancellation of the record of registration of ownership, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that LLC “Ukrainian Telecommunications Company” lawfully foreclosed on the subject of the mortgage in an out-of-court procedure, as it duly notified the plaintiff as the mortgagor and debtor of the need to remedy the violations of the main obligation. The court took into account that the plaintiff, being an heir
as the mortgagor, acquired the status of mortgagor and debtor simultaneously, and the demands sent to him to remedy the violations were returned with the note “expired storage period,” which indicates his negligence or evasion of receipt. The court also noted that the mortgage extends to the reconstructed object (combined apartments), and the existence of a previous court decision on foreclosure of the mortgage item, which was not executed, does not deprive the creditor of the right to an out-of-court settlement. In addition, the court rejected the arguments about improper оформлення документів про відступлення права вимоги, since the available evidence confirms the transfer of creditor’s rights to LLC “Ukrainian Telecommunication Company”.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 205/7509/22 dated 01/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds paid by the plaintiffs instead of the defendant to repay his debt.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim, considering that the plaintiffs did not prove the grounds for the transfer of the creditor’s rights to them, since at the time of debt payment they were co-owners and director of the debtor enterprise, and also did not prove that the funds were acquired by the defendant without sufficient legal basis. The Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, stating that the courts did not establish the content of the agreements on granting revolving financial assistance, did not determine whether they provided for the obligation of the plaintiffs to repay the defendant’s debts, and did not analyze the consequences of the existence of enforcement proceedings and the lack of funds in the defendant’s accounts. The court of cassation emphasized that the payment by the plaintiff of the defendant’s debt to a third party may result in the plaintiff acquiring the rights of the creditor in this obligation, and therefore, the right to demand the return of funds. Also, the Supreme Court drew attention to the absence in the case file of copies of agreements on granting revolving financial assistance, which makes it impossible to verify the conclusions of the courts regarding the transfer of creditors’ rights to the plaintiffs.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 918/1354/23 dated 02/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to grant the creditor’s motion to close the proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that in cases of insolvency of an individual initiated by the debtor himself, the legislator presumes the debtor’s desire to compromise with creditors and to conscientiously fulfill obligations. The court emphasized that the right to rehabilitation deservesalso an honest and conscientious debtor who does not conceal circumstances that may affect the consideration of the case or the satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court indicated that the debtor is obliged to provide complete and reliable information about their financial situation, as well as cooperate with the restructuring manager and creditors. The court noted that if inaccurate information is discovered in the declaration of financial status, the debtor has the right to submit a corrected declaration. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances had established the absence of bad faith actions by the debtor aimed at concealing property or facts that could affect the consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/13374/20 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a will and a certificate of inheritance by will as invalid, as the plaintiff believed that at the time of making the will, the testator was not aware of the significance of their actions.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the testator was not aware of the significance of their actions or could not control them at the time of making the will, and the conclusions of the forensic psychiatric examinations conducted in the case indicate that the testator was aware of the significance of their actions and could control them at the time of making the will. The court also took into account the testimonies of witnesses, including the family doctor, who confirmed that the testator’s health condition did not affect their ability to be aware of their actions. The court noted that the expert’s opinion does not have a pre-established force and is evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, but in this case, the conclusions of the examinations are consistent with other materials in the case. The court also indicated that the absence of a violated right of the plaintiff is an independent basis for dismissing the claim.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 565/83/24 dated 09/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the employee’s dismissal for absenteeism as illegal and reinstatement at work.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the employee was dismissed lawfully, as her absence from work after the end of her vacation was not due to valid reasons, and she did not provide proper evidence to confirm this. The court took into account that the employee worked at a critical infrastructure facility where the granting of vacations was suspended, and that there were no hostilities in the area of her workplace. The court also noted that the employer inquired about the reasons for the employee’s absence and received explanations from her, and the absence of written explanations did not
is an unconditional ground for cancellation of the disciplinary sanction. The court also took into account that the employee did not return to Ukraine for a long time after receiving temporary protection abroad, which indicates that she had no intention of returning to work. The court of appeal also noted that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Organization of Labor Relations under Martial Law” can be applied to the disputed legal relations, since the order of dismissal was issued after this law came into force.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 757/1142/24-ц dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which cancelled the decisions of state registrars regarding the termination of arrests and registration of ownership of the apartment purchased by the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances, motivating it by the fact that the courts did not take into account that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine cannot be the sole defendant in a dispute over property rights to real estate, since there is no dispute over ownership between the plaintiff and the Ministry of Justice. The court noted that the dispute over ownership of the apartment exists between the plaintiff and the persons in whose interests the apartment was seized, namely PERSON_4 and the State represented by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Industry of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that an effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights would be to file a claim against the proper defendants, that is, against the persons who dispute his ownership rights. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the circumstances of the imposition of arrests on the apartment in the interests of third parties, which indicates the existence of a dispute over property rights with these persons.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 910/10905/23 dated 16/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the eviction of the Political Party “European Solidarity” from the rented premises, initiated by “Kyiv” Enterprise LLC due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the Political Party systematically violated the terms of the lease agreement regarding timely payment, which gave “Kyiv” Enterprise LLC the right to terminate the agreement unilaterally. The court found that “Kyiv” Enterprise LLC properly notified the defendant of the termination of the agreement and demanded the release of the premises, but the Political Party did not comply with this demand. The court also noted that the defendant’s argumentsThe arguments regarding the impossibility of using the premises due to quarantine restrictions and military actions were not properly substantiated and declared at the previous stages of the case. It is important that the court carefully analyzed the terms of the lease agreement regarding the procedure for its termination and concluded that LLC “Enterprise “Kyiv” complied with all the necessary procedures. The court also took into account previous decisions in similar cases, where the fact of the Political Party’s debt on rent payments had already been established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Political Party “European Solidarity” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the eviction.
Case No. 757/31840/18-ц dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the cancellation of the order of dismissal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, as the plaintiff considered his dismissal by agreement of the parties to be illegal.
2. The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff voluntarily expressed a desire to resign by agreement of the parties, having written a corresponding application, and did not declare the annulment of this agreement before the issuance of the order of dismissal. The court emphasized that the agreement of the parties is an independent basis for the termination of the employment contract, which requires the joint expression of will of the parties. Also, the court noted that the current legislation does not provide for a mandatory written form for the agreement of the parties on the termination of the employment contract, and in this case, such an agreement was оформлена by the plaintiff’s application. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of pressure from the employer when writing the application for dismissal, and also did not prove that his expression of will to terminate the employment contract was absent at the time of issuing the order. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of the norms of procedural law, in particular, regarding the refusal to satisfy the plaintiff’s petitions, since the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to provide evidence in the case during the preparatory court hearings, which lasted three years.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 910/14042/24 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the Charitable Organization “Charitable Foundation “Okhmatdyt-Healthy Childhood” in the court of cassation instance in the case on the claim of the Law Firm “Kychenok Andriy” for the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of legal assistance and the Foundation’s counterclaim for termination of the contract.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the Foundation’s application for the distribution of court costs, proceeded from the fact that the Foundation provided sufficient evidence of incurring expenses for professional legal assistance.
