**Case No. 754/9673/24 dated 05/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of 3% annual interest and inflation losses based on Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine due to the defendants’ failure to comply with previous court decisions regarding the recovery of funds from them.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. The courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that new 3% annual interest and inflation losses based on Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine cannot be accrued on obligations to pay inflation losses and 3% annual interest, which arose from previous court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establishes general rules of liability for violation of any monetary obligation, regardless of the grounds for its occurrence, including obligations arising on the basis of court decisions. The court also indicated that the provisions on exemption from liability for delay in fulfilling a monetary obligation during martial law do not apply to legal relations arising from non-compliance with court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of the subject matter and grounds of the claim, the arguments of the parties, and also did not verify the correctness of the plaintiff’s calculations.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 910/5831/24 dated 03/11/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case on invalidating the decision of the Homeowners Association regarding the imposition of penalties.
The court partially satisfied the application for recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made, but took into account the criteria of reality and reasonableness of such expenses. The court examined the submitted evidence, in particular the contract for the provision of legal assistance, the price agreement protocol, the act of acceptance and transfer of services, and a detailed description of the work. The court took into account the consistency of the plaintiff’s legal position, the absence of changes in the regulatory and legal regulation, and the awareness of the plaintiff’s representative of the circumstances of the case, which did not require a significant amount of legal work in preparing for the cassation review. Considering this, the court reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, considering the claimed amount to be disproportionate to the volume of services actually provided in the cassation instance.
The court ordered the recovery of UAH 5,000 from the Homeowners Association in favor of the plaintiff for expenses for professional legal assistance.
**Case No. 580/5022/24 dated 04/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the right of a person who suffered as a result of the Chernobyl disaster to recalculate the pension in the amount provided for in Articlearticles 50 and 54 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chornobyl Disaster” as amended by Law No. 230/96-VR.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of the amount of pension payments for persons affected by the Chornobyl disaster, namely regarding the application of the wording of Law No. 796-XII in calculating pensions. The Court noted that the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure the social protection of citizens affected by the Chornobyl disaster, and amendments to legislation should not worsen their level of social protection. The Court emphasized that restricting the right to social security of such persons is unacceptable, and an additional pension is an integral part of the state’s positive obligation to provide enhanced social protection. The Court also took into account previous decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the inadmissibility of canceling benefits for Chornobyl victims. The Court departed from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, which stated that the additional pension should be accrued in the order and amounts determined by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated November 23, 2011, No. 1210.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and issued a new decision, which recognized as unlawful the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region to recalculate the plaintiff’s pension and ordered the recalculation and payment of the pension in accordance with articles 50, 54 of Law No. 796-XII as amended by Law No. 230/96-VR.
Case No. 910/1825/24 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
2. The decision does not provide any arguments of the court that it relied on when making the decision. There is no information about the circumstances of the case, the positions of the parties, the motives of the court of first and appellate instances. Instead, only a formal decision is indicated on the partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances and leaving them unchanged in other parts.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Private Joint Stock Company “Spika”, changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording, and left them unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 640/9391/19 dated 03/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions, by which Enerhokonsalt LLC was additionally charged income tax and value added tax, and the amount of the negative VAT value was reduced.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the courts of previous instances committed violations of the norms of procedural law, in particular, did not fully examine the evidence collected in the case, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the reality of economic transactions with all counterparties, did not establish the content of these transactions and which primary documentsand they are confirmed. The court noted that the mere fact of a verdict against the taxpayer’s counterparty, initiation of criminal proceedings, tax information regarding counterparties in the supply chain, or minor errors in the execution of primary documents are not independent and sufficient grounds for concluding that the economic operations are unreal. The court also took into account that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous conclusion that the status of a fictitious enterprise is incompatible with legal activity and emphasized that a verdict against an official of the counterparty does not create prejudice for the administrative court, unless specific circumstances regarding the plaintiff’s actions are established. The court emphasized that the controlling body must prove that the taxpayer acted unreasonably, in bad faith, or without due diligence, using documents with unreliable data.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 380/5405/24 dated 03/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the orders of the State Architectural and Construction Control Inspectorate (SACCI) to eliminate violations in the field of urban development, issued to the Branch of SE “Ukrderzhbudekspertyza” in the Lviv region.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim of the Branch, reasoning that the Branch is a separate subdivision of SE “Ukrderzhbudekspertyza,” but acts as an independent subject of urban development as an expert organization, which gives grounds for conducting inspections and issuing orders directly to the Branch. The court noted that the Branch acted on behalf of SE “Ukrderzhbudekspertyza,” but the violations were detected specifically in its activities, therefore, the orders addressed to the Branch are lawful. The court also established that the Branch was duly notified of the inspection but did not facilitate its conduct. The court emphasized that the Branch did not take into account the location of the retaining wall and did not comply with the requirements of DBN B.2.3-15:2007 regarding the placement of residential premises above the parking lot, which confirms the legality of the Inspectorate’s orders.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 917/2317/24 dated 03/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Vertical 21st Century” in favor of POKVPTH “Poltavateploenergo” of debt for heat energy supply services, which includes the principal debt, penalty, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse the opening of appellate proceedings because LLC “Vertical 21st Century” missed the deadline for appealing, and the reasons for the omission were not recognized as valid. The court noted that mandatory registration
electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS) is a legal requirement, and failure to comply with it is not a valid reason for reinstating a missed deadline. The court also emphasized that proper notification of court hearings is considered to have been made if the notice was sent to the address indicated in the Unified State Register (USR), even if the addressee did not actually receive it. The court did not recognize the director’s vacation and business trip as valid reasons for missing the deadline, as these are internal organizational matters of the company, for which it is responsible. The court emphasized that the party to the case is a legal entity, not its director, and the absence of other officials on staff is not an objective obstacle to appealing the decision in a timely manner.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Vertical 21st Century LLC, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 369/5694/21 dated 24/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot, the obligation to perform certain actions, and the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the state registration of a land plot.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, justifying it by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the violation of her rights as the owner of the land plot as a result of the defendant’s actions. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her rights in connection with the preparation of technical documentation for the defendant’s land plot by a certain legal entity, since she did not provide evidence of the incapacity of this legal entity at the time of preparation of the documentation. Also, the court took into account previous decisions in cases between the same parties, where circumstances regarding the plaintiff’s unauthorized occupation of a part of the public road had already been established. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the circumstances that have already been established in previous court decisions that have entered into legal force. In addition, the court found the rejection of the request to call an expert to be justified, since the expert’s opinion had already been assessed in the previous case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 911/1353/23 dated 04/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,076,659.61 under an electricity supply agreement.
2. The decision does not state any arguments that the court was guided by when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of ENERGY 365 LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 380/4897/22 dated 03/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is challenging
actions of the State Architectural and Construction Control Inspectorate regarding inspections and cancellation of prescriptions to eliminate violations in the field of urban planning.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the Inspectorate did not comply with the procedure for conducting an unscheduled inspection, failing to ensure the participation of the plaintiff, and failing to provide evidence of the plaintiff’s refusal to sign the inspection reports and protocols on administrative offenses. Also, the Inspectorate did not prove the fact that the plaintiff carried out any construction or preparatory work on the object, which is a mandatory condition for conducting state architectural and construction control. The court emphasized that inspections are possible only during the execution of construction works, except in cases of detection of unauthorized construction. The court took into account that the reconstruction of the plaintiff’s apartment was completed in 2013, and no evidence of any construction work after that was provided. The court of cassation noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal come down to a reevaluation of the circumstances, which is beyond its powers.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the State Architectural and Construction Control Inspectorate unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 160/12938/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the settlement council refusing to grant permission to develop a land management project for the allocation of a land plot into ownership for personal farming.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. In particular, the courts did not take into account the restrictions established during martial law regarding the gratuitous transfer of land into private ownership, although they referred to the fact that these restrictions do not apply to cases where there are real estate objects on the plot. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of real estate does not give the right to obtain permission to develop a land management project for personal farming with an area of 2.0 hectares during the period of martial law restrictions. The court also noted that it cannot substitute the decision of the local self-government body, but only verifies its legality. The court indicated that the norms of gratuitous transfer of land plots to citizens into ownership depend on the type of intended use of the land plot.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part concerning the obligation to grant permission to develop a land management project and obliged the settlement council to reconsider the issue of granting permission.
Case No. 120/10456/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the military unit against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the payment of compensation for unused leave to a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings because the military unit missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the obligation to comply with procedural deadlines rests with the person filing the appeal, and they must take all necessary steps to appeal to the court in a timely manner. The court also emphasized that the lack of funds to pay the court fee is not a valid reason for missing the deadline, as the state cannot benefit from violating the rules it has established. In addition, the court pointed out that the repeated filing of an appeal almost three months after the return of the first appeal indicates a lack of good faith in exercising the right to appeal. The court took into account that clearly defined deadlines for applying to the court are a guarantee of ensuring equality of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
**Case №260/1940/24 dated 03/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to pay monetary compensation for undelivered clothing allowance upon dismissal from military service.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to open proceedings because the plaintiff missed the one-month deadline for applying to the court established by Part Five of Article 122 of the CAS of Ukraine for cases related to passing and dismissal from public service, in particular military service. The courts noted that the right to compensation arises upon dismissal, and applying to the military unit for payment does not change the moment when the plaintiff should have learned about the violation of their rights. The courts also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that disputes regarding the guarantees of servicemen, even after dismissal, fall under the one-month deadline for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case №520/24729/24 dated 31/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices on the application of penalties for storing bioethanol in a place not included in the Unified State Register of Storage Locations.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous courts, indicated that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence of the storage of bioethanol in a place not included in the Unified State Register of Storage Locations, since the acts provided by the tax authority did not contain information that would allow establishing a direct link between accounting operations and the actual place of storage of bioethanol with reference to the storage facilities and addresses. The court also
indicated that the calculation of penalties was carried out by the controlling body in violation of legal requirements, as it was based on the value of the exported goods, and not on the value of the goods allegedly stored in an inappropriate place. The court emphasized that the plaintiff provided documents at the request of the tax authority, which indicates compliance with the requirements of the controlling body within the scope of the request. In addition, the court took into account that the plaintiff’s technological regulations provide for the accounting of bioethanol after passing through a flowmeter at the storage location entered in the Unified State Register of Storage Locations, and the tax authority did not provide evidence of deviation from these regulations.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 750/7085/23 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff from her position in connection with the reorganization of the Social Insurance Fund of Ukraine (SIFU) by joining the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU).
2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the case as a civil one, failing to take into account that the dispute concerns the reinstatement of an employee dismissed as a result of the reorganization of the SIFU by joining the PFU, in a position that belongs to the civil service in the PFU bodies. As a result of the reorganization of the SIFU, a legal entity of private law, its powers were transferred to the PFU, a legal entity of public law. The dispute arose in connection with the PFU’s exercise of authoritative management functions, which is a characteristic of a public law dispute. The court indicated that disputes related to admission to public service, its passage and termination, are regulated by the norms of administrative law and are subject to consideration in the procedure of administrative proceedings. Considering that the dispute concerns admission to public service, it should be considered according to the rules of administrative proceedings. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated December 09, 2024 in case No. 712/4776/23, which states that disputes related to the reinstatement of employees dismissed as a result of the reorganization of the Fund and its executive directorate by joining the Pension Fund of Ukraine, in positions whose vacant list is classified as civil service positions in the bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, concern admission to public service and are subject to consideration according to the rules of administrative proceedings.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to appeal to the administrative court.
Case No. 638/18040/17 dated 22/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot to the ownership of an individual and the recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreement
of this land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, based on the following: the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, since in the case of illegal withdrawal of property from the owner’s possession, the proper method of protection is a vindication claim for the recovery of property from illegal possession, and not appealing the decisions of authorities; appealing the decisions of authorities regarding the disputed property without a claim for the recovery of property is not an effective way to protect the owner’s right; the court cannot go beyond the limits of the claims defined by the plaintiff, and independently change the subject or grounds of the claim; the prosecutor’s reference to the violation of the interests of the state and society is not a sufficient justification for satisfying the claim if the chosen method of protection is ineffective. The court also noted that the principle of “jura novit curia” does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to substantiate their claims and choose the appropriate method of protection.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 465/1434/19 dated 10/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused to the plaintiff by injury to health due to the fault of the hospital.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the hospital’s cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to return the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to non-payment of court fees. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court reasonably pointed out the need for the court of first instance to verify the obligation to pay court fees, taking into account the plaintiff’s financial situation and the circumstances of the case, as well as the possibility of deferral, installment payment, or reduction of the court fee amount. The court of cassation noted that the right to access to justice is important, and an overly strict interpretation of procedural rules should not prevent a person from obtaining a review of their case on the merits. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding improper notification of the parties to the case, since the appellate court considered the case in simplified proceedings without notifying the parties to the case, as provided for by procedural law.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise of the Lviv Regional Council “Lviv Regional Clinical Psychiatric Hospital”, and the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeal of March 22, 2024, remained unchanged.
Case No. 295/4194/20 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of assignment agreements for claims under credit and mortgage agreements, the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on the registration of ownership of the apartment, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation also
instance supported the decisions of lower courts, which concluded that the assignment of the right of claim under the loan agreement in favor of an individual (PERSON_2) is unlawful, as it contradicts the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which stipulate that only a bank or other financial institution can be a creditor in a credit obligation. Since the assignment of the right of claim under the loan agreement was invalid, the subsequent reassignments of the right of claim under the mortgage agreement are also unlawful. Accordingly, PERSON_2 did not acquire ownership of the mortgaged property and therefore had no right to transfer it as a mortgage to PERSON_3. The court also took into account that the foreclosure of the mortgaged property occurred during the moratorium on the foreclosure of property of Ukrainian citizens provided as security for loans in foreign currency. The court noted that claiming property from the possession of the final acquirer is an effective way to protect the violated rights of the owner.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 202/18374/13-ц dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement from an individual.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the bank’s claim, reasoning that the bank, by applying to a notary for the execution of an enforcement inscription, changed the terms of the loan agreement and fixed the amount of debt as of the date of this inscription. Also, the appellate court took into account that the defendant was declared bankrupt as a sole proprietor, but the obligations of the individual to the bank were not fully repaid within the liquidation procedure. In addition, the appellate court took into account the amounts recovered from the defendant within the framework of the enforcement proceedings under a previous court decision. The bank did not provide a calculation of three percent per annum, accrued after the execution of the enforcement inscription, which made their recovery impossible. The court of cassation instance emphasized that filing a claim for early recovery of the loan changes the terms and duration of the loan agreement, and also that the obligations of the individual to the bank were not fully repaid within the liquidation procedure of the sole proprietor’s bankruptcy.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 585/1973/23 dated 05/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of crimes related to narcotic substances, provided for in Part 1 of Article 309 and Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, decided to amend the judgment of the appellate court, referring to Part 2 of Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court decided to apply the provisions of Part 1 of Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for a more lenient punishment than provided for in the sanction of the article, taking into account the circumof the case and the identity of the guilty party. As a result, the punishment under Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was reduced to 8 years of imprisonment. Based on Part 1 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the final punishment was determined by absorption of the less severe punishment by the more severe one, and amounted to 8 years of imprisonment. In other respects, the appellate court’s judgment remained unchanged.
The court ruled: to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, and to amend the appellate court’s judgment by reducing the term of imprisonment to 8 years.
Case No. 991/10682/25 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in a case of appropriation of property through abuse of office and official forgery.
2. The court approved the plea agreement, considering that it meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the law on criminal liability, in particular: the agreement contains the wording of the charge and its legal qualification; the accused unconditionally admitted his guilt; the agreement was concluded with the voluntary consent of the parties and with the participation of a defense counsel; the injured party gave written consent to the conclusion of the agreement; the terms of the agreement are in the interests of society, contribute to a faster resolution of the criminal proceedings and the exposure of other offenses; the agreed punishment corresponds to the general principles of sentencing, is proportionate and sufficient to correct the accused and prevent the commission of new crimes; the terms of the agreement do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons. The court also took into account that at the time of the case consideration, the statute of limitations for bringing criminal charges for one of the crimes had expired, and therefore the accused was released from punishment for this crime.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and rendered a guilty verdict.
Case No. 607/24183/23 dated 24/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the certificate of ownership of real estate and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights, since the plaintiff believes that his rights were violated as a result of the illegal registration of the defendant’s ownership of a share in the apartment.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, agreeing with their conclusions that the satisfaction of the claims for the cancellation of the certificate of ownership and the decision on state registration is an effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights, since it is the basis for the state registrar to enter information about the termination of the defendant’s ownership of the disputed share of the property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to close the proceedings in the case on the basis of the identity of the dispute with the previous case, as it established a difference in the composition of the participants, the subject matter and the grounds for the claim. The court also noted that the effectiveness of the method of protecting violated righ
the plaintiff is subject to assessment at the time of the dispute resolution. The court of cassation emphasized that it provided an exhaustive answer to all essential questions arising in the qualification of the disputed relations, both in substantive and procedural terms.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 913/353/23 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 3,862,305.35 from the Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise in favor of the Limited Liability Company.
In this case, the Supreme Court decided to overturn the decisions of the previous courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments relied upon by the Supreme Court from the provided text, as the reasoning part of the decision is missing. Typically, the court of cassation overturns the decisions of previous courts due to incorrect application of substantive law or violation of procedural law. To clarify the specific reasons for the reversal, it is necessary to review the full text of the decision, which outlines the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s position. Without analyzing the full text of the decision, it is difficult to provide a more specific comment on the court’s motives.
The court decided to partially grant the cassation appeals, overturn the decisions of the previous instances, and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 160/25184/21 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Dnipro City Council regarding the change of the functional purpose of the territory of estate development to the territory of multi-apartment development, which, according to the plaintiff, violates her rights as the owner of an estate house and land plot.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the disputed decisions concerned the general development of the city, due to population growth and urban planning processes. The court took into account that the general plan is a document that justifies the need for reconstruction and change of the functional purpose of the territory. Also, the court noted that when choosing sites for construction, the availability of suitable land, convenient connection with infrastructure, provision of engineering communications, and the state of the environment were taken into account. The court emphasized that measures for engineering preparation of the territory should be carried out at the stage of developing project documentation for the construction object, and not at the planning stage. In addition, the court took into account the positive expert report on the compliance of the draft amendments to the general plan with the requirements of the law, in particular, environmental ones. The court indicated that the city council’s decision does not impose an obligation on the plaintiff to change the designated purpose of her land plot and does not restrict her rights to use it.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals.
noral damage.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the plaintiff’s claims, based on the following: the plaintiff was dismissed in violation of labor laws, without taking into account the circumstances of his family situation and without offering him another position; the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal; the plaintiff’s dismissal was discriminatory, as it was based on his trade union activities. The court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff had a long and impeccable work record.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal without changes.
**Case No. 910/11506/24 dated October 29, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal actions of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” regarding the accrual to SSE “Ukrinterenergo” of the volume of electricity consumed by LLC “Zaporizhzhia Titanium and Magnesium Combine”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of SSE “Ukrinterenergo”, based on the fact that PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” groundlessly accrued to the plaintiff the volume of electricity consumed by LLC “Zaporizhzhia Titanium and Magnesium Combine” after the termination of electricity supply to this consumer, which was established by a previous court decision in case No. 910/3532/23. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the accruals were lawful, as there was a court order prohibiting the disconnection of the consumer, since the effect of this order had expired, and the court decision itself had been overturned. The court also did not take into account the defendants’ references to regulatory acts governing the functioning of the electricity sector under martial law, as the courts did not establish circumstances that would provide for the application of these norms to the disputed legal relations. The court emphasized that the actions of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” violate the rights and economic interests of SSE “Ukrinterenergo”, as they lead to the emergence of monetary obligations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 149/3828/23 dated November 5, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the owner of the land plot for its return from the use of the agricultural enterprise and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right to this plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the claim of the land owner, based on the following: although the land lease agreement was not signed personally by the owner, she had been receiving rent for a long time, which indicates her consent to the terms of the lease; the owner signed an agreement on amendments to the lease agreement, which confirms her expression of will to continue the lease relations; an agreement that was partially or fully performed by the parties cannot be considered unconcluded; the actions of the owner, who demands the return of the land after a long period of receiving rent, are unfair and contradict the previous behavior. The court also took into account the principle of good faith and the prohibition of contradictory behavior (venire contra factum proprium).
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal without changes.
**Case No. 191/3186/23 dated November 5, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal as illegal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence and compensation for moral damage.
ral damage.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of the plaintiff’s dismissal, as the employer violated the dismissal procedure by not obtaining the consent of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, since the plaintiff was an authorized person for the implementation of the anti-corruption program. The court of cassation pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the average earnings for the period of forced absence from work (Article 235 of the Labor Code) and the average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal (Article 117 of the Labor Code) have different legal nature. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court mistakenly applied the limitation on the term for recovery of average earnings provided for in Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, since in this case it was necessary to apply Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation stated that the court of first instance did not establish whose fault it was that the case was considered for more than one year, and therefore groundlessly recovered average earnings for the period of forced absence from work for more than one year.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 205/2944/21 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the debtor’s immovable property, namely, a 1/2 share of the apartment, the ownership of which is not registered in accordance with the procedure established by law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the submission of the state executor to foreclose on the 1/2 share of the debtor’s apartment, since the ownership of the entire apartment has already been registered to another person (PERSON_4) on the basis of a court decision in the inheritance case. The court took into account that in order to foreclose on property, the ownership of which is not registered, it is necessary to establish the fact that the debtor actually owns this property, but in this case it was not proven, since the ownership of the apartment has already been registered to another person. The court of cassation emphasized that possession of immovable property, which is certified by the state registration of ownership, may be lawful or unlawful, but the right of possession cannot be unlawful. The court also noted that in order to foreclose on a share of an apartment, the ownership of which is not registered to the debtor, it is necessary to first challenge the ownership of another person to the entire apartment and recognize the right to inherit a share by the debtor. The court of cassation also noted that civil law distinguishes between the right of possession as a component of the owner’s powers, as a type of property rights to another’s property, and as a right arising on a contractual basis, i.e., contractual possession.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 570/325/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the honor, dignity, and business reputation of the plaintiff, who believes that the defendant disseminated false information about them on the social network Facebook.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as it believes that the information disseminated by the defendant is their subjective evaluative judgment, not a factual statement. The court took into account that the plaintiff is a public figure, and therefore, the limit of criticism of their activities is broader. The court also noted that the defendant’s statements do not contain categorical accusations, but express their personal opinion and assessment of the plaintiff’s actions. The court referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which evaluative judgments are not subject to proof of truth and are protected by freedom of expression. The court also indicated that current legislation does not provide for liability for expressing evaluative judgments.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, refusing to grant the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/16311/24 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of certain clauses of the agreement between Private Joint-Stock Company “Izmail Pulp and Paper Mill” and Joint-Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank”.
The court’s arguments are not provided in the decision. It is only clear from the text that the court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court. The reasons for overturning the decision and the need for a new trial are not specified in the introductory and operative parts of the ruling.
The court ruled to partially grant the cassation appeal of Private Joint-Stock Company “Izmail Pulp and Paper Mill”, to overturn the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and to remand the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
