**Case No. 420/23090/23 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the annulment of the state registrar’s access to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the state registrar, when performing the registration action, rightfully believed that the court prohibition did not apply to the registration of changes in the head of the legal entity, since the prohibition concerned only changes regarding participants, owners, beneficiaries, and the amount of the authorized capital. The court also took into account the court’s ruling, which clarified that the prohibition did not apply to the change of the head. In addition, the court noted that the Ministry of Justice did not prove the existence of grounds for annulling access to the register, provided for by law. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the norms of procedural law, since the case could be considered under the rules of simplified proceedings, and possible violations did not lead to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 826/9693/13-а dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions and inaction of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), which, according to the plaintiff, led to a violation of his rights as a depositor of PJSC “Bank “Tavrika”.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, because the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation by the court of first instance of the procedure for reviewing motions to recuse a judge, namely, that the motions to recuse were considered by an unauthorized panel of judges, which is a significant violation of procedural law. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to respond to every significant argument of the appeal, and failure to provide such a response is a violation of the norms of procedural law. Considering that the court of appeal limited itself to assessing the validity of the stated recusal requests, leaving out the plaintiff’s main argument regarding the consideration of the requests by an unauthorized panel of judges, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be sent for a new trial to the court of appeal to eliminate these violations. The court of cassation did not consider other arguments of the cassation appeal, since the violation of the procedure for considering motions for recusal is key.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 990/179/24 dated 10/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice.
justice (HJC) on the annulment of the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (QDCP) regarding the closure of disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutor.
2. The court, in considering the case, found that the HJC acted within its powers when considering the complaint against the QDCP’s decision. The HJC reasonably disagreed with the QDCP’s conclusion that there were no violations in the prosecutor’s actions, as the QDCP did not adequately assess the merits of the complaint regarding the unfounded change of charges, which led to the accused evading responsibility. The court noted that the HJC reasonably pointed out that the prosecutor, in changing the classification of the crime, did not take into account the absence of new factual circumstances, which is a violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the HJC, in making its decision, acted within the framework of verifying the proper performance by the prosecutor of the requirements of the law, and did not re-evaluate the evidence in the criminal proceedings. The HJC took into account that the job description, which the prosecutor referred to for changing the classification, was not a new circumstance, but already existed at the stage of pre-trial investigation.
3. The court decided to dismiss the claim for recognition of the decision of the High Council of Justice as illegal and its annulment.
Case No. 340/5087/24 dated October 28, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the challenge to the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the limitation of the indexation of the plaintiff’s pension by the amount of UAH 1,500 in accordance with Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168 and No. 185.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim, reasoning that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in accordance with current legislation, has the right to determine the procedure and amount of pension indexation, and the limitation of the amount of indexation was established in order to balance the needs of social protection of different categories of citizens under martial law. The court noted that the limitation of the upper limit of indexation is carried out to balance the needs and protection of as many citizens as possible, especially those whose pensions are very low, as well as to balance the financial resource for conducting indexation for wide categories of persons and maintaining the growth of inequality between the amount of citizens’ pensions. The court also took into account that both the provisions of Article 42 of Law No. 1058-IV and the provisions of Article 64 of Law No. 2262-ХІІ grant the Government the right to determine the amount, conditions and procedure for pension indexation. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as sufficient justification for this was not provided.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 285/4256/23 dated October 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the mortgage and the recognition of rights.
mortgagee.
2. The court dismissed the claim for recognition of the mortgage as terminated, as the principal obligation under the loan agreement had not been fulfilled, and the existence of a court decision on debt collection is not a ground for termination of the mortgage. The court also dismissed the counterclaim for recognition of the mortgagee’s right for “Premium Legal Collection” LLC, as the mortgage agreement was not specified in the annex to the assignment of claim rights agreement, and the court does not have the authority to amend agreements. The court noted that “Premium Legal Collection” LLC is not deprived of the opportunity to contact the bank in an out-of-court procedure to resolve this issue. The court took into account that the debtor’s obligation to “Premium Legal Collection” LLC to repay the debt under the loan according to the terms of the loan agreement exists, and no evidence of fulfillment of the obligation was provided.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 758/11025/17 dated 10/29/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance and the appeal ruling regarding the accusation of PERSON_8 of committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 27, Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, dismissing the cassation appeal of lawyer PERSON_6 in the interests of PERSON_7. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments that the court was guided by, but it states that the courts of previous instances acted lawfully. The full text of the ruling with the justification of the court’s position will be drawn up later.
The court ruled: The ruling of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv dated September 25, 2017, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated April 7, 2025, regarding PERSON_8 shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of lawyer PERSON_6 in the interests of PERSON_7 shall be dismissed.
Case No. 757/35067/20 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to open proceedings on the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the ruling of the same court.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal, pointing out that the Court of Appeal did not take into account the provisions of Part 1 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 5-r(II)/2024, and the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that, according to these norms and conclusions, the ruling of an investigating judge can be reviewed based on newly discovered circumstances, especially when it restricts the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court of Appeal mistakenly considered it impossible to review the rulings of investigating judges and the rulings of the courts of appeal based on newly discovered circumstances.
appellate instance, issued based on the results of reviewing these rulings, which violates the requirements of the criminal procedure law. **** In fact, the court points out that the appellate court ignored the necessity of ensuring the right to review a judicial decision when it may contradict the purpose of criminal proceedings and restrict human rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of October 17, 2024, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 344/22745/23 of 10/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the city council’s decision to transfer a land plot into ownership, the cancellation of the state act on the right of ownership to this plot, as well as the recognition as invalid of the sale and donation agreements for this plot.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her rights. The court established that at the time of the transfer of the land plot into the defendant’s ownership, the house was already divided into two apartments, and the city council acted within the law, taking into account the interests of the plaintiff by establishing a land easement. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the violation of her rights, and her arguments amount to a re-evaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court. In addition, the court emphasized that the house is not an apartment building, but is divided into two apartments with separate entrances, which makes it possible to privatize part of the land plot. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they were adopted in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 490/1661/25 of 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the bank’s appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of debt from an individual.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the bank’s appeal, without taking into account its content as a whole, and also did not provide the bank with the opportunity to correct a technical error in the appeal regarding the date of the appealed decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have checked the appeal for compliance with the requirements of Article 356 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and, if any deficiencies were found, leave it without motion for their elimination. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court cannot independently decide on the specific court decision that the applicant intends to appeal, as this is the responsibility of the party. Also, the Supreme Court noted that for the application of paragraph 4 of part five
of Article 354 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an appeal must be filed specifically against the ruling of the court of first instance, which is not subject to separate appeal from the decision of the court of first instance, and in this case, the bank appealed the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case back for resolution of the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 715/2640/24 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the orders of the StateGeoCadastre as invalid, the cancellation of state registration and the termination of ownership of a land plot that overlaps with a plot that is in the permanent use of the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the land plot was granted to the plaintiff for farming (peasant) activities, which was created as a legal entity. From the moment of registration of the farm, it, and not the individual, becomes the land user. The courts did not clarify whether the plaintiff’s right is violated, considering that the land user may be the farm, and not the plaintiff himself as an individual. Also, the courts did not establish whether the farm itself is the user of the disputed land. The absence of a violated right of the plaintiff is the basis for dismissing the claim. The court emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the method of protection must be appropriate and effectively restore the violated right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the satisfied claims and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 926/428/23 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the Chernivtsi City Council’s demand to amend the land lease agreement with Rial Trust LLC in terms of increasing the amount of the lease payment, which is based on the updated normative monetary valuation of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly suspended the proceedings in the case, referring to the consideration of an administrative case regarding the appeal of the city council’s decision on the approval of a new normative monetary valuation of land, since at the time of the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, the administrative proceedings had not yet been opened, and therefore could not affect the legality of the decision of the court of first instance. The court emphasized that the city council’s decision on the normative monetary valuation is a valid regulatory legal act until the court decision on its cancellation enters into legal force, and the commercial court must apply it, and the possible future cancellation of the city council’s decision cannot be the basis for suspending the proceedings, since it did not exist at the time of the decision by the court of first
instance. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court is limited in reviewing the case to the evidence that was available at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance and cannot take into account new circumstances that arose after that. The court also noted that an unjustified suspension of proceedings leads to delays in the consideration of the case and a violation of the rights of participants in the proceedings to a speedy trial.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling to suspend proceedings and sent the case back to the appellate court to continue consideration.
**Case No. 200/13551/21 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision on the demolition of a non-residential building and the recovery of material and moral damages caused by the demolition.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances because they did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not identify the demolition object on the ground, did not assess the technical documentation for the object, did not take into account the existence of registered property rights to objects with identical numbers, and did not clarify the legal status of the disputed property (capital structure or temporary structure). The court also pointed out the need to take into account the principle of comprehensive, complete and objective examination of evidence and to assess all arguments of the parties to the case. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of establishing the identity of real estate objects specified in various documents, and the need to identify the object on the ground to determine the legality of the defendants’ actions regarding the demolition.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 2608/781/12 dated 10/24/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the application of LLC “FC “Trust Finance” to replace the claimant in the enforcement proceedings, as it found that LLC “FC “Trust Finance” acquired the right of claim under the loan agreement on the basis of factoring agreements. The court noted that the factoring agreements have not been declared invalid, and therefore, the presumption of legality of the transaction has not been disproved. The court also pointed out that the transfer of procedural rights and obligations in enforcement proceedings depends on the transfer of substantive rights, in particular, the right of claim in the obligation. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that there is no evidence in the case file of the transfer of the rights of claim to the applicant, since the courts established the existence of such evidence. The court also took into account that the factoring agreements have not been declared invalid, that is, the presumption of legality of the transaction has not been disproved.
3.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 553/173/22 dated 20/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdicts of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of a person for intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdicts, supporting the decisions of the previous courts, which thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case. The courts established that the convicted person, while intoxicated, inflicted numerous blows to the victim’s head and body with a hammer, which indicated the intent to kill. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding necessary defense or a state of strong emotional disturbance, as they were not confirmed by the case materials. The appellate court reasonably increased the term of punishment, considering the high degree of public danger of the crime, the cruelty of the convicted person’s actions, the lack of remorse and attempts to compensate for the damage. Also, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to increase the amount of compensation for moral damages to the victim, considering the depth of her mental suffering.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the verdict of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defender and the representative of the victim.
Case No. 910/4581/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which partially satisfied the complaint of Silverill Trading Limited and canceled a number of registration actions regarding Business Equipments Ukraine LLC.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, as a discrepancy was established between the operative part of the decision, set out in its introductory and operative parts, as well as in the full text, and the content of this part, which was announced in the court session and recorded by a technical recording. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural rules, in particular Articles 240, 281, 284 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for announcing court decisions and their compliance with the actual content. It was also emphasized that the principle of the rule of law requires legal certainty and stability of court decisions, and the immutability of the decision is an important property of the act of justice. Considering the identified violations, the Supreme Court decided that the subject of appeal cannot be determined, since the announced operative part of the decision does not correspond to its full text, and therefore did not express its opinion on other arguments of the cassation appeals.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 911/1272/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the violated intellectual property right to a utility model, the owner of which is PE Yerosov O.Yu., and the defendant is PE Skiba I.O., who, according to the plaintiff, uses this utility model in his economic activity.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the case. The court of appeal reasonably took into account that the dispute arose in connection with the economic activity of the parties, since the plaintiff is the owner of a patent for a utility model and claims that the defendant uses this model in his business activities. The court of appeal also lawfully accepted additional evidence submitted by the plaintiff, as it confirms the use of the utility model in his economic activity, and the need to submit it arose after the defendant’s relevant statements. The court of cassation emphasized that the issue of using the utility model in economic activity is important for determining the jurisdiction of the dispute, and the courts of previous instances properly assessed the submitted evidence. The court also rejected the defendant’s motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as it does not see in the case an exceptional legal problem that requires resolution at the level of the Grand Chamber.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PE Skiba I.O. and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 208/13022/24 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of a separate ruling of the appellate court regarding the appeal to the High Council of Justice to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility.
2. The appellate court issued a separate ruling, believing that the judge of the court of first instance exceeded his authority by considering a motion to extend the preventive measure, which may indicate interference with the automated court system and violation of the rules of judicial ethics, since, according to the appellate court, the judge of the court of first instance questioned the lawful decision of the appellate court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, noting that a separate ruling cannot relate to issues related to the substance of the criminal proceedings and its provision, which includes the consideration of a motion to extend the preventive measure. The Supreme Court emphasized that there are other mechanisms in the Criminal Procedure Code for resolving issues regarding the legality of the composition of the court and the validity of the investigating judge’s ruling. The Supreme Court emphasized that separate rulings should be made only in cases where there are no other mechanisms to eliminate obstacles to the implementation of pr
Judicial Precedent.
2. The Supreme Court revoked a separate ruling of the appellate court.
**Case No. 398/4573/24 dated 10/29/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding criminal proceedings against a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm).
The operative part of the decision does not provide any arguments of the court. The text indicates that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, therefore, it is currently impossible to establish the motives that guided the Supreme Court in upholding the appellate court’s ruling and rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation appeal. For now, it can only be assumed that the court of cassation instance did not find grounds to overturn the appellate court’s decision, agreeing with its conclusions regarding the legality and validity of the previous decision.
The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the appellate court’s ruling and dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 712/5082/21 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against an acquittal of a person accused of entering knowingly false information into official documents (Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court’s decision, which upheld the acquittal of the court of first instance, based on the following:
* The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware and knowingly knew about the false nature of the information entered into the protocol and the resolution on administrative offense.
* The existence of direct intent in the actions of the accused regarding the entry of false information about the place of drawing up the protocol and notifying the person about the place and time of the case hearing was not proven.
* There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the accused and another person, as well as abuse of official position.
* The payment by the person against whom the protocol was drawn up of damages for unauthorized occupation of land and a fine under the resolution may indicate their agreement with the established violations.
* The appellate court did not violate the requirements of the criminal procedural law, in particular regarding the direct examination of evidence, as it agreed with the assessment of evidence provided by the court of first instance.
* The behavior of witnesses, in particular the refusal to provide incriminating testimony, may indicate that they have no claims against the accused.
3. The decision of the appellate court was upheld, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
**Case No. 757/35067/20 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to open proceedings on the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discoveredby rulings of the same court.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the appellate court, stating that the appellate court failed to take into account the provisions of Part 1 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 5-r(II)/2024 of April 10, 2024, and the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of February 24, 2025. The Court emphasized that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized as constitutional the provision of Part 1 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which does not contain a prohibition on the review of any types of court decisions that have entered into legal force based on newly discovered circumstances. The Supreme Court emphasized that the ruling of the investigating judge may be reviewed based on newly discovered circumstances if it unreasonably restricts the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person, and its further validity would contradict the purpose of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court committed a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which casts doubt on the legality and validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 695/3559/19 dated 10/29/2025
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 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury that caused a short-term health disorder).
The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part, however, by reversing the ruling of the appellate court, it probably pointed to significant violations of the criminal procedure law committed by the appellate court when reviewing the judgment of the court of first instance, or to the incompleteness of the examination of evidence or the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case. It is possible that the appellate court did not properly assess the defense’s arguments, did not check the validity of the judgment of the court of first instance, or committed other violations that could affect the legality and validity of the ruling. For a full understanding of the position of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the resolution, which will state the reasons for the reversal of the appellate court’s decision.
The Supreme Court partially granted the defender’s cassation appeal, reversed the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 443/709/20 dated 10/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of criminal proceedings due to the death of the accused PERSON_7, where the defender insists on the need to rehabilitate the deceased.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court carefully examined the arguments of the defender’s appeal and reasonably found them to be unfounded.
having established that the courts of previous instances correctly established the actual circumstances of the case and reached a reasonable conclusion regarding the guilt of PERSON_7 in committing the criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering that the purpose of the case was the rehabilitation of the deceased, and the courts fully and comprehensively investigated all the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and did not establish significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. The court also noted that the appellate court properly assessed all the arguments of the defense and carefully examined their content and materials of the criminal proceedings, reasonably finding no grounds for their satisfaction.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defender.
Case No. 916/3625/24 dated 10/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the Homeowners Association (HOA) against the decision of the court of first instance to partially satisfy the claim of the gas supply company for debt collection.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, since the HOA missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for the omission. The court noted that the HOA was duly notified of the decision of the court of first instance through an electronic account in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS), and references to power outages and missile strikes were not properly substantiated as obstacles to timely appeal to the court. The court also did not recognize as valid reasons related to the untimely delivery of the appeal by the courier service, since the individual entrepreneur who carried out the delivery is not an authorized postal operator. The court emphasized that the parties to the case must take measures to timely receive information about court decisions and comply with procedural deadlines, and improper organization of the appeal process is a subjective reason that cannot be the basis for restoring the missed deadline.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the HOA.
Case No. 910/12918/20 dated 10/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to close appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case, but believes that the court decision concerns their rights and interests.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that, in accordance with procedural law, a person who did not participate in the case must prove that the court decision
first instance directly concerns its rights, interests, or obligations, and this connection must be obvious and unconditional. The court noted that the appellate court correctly determined that JSC “Pokrovskyi Mining and Processing Plant” did not prove that the decision of the court of first instance directly affects its rights and interests. The court also emphasized that the appellant’s reference to the text of the claim in another case is not a sufficient basis for recognizing such an impact. The cassation court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that there are no grounds to believe that the appealed court decision directly affects the rights, interests, and/or obligations of JSC “Pokrovskyi Mining and Processing Plant”. Considering the above, the cassation court upheld the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged.
**Case №910/16017/24 dated 10/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) in the part concerning “Ruten Engineering” LLC, by which the company was found guilty of violating the legislation on protection of economic competition through anticompetitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of bidding results.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the AMCU reasonably established the fact of concerted actions between “Ruten Engineering” LLC and another company during the preparation and participation in the bidding, which is confirmed by numerous factors, such as the relationship between the companies through other business entities, economic relations, shared use of communication means and IP addresses, payment for the services of the electronic platform by one company at the expense of the other, communication between the companies, submission of estimates created by the same contractor, and the presence of files with identical properties. The court emphasized that for the qualification of actions as anticompetitive, it is not necessary to prove the occurrence of negative consequences; the very fact of coordination of behavior that may affect competition is sufficient. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the absence of bidding results excludes the possibility of qualifying actions as leading to distortion, since failure to achieve the goal for reasons beyond the control of the participants is not a basis for the absence of an offense. The court emphasized that each case involving the AMCU is individual, and proving a violation is based on a combination of circumstances, not on a separate fact.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Ruten Engineering” LLC, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
**Case №206/4800/23 dated 10/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal
