Case No. 824/81/24 dated April 10, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) regarding the recovery of penalties and fines from the company for late delivery of goods.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to grant the application to set aside the ICAC decision, reasoning that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement contained in the supply contract, which provided for the referral of disputes to the ICAC. The court noted that the company did not object to the jurisdiction of the ICAC during the arbitration proceedings and also referred to the supply contract in its statement of defense. In addition, the court took into account that both parties performed the terms of the contract, which indicates its conclusion, regardless of the presence of signatures on the document. The court also referred to international acts and practice, in particular the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, which allow the conclusion of an arbitration agreement through the exchange of documents and the conduct of the parties.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 824/54/24 dated October 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the ruling refusing to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) regarding the recovery of an advance payment from the company for undelivered goods.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appeal, supporting the decision of the appellate court, based on the following:
* The circumstances referred to by the applicant (the expert’s opinion on the conformity of the goods to the terms of the contract) are not newly discovered within the meaning of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as they do not refute the facts underlying the court decision, but amount to a revaluation of evidence, which is not a basis for review.
* The court of first instance reasonably proceeded from the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and the absence of grounds for setting aside the ICAC decision under Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* National courts have limited powers to review ICAC decisions on the merits, and reference to an expert opinion does not create grounds for setting aside the arbitration award.
* When reviewing a case based on newly discovered circumstances, the court may not go beyond the claims that were the subject of review when the court decision under review was made, and may not consider other claims or grounds for the claim.
* The court of cassation also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the procedure for resuming the consideration of a case based on newly discovered circumstances does not contradict the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms if it is used to correct
justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
[**Case No. 824/54/24 dated 09/10/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131000768)
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the appellate court’s ruling on the cancellation of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery of an advance payment for undelivered goods.
2. The court of cassation did not provide any arguments in the introductory and operative parts of the ruling. The text only states that the company’s appeal was dismissed and the appellate court’s ruling was upheld. The full text of the decision will be available in 5 days.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
[**Case No. 910/10946/24 dated 21/10/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131158044)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the agreement on participation in the balancing market between JSC “DTEK Zakhidenergo” and PJSC “Ukrenergo” for the supplied balancing electricity.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that PJSC “Ukrenergo” improperly fulfilled its obligations to pay for balancing electricity supplied by JSC “DTEK Zakhidenergo.” The court noted that, according to the Market Rules, only decade reports are subject to payment, and not monthly reports based on the act of purchase and sale of balancing electricity. Amendments to the Market Rules, introduced by NERC Decree No. 1211 of June 26, 2024, do not change the procedure for settlements between the TSO and BSPs, but only concern the procedure for opening escrow accounts. The court also rejected PJSC “Ukrenergo’s” arguments regarding the inflated amount of expenses for professional legal assistance awarded for reimbursement, as no evidence of their disproportionality was provided. The court emphasized that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to distribution regardless of whether they were actually paid. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “Ukrenergo” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[**Case No. 944/7443/23 dated 21/10/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131158874)
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the prosecutor in the interests of the state of land plots from someone else’s illegal possession of an individual.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the claim without consideration. The appellate court reasonably noted that the prosecutor acted in the interests of the state, since the Lviv City Council, as the legal successor of the body that transferred the disputed lands to
property of the defendant, did not take measures to protect the interests of the territorial community after receiving a notification from the prosecutor’s office about possible violations. The court also took into account that the prosecutor did not appeal the decision on the transfer of land, but demanded the recovery of the plots from illegal possession, which is consistent with the powers of the Lviv City Council as a representative of the territorial community. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor reasonably applied to the court, as the city council did not react to the prosecutor’s office notification about possible violations, which indicates the inaction of the competent authority. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the improper confirmation of the prosecutor’s powers, as the necessary documents were attached to the appeal in electronic form.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 404/4656/22 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the acquittal of PERSON_6, accused of illegal seizure of a vehicle (Part 1 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of first instance acquitted PERSON_6, considering that the elements of a crime were not proven in his actions, as he received permission to use the car from the victim. The appellate court agreed with this decision, noting that PERSON_6 is not a subject of the crime, as he received the car into legal possession. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, pointing to inconsistencies in the decisions of the previous courts and an incomplete analysis of the evidence. In particular, the moment of termination of lawful possession of the car was not clarified, which is important for establishing intent to illegally seize it. Also, the courts did not take into account the circumstances that the transfer of keys and documents to the car did not give the right to unlimited use and disposal of it.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 591/12144/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
2. The operative part of the resolution does not provide the court’s arguments. It appears from the text that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, where the reasons for the decision will be stated. For now, it can only be stated that the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, leaving it unchanged. This may indicate that the court of cassation did not find any significant violations of substantive or procedural law that could
influence the legality and validity of the appellate court’s judgment. Also, leaving the cassation appeal unsatisfied may indicate that the defender’s arguments were found to be unfounded or insufficient to overturn or amend the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 917/2090/24 dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a supply agreement and a counterclaim for the recovery of a penalty for delay in the supply of goods.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision in the part regarding the refusal to satisfy the claims for the recovery of a penalty for delay in the supply of goods. The court of cassation indicated the need for a re-examination by the appellate court of the issue regarding the validity of the accrual of penalties for violation of delivery deadlines, as the previous examination was not sufficiently complete and comprehensive. At the same time, the Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision regarding the review of the additional decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation took into account the appellant’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of the norms of substantive law by the appellate court in assessing the circumstances of the case in the part regarding the recovery of the penalty.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part regarding the refusal to recover the penalty and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/4138/24 dated 18/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of penalties, fines, and interest for violation of the terms of the contract for the performance of work for defense purposes, in particular, for delay in the performance of work and the use of advance payment.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in part, noted the following:
* The courts of previous instances did not take into account that, despite the availability of a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding force majeure circumstances (missile strikes, air raid alerts), the defendant continued to perform work under the contract, which casts doubt on the objective impossibility of fulfilling obligations on time.
* The court emphasized that in order to be released from liability, it is necessary to prove not only the existence of force majeure circumstances, but also their direct impact on the impossibility of fulfilling specific obligations under the contract within the established deadline.
* The court also indicated that the claim for the return of the advance and the claim for the proper performance of the contract are mutually exclusive, as they are aimed at opposite results.
* Since the plaintiff accepted partial performance of the work by the defendant, signing the acceptance certificates, he retained an interest in obtaining the result under the contract.that deprives him of the right to demand the return of the prepayment.
* Due to the loss of the right to the primary claim for the return of the prepayment, the plaintiff also loses the right to derivative claims for the recovery of penalties and interest related to the delay in the use and non-return of this payment.
* The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to apply the provisions of the law on the specifics of the course of prepayment terms under martial law, as it concluded that the plaintiff had lost the right to the primary claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to recover penalties and fines for delay in the performance of work, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 369/12292/24 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the preliminary agreement for the sale of an apartment and the recovery of funds.
2. The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, partially satisfying the application for securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff reasonably assumed that the defendant could alienate the property in order to avoid the execution of the court decision, and the failure to take security measures could complicate the execution of the decision. The court took into account that the defendant owns a land plot on which the construction object is located, regarding which a preliminary agreement was concluded. At the same time, in order not to create obstacles in the economic activity of the land users (LLC and an individual who have the right to build), the court limited the security of the claim only to the prohibition of alienation of the land plot, which is commensurate with the stated claims. The court noted that such a measure does not deprive the defendant of the right to possess and use the property, but only temporarily restricts the right to dispose of it until the dispute is resolved. The defendant’s arguments about the existence of other property at the expense of which the claim can be secured were not supported by evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 695/3253/21 dated 21/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land lease agreements as invalid, the cancellation of state registration and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the land lease agreements dated December 18, 2018 are unexecuted, since the signatures in them were made not by the plaintiffs, but by another person imitating their signatures, which is confirmed by the expert opinion. At the same time, the court took into account that the land lease agreement dated April 30, 2012, concluded between Silikat-1 LLC and the father of the p
which is the previous owner of the land plot, continued to act at the time the plaintiffs applied to the court, since the transfer of ownership of the land plot to another person is not a basis for termination of the contract. The court also noted that Silikat-1 LLC rightfully used the land plot on the basis of the land lease agreement dated April 30, 2012, and the plaintiffs did not provide evidence to confirm the existence of obstacles on the part of the tenant in the use of the land plot. Considering the absence of the plaintiffs’ violated right, the court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal to dismiss the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 752/13587/24 dated 10/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the person’s release from criminal liability due to a change in the situation for the unauthorized occupation of a land plot.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, as the court of appeal did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unsubstantiated release of the person from criminal liability on the basis of Article 48 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In particular, the court of appeal did not establish and did not substantiate how the situation changed after the commission of the crime, in order to consider the act as having lost its public danger, and the person as having ceased to be socially dangerous. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal limited itself to listing the circumstances referred to by the court of first instance, but did not refute the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal regarding the absence of grounds for applying Article 48 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that release from criminal liability is a right, not an obligation of the court, and requires careful justification.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 478/507/21 dated 10/21/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 for crimes under Part 3 of Article 186, Parts 3 and 4 of Article 187 and Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of PERSON_7, overturning the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal only in the part concerning the conviction of PERSON_7, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance. At the same time, the court decisions were left unchanged in other parts. Such a decision may be related to the fact that the court of cassation found certain violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the norms of substantive law, which relate to
