[Case No. 638/5607/24 of October 21, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131158842)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank of the average wage for the delay in executing the court decision on reinstatement, the obligation to accrue and pay the Single Social Contribution (SSC), as well as the recovery of the average wage for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the courts correctly established the actual circumstances of the case and gave them a proper legal assessment. The court agreed with the conclusion that there were grounds for recovering from the bank the average wage for the period of non-execution of the decision on reinstatement, since the bank did not execute the court decision on the plaintiff’s reinstatement. At the same time, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims regarding the bank’s obligation to pay the SSC, since the payment of the SSC is the responsibility of the employer, and not a payment to the employee. Also, the court refused to recover the average wage for the delay in settlement upon dismissal, since all due amounts were paid to the plaintiff upon dismissal, and claims for the recovery of wages for untimely settlement upon dismissal were not filed. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to the own interpretation of the norms of law and disagreement with the adopted court decisions, which is not a ground for their cancellation.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[Case No. 991/9618/24 of October 22, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131170954)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the refusal to review the decision on the application of sanctions to an individual based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of appeal upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, motivating this by the fact that the defendant’s representative abuses procedural rights, trying to repeatedly appeal against the circumstances that have already been the subject of consideration in previous court hearings, in particular, referring to the decision of the European Court of Justice, which, in essence, does not contain new circumstances, but only re-evaluates already known facts. The court emphasized that the principle of legal certainty requires respect for final court decisions and the inadmissibility of their review only for the purpose of re-examining the case. The court also noted that the defendant’s representative did not provide evidence confirming the existence of newly discovered circumstances that existed at the time the court made its decision and were not known or could not have been known during the consideration of the case. The court indicated that the repeated submission of an application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances on the same grounds, the assessment of which has already been given within the framework of a similar judicial procedure, is an abuse of procedural rights, which contradicts the task of administrative proceedings.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131192489″>**Case No. 902/202/25 dated 22/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an agreement on amending the land lease agreement as concluded, since the farm believes that the city council violated its preferential right to renew the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the farm’s claim, as the city council lawfully refused to renew the land lease agreement. The court noted that the farm was duly notified of the date of the court hearing, and the representative’s engagement in another court hearing is not a valid reason for postponing the consideration of the case. In addition, the court indicated that the farm did not properly substantiate the grounds for cassation appeal provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and therefore its arguments about the incomplete examination by the appellate court of the evidence collected in the case are not taken into account. The court also emphasized that postponing the consideration of the case is the right, not the obligation, of the court, and is carried out taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The court of cassation ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the farm, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131192500″>**Case No. 927/103/20 dated 02/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Mena-Avanhard” LLC in favor of PERSON_1 of the value of a part of the company’s property, proportional to his share in the authorized capital, in connection with PERSON_1’s withdrawal from the company’s members.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, based on the following:
* When a participant withdraws from the company, he is paid the value of a part of the property proportional to his share in the authorized capital, and the calculation must be based on the real (market) value of the company’s property at the time of the participant’s withdrawal.
* The courts of previous instances reasonably took into account the conclusion of experts who determined the value of the net assets of “Mena-Avanhard” LLC as of 06.06.2017 (the date of the plaintiff’s withdrawal) and the proportional share of the plaintiff.
* The court of appeal took all possible actions to eliminate the incompleteness of the conducted expert study, but such an expert study was not conducted.
* The court of cassation noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence and establish new circumstances, and also that the existence of other evidence submitted to the court in the manner determined by the current procedural law, which would refute the circumstances established in the conclusion of forensic experts, has not been established.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect application of the norms of substantive law and failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases are unfounded, since the actual circumstances in those cases are not similar.
3. The SupremThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 6/228-AP-07 dated 10/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of CJSC “Agrofirma “Titanic” against the ruling of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal because the court of appeal lawfully refused to open appellate proceedings, as the appellant did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline for appeal. The court noted that sending a ruling on leaving the appeal without motion to the legal address of the company, which is contained in the Unified State Register, is a proper notification, even if the correspondence was returned with the note “incomplete address” or “after the expiration of the storage period.” The appellant’s arguments regarding improper notification of the head of the liquidation commission were rejected, as the appeal did not contain a request to send the decision directly to his address. The security guard’s explanations regarding the non-receipt of correspondence were not properly confirmed.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of CJSC “Agrofirma “Titanic” and to leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 991/10100/25 dated 10/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is criminal proceedings against PERSON_4 for abuse of office, which caused grave consequences to JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”.
2. The court approved the plea agreement, considering that PERSON_4 unconditionally admitted her guilt, actively assisted in the disclosure of the crime, provided incriminating evidence against other persons, undertook to partially compensate for the damage, and that the agreement is in the interests of society, ensuring quick proceedings and saving resources. The court also took into account that the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights of the parties or other persons, the conclusion of the agreement was voluntary, and the accused has the opportunity to fulfill her obligations. When imposing the sentence, the court took into account the mitigating circumstances, the absence of aggravating circumstances, as well as the positive characteristics of the accused, considering the agreed sentence sufficient for her correction and prevention of new crimes. The court emphasized that the verdict concerns only the actions of the accused and does not establish the guilt of other persons, ensuring compliance with the presumption of innocence.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and sentenced PERSON_4 to 4 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 1 year, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a period of 1 year, and a fine of UAH 17,000.
**Case No. 6/228-AP-07/5024 dated 10/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
we.
2. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, as the appellate court rightfully returned the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, as the applicant did not rectify the deficiencies of this application within the prescribed period. The court noted that the applicant did not provide duly certified copies of court decisions, which, in their opinion, confirm the existence of newly discovered circumstances. Furthermore, the court of cassation emphasized that procedural decisions made within the case are not grounds for reviewing previously adopted court decisions in this case based on newly discovered circumstances. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the presiding judge should have recused himself, as this is not provided for by procedural law. The court of cassation emphasized that the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances is carried out by the same panel of judges that made the decision being reviewed.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 320/382/24 of 10/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax assessment notice.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which returned the appeal filed by the lawyer due to the non-compliance of the warrant with the established requirements, failing to take into account the legal aid agreement, a copy of the certificate of the right to practice law, and an extract from the Unified Register of Lawyers of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocate Practice,” the legal aid agreement is the basis for confirming the powers of the lawyer, and the absence of reference to it in the CAS of Ukraine does not exclude the possibility of confirming the powers with this agreement. Also, the court of cassation noted that in the absence of evidence of the invalidity of the certificate of the right to practice law, the court has no reason to question the status of the representative. The court of cassation applied the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court on a similar issue in civil proceedings. The court of cassation pointed to the excessive formalism of the appellate court, which restricted access to justice.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court, and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 922/784/25 of 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a service agreement in the field of information technology and the recovery of prepayment, penalties, and fines for improper performance of obligations, as well as the recovery of debt for completed work under this agreement.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not establish the scope of actually provided services/completed
work performed by the defendant at the time of termination of the contract, which is crucial for determining the legality of returning the advance payment and recovering penalties. The court noted that the courts did not investigate whether the services were provided at all, in what volume, whether they are subject to payment according to the terms of the contract, and whether the reality of business transactions was proven. Also, the court pointed out that the courts did not take into account the principle of adversarial proceedings and did not properly assess all the evidence submitted by the parties, which made it impossible to establish all the actual circumstances of the case. The court of cassation emphasized the need to examine all the evidence in the case to establish both the circumstances of the contract execution and the behavior and actions of the parties regarding the acceptance of these services/provision of comments/objections to the comments regarding the services.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of recovering the advance payment, penalty, fine and refusal to satisfy the counterclaim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 925/833/23 dated 15/10/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of land lease agreements and the obligation to return land plots due to the tenant’s violation of the terms of the agreements.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the courts did not take into account the tenant’s failure to fulfill the obligation to develop agrochemical passports for the leased land plots, which is a violation of the terms of the lease agreements and the requirements of land legislation. The court emphasized that the agrochemical passport is an important tool for monitoring the qualitative condition of the land, and its absence prevents the owner from controlling the use of the land and its fertility. The court also pointed out that extending the term of lease agreements concluded as a result of land auctions seven times does not indicate the good faith of the parties. In addition, the court noted that the exemption from proving, even in the presence of prejudicial circumstances, cannot be absolute.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of refusing to terminate the lease agreements and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim in this part, and in the part of eliminating obstacles to the use of land, returned the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 909/679/24 (909/431/24) dated 15/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a coal supply agreement.
2. The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal against the decisions of the previous courts regarding the recovery of debt under a coal supply agreement, taking into account that the plaintiff also filed an application with monetary claims against the defendant within the framework of the bankruptcy case. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to current legislation, in theand the creditor’s filing of a claim with monetary demands against the debtor in a bankruptcy case, a separate lawsuit by this creditor to recover the debt must be dismissed. The court noted that the appellate court erroneously closed the proceedings in the case, since the special rule of the Bankruptcy Code provides specifically for dismissing the claim without consideration. The court also took into account that the cassation review in the bankruptcy case confirmed the legality of recognizing the plaintiff’s monetary claims.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s decision to dismiss the claim without consideration.
Case No. 910/1018/24 dated 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by Etrex LLC in connection with appealing the decision of the Kyiv City Council.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application of Etrex LLC for the distribution of court costs, was guided by the following arguments: The Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of adopting an additional decision regarding court costs if this issue was not resolved by the main decision. In the event of a change or adoption of a new decision by the court of cassation instance, the distribution of court costs is also subject to change. Court costs associated with a satisfied claim are imposed on the defendant. Etrex LLC paid the court fee for filing the claim, appeal, and cassation complaints. Since the cassation appeal of Etrex LLC was partially satisfied, and the decision of the Kyiv City Council was declared illegal, the costs of paying the court fee in the part of the satisfied claims must be reimbursed by the defendant. The court determined the total amount of the court fee to be reimbursed to the plaintiff, taking into account the amounts paid at each stage of the court process.
3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 12,717.60 of court fee expenses from the Kyiv City Council in favor of Etrex LLC.
Case No. 922/1141/25 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of FC Aster-Finance LLC to release a non-residential building from seizure, which the plaintiff acquired ownership of as a result of foreclosure under a mortgage agreement, but the seizure was imposed in another civil case between the Kharkiv City Council and the previous owner – an individual.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the dispute is not subject to consideration in the commercial court. The court proceeded from the fact that, firstly, one of the parties to the dispute is an individual (deceased) who is not an entrepreneur, and the disputed legal relations are not of a commercial nature, since they arise from a mortgage agreement concluded by an individual. Secondly, the very fact of the death of an individual is not an unconditional basis for closing the proceedings, since the disputed legal relations regarding property rights to immovable property allow for legal succession. The court noted that the decisive factor is the charthe nature of the disputed legal relations and the subject composition, and not only the fact of death of one of the parties. Thus, the courts correctly determined that the dispute should be considered in the order of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Aster-Finance” without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate and ruling of the local commercial courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 911/2317/24 dated 08/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction regarding the transfer of property and the recognition of ownership of a part of the transformer.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy the application for changing the subject matter of the claim. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff has the right to change the subject matter of the claim, in particular, to supplement it with new claims, if the grounds of the claim (circumstances justifying the claims) remain unchanged. The court noted that changing the subject matter of the claim may consist in choosing a different way to protect the violated right within the disputed legal relationship. The court also indicated that supplementing the claim with new circumstances while preserving the original circumstances is not considered a change in the grounds of the claim. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the disputed relations in this case and in the case referred to by the appellant are different. The court emphasized that all other arguments of the complaint relate to the merits of the dispute and should be considered by the courts when resolving the case on the merits.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 320/39008/23 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine on granting LLC “Karpatnadra” a special permit for the use of subsoil resources and the recognition of the invalidity of the permit itself.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the prosecutor’s claim without consideration due to the expiration of the term for appealing to the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases related to the protection of natural resources, the courts should approach the application of procedural terms with particular caution in order to avoid excessive formalism. The court noted that the beginning of the term for the prosecutor to appeal to the court should be linked to the moment when he objectively received sufficient materials confirming the signs of illegality of the decision of the subject of power, and not to the moment of publication of the relevant act. The court also took into account the special constitutional and legal status of the prosecutor, who acts as a representative of the interests of the state and society, and not as an interested party. The court indicated that the formal application of terms may lead to the impossibility of judicial control over the legality of issuing permits for the use of subsoil resources and create an imbalance between compliance with the requirements of the procedural law and the constitution
it is a constitutional duty of the state to ensure environmental safety.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 916/1650/23 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed electricity under the supply agreement between Mykolaiv Electrical Supply Company LLC and TEKA LLC for the period when the defendant’s facilities were located in the temporarily occupied territory.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, referring to Article 13-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine,” which prohibits the movement of goods, works, services, including electricity, from other territory of Ukraine to the temporarily occupied territory. The court noted that the fact of temporary occupation of the Kherson region is a well-known fact and does not require proof. Also, the court took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 908/1162/23, which established that the provisions of Article 13-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” apply to territories temporarily occupied during martial law, even in the absence of a decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine recognizing such territories as occupied. The court emphasized that the Regulations on the specifics of electricity supply to consumers during martial law cannot regulate the issue of electricity supply in the temporarily occupied territory due to the direct prohibition established by law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 560/11001/24 dated 10/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds to pay off the tax debt on real estate tax.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the rules of procedural law by returning the appeal to the appellant. The appellant stated in the appeal that he is a person with II group of disability and attached a copy of the pension certificate, which, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” is a basis for exemption from paying the court fee. The appellate court did not verify these arguments of the appellant, but immediately returned the appeal due to non-payment of the court fee. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have verified the existence of grounds for exemption from paying the court fee before making a decision to return the appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that the realization by a person of the right to state in the appeal the grounds for exemption from paying the court fee cannot be assessed by the court as a failure to comply with the requirements of the court order by which the appeal was left without movement for payment of the court fee.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court.
of Cassation Court on the return of the appeal and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 912/363/22 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of the authorized capital of “Rivne Agro-Plus” LLC and the sizes of the shares of its participants.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not take into account the actual composition of the company’s participants at the time of the case’s consideration, in particular, the presence of a new participant and the withdrawal of one of the previous participants. The courts did not raise the issue of involving the new participant in the case for discussion by the parties, which is a violation of procedural law. Also, the courts did not take into account that the claims should have been formulated taking into account the changes in the composition of the participants and the amount of the authorized capital that occurred after the exclusion of the plaintiff. The court of cassation noted that choosing an inappropriate method of protection is grounds for rejecting the claim, but the courts of previous instances did not offer the plaintiff to correct the deficiencies. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to send the case for a new trial for a full and objective clarification of all the circumstances.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/56/25 dated 10/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to refuse the plaintiff’s appointment to the position of a member of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ of Ukraine).
2. The court noted that the powers of the HCJ to select a candidate for the position of a member of the HQCJ of Ukraine are discretionary, but not unlimited, and must be exercised reasonably, impartially, in good faith, and judiciously. The court emphasized that the HCJ, having concluded that the plaintiff meets the criteria of integrity, professional competence, and political neutrality, did not provide in its decision any reasons justifying the refusal to appoint her, which makes the decision unfounded. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the need to clearly define the limits of the discretion of government bodies and ensure protection against arbitrary interference. The court pointed out that the reasoning of the HCJ’s decision to refuse the appointment of a candidate to the position of a member of the HQCJ of Ukraine is not only a formal compliance with the requirements of the law, but must ensure compliance with the principle of legal certainty in the matter of establishing the grounds for refusing appointment to the position of a member of the HQCJ of Ukraine. The court emphasized that although it states that the decision challenged by the plaintiff does not contain reasons for refusing her appointment to the position of a member of the HQCJ of Ukraine, it cannot restore the plaintiff’s violated right in the manner she chose, namely by obliging the defendant to conduct a repeated vote on the issue of her appointment to the position
