Case №15/81 (910/14943/24) dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff in the bankruptcy case from the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine to the State Property Fund of Ukraine due to the transfer of the integral property complex of the State Enterprise “Production Association “Kyiv Radio Plant” to the sphere of management of the Fund.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous instances on the replacement of the plaintiff, based on the fact that procedural succession involves the transfer of the rights and obligations of a party in the case to another person in connection with the departure of the person in the disputed substantive legal relationship. The court noted that the provisions of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not establish any conditions for the replacement of a party by its legal successor, except for establishing the fact of the transfer of the substantive rights of the predecessor to the person. Also, the court indicated that the provisions of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not prohibit the replacement of the plaintiff by its legal successor, even if the transfer of the plaintiff’s (predecessor’s) substantive rights to the legal successor occurred before such plaintiff filed a claim with the court. The court took into account that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine transferred the State Enterprise “Production Association “Kyiv Radio Plant” from the sphere of management of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine to the sphere of management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, which became the basis for procedural succession. The court also noted that the uniformity of judicial practice is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Vardings” LLC, and the court decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №914/597/23 dated 10/29/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal by the tax authority of the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse to recognize its creditor claims against the bankrupt.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, which, although it recognized the conclusion of the court of first instance about the prematurity of the tax authority’s claim as erroneous, agreed with the final result – the refusal to satisfy the claims. The appellate court found that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the amount of monetary claims against the debtor, the grounds and the moment of occurrence of tax obligations. In addition, the appellate court took into account that the tax assessment notices, on which the tax authority’s claims were based, were canceled by the decision of the administrative court, which entered into legal force. The court of cassation instance also noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence provided to the courts of previous instances. Regarding the appeal of the ruling of the preliminary hearing of the court of first instance, the Supreme Court noted that since it was not reviewed on the merits in the appellate procedure, the cassation court cannot review it.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged, while closing the cassation proceedings regarding the appealed ruling.
of rulings of previous court hearings of the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/12559/20 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of obligations under loan agreements between Joint Stock Company “Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant” and Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant”, which was not a party to the case, filed an appeal, claiming that the decision of the court of first instance concerns its rights and interests, but the appellate court found that the decision of the court of first instance does not directly decide the issue of the rights, interests and obligations of PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant”, and therefore, PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant” does not have the right to appeal this decision. The court of cassation emphasized that in order for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal the decision, it is necessary to prove that the decision of the court of first instance directly decides the issue of his/her rights, interests and obligations, and this connection must be obvious and unconditional. The court also noted that the reference to the contractual relations between JSC “Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant” and PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant” in the decision of the court of first instance is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the decision concerns the rights and interests of PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant”. The court of cassation also emphasized that the right to access to court is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, in particular, regarding the conditions for the admissibility of complaints.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “Stakhanov Ferroalloy Plant” and left the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 922/2737/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “DV Naftogazvydobuvna Kompaniya” in favor of the state represented by the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine of arrears in payment of concession fees, penalties, inflation losses and 3% per annum under the Concession Agreement.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings, noting that the appellate court unreasonably decided that it could not hear the case until another case was resolved, since the appellate court could independently establish the circumstances regarding the plaintiff’s (Ministry of Energy) belonging based on the available evidence. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not explain why it could not establish these circumstances on its own, and that the suspension of proceedings leads to a delay in the consideration of the case, violating the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the interconnectedness of cases is not a sufficient basis for suspending proceedings if the court has sufficient legal grounds to consider the dispute on its merits. The court also took into account the practice of the Europeanof the European Court of Human Rights regarding the obligation of national courts to ensure prompt and effective case consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case to the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal for continued consideration.
**Case No. 916/5530/23 (916/1958/25) dated November 11, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the commercial appellate court’s ruling regarding the partial cancellation of the first instance court’s ruling on securing a claim before the filing of a lawsuit in a bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “Dakort” LLC, stating that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by considering the appeal of “Chasopys Plus” LLC, as the extension of the deadline for appealing was not properly justified, and the procedural status of “Chasopys Plus” LLC in the case was not clearly defined. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the justification for the seizure of the disputed property, but rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need for additional prohibitions, such as the execution of transactions and registration actions, as the seizure is a sufficient measure to secure the claim. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prohibition on “Credit Agricole Bank” JSC from taking actions to foreclose on the property is unfounded, as no claims were made against the bank. The court of cassation instance noted that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the stated claims and not violate the rights of persons who are not parties to the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the consideration of the appeal of “Chasopys Plus” LLC and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and left the rest of the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
**Case No. 911/1353/23 dated November 4, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the supply of electricity to a consumer.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the defendant’s facilities, to which electricity was supplied, were located in the temporarily occupied territory, and according 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,” the transfer of goods (works, services), including electricity, to such territory is prohibited. The court noted that the fact of the occupation of the city of Kherson is a well-known fact and does not require proof. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in case No. 908/1162/23, which confirmed that the provisions of Article 13-1 apply to territories temporarily occupied during martial law, even in the absence of a corresponding decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the inconsistency of Article 13-1 with other regulatory legal acts governing electricity supply.
of electricity, referring to the hierarchy of legal acts, where the law has higher legal force. The court emphasized that proving or disproving the fact of electricity consumption by the defendant is not legally relevant for resolving the dispute.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 905/55/24 dated 29/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk region (GU PFU) against the refusal of the courts of previous instances to recognize its monetary claims against “DTEK Skhidenergo” LLC (LLC “DTEK Skhidenergo”) in the amount of UAH 12,519,776.60, which is the debt on payment of capitalized payments for 15 persons in the bankruptcy case of LLC “DTEK Skhidenergo”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, since the GU PFU did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of damage to the life and health of 15 persons, the amount of their average monthly earnings, the degree of loss of professional ability to work, the term of insurance payments, and the correct calculation of the difference between the average life expectancy and the age of the persons at the time of capitalization. The court noted that the screenshots from the internal system IKIS PFU provided by the GU PFU are not primary documents and do not contain legally significant information to confirm the insured event and connection with labor activity. The court also took into account that the GU PFU did not prove the impossibility of providing primary documents due to military actions and did not provide evidence of the absence of statistical data on life expectancy for the relevant years. The court indicated that the absence of proper supporting documents makes it impossible to verify the correctness of the calculation of capitalized payments.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk region, and to leave the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk region and the decision of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/16192/24 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of insurance compensation, penalties, 3% per annum and inflation losses in connection with the improper performance by the insurance company of the terms of the cargo insurance agreement.
2. The court granted the claim, since the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to confirm the reality of the economic operations for the purchase and sale of the insured cargo, as well as properly confirmed the amount of damage caused by the fire, in particular, by the conclusion of an expert warned of criminal liability for a knowingly false conclusion. The court rejected the conclusion of the expert provided by the defendant, since the expert was not asked a question regarding the establishment of signs of fraud in the actions of the plaintiff, as well as due to the presence of deficiencies in the primary documents, which, however,
The court did not recognize them as material. The court also took into account that the parties corrected a clerical error in the supply agreement, which refutes the defendant’s claim that it was falsified. The court noted that the defendant had not proven with proper evidence the existence of grounds for refusing to pay insurance compensation, provided for in the insurance contract. The court also agreed with the calculations of the penalty, 3% per annum and inflation losses provided by the plaintiff.
3. The court decided to recover from PrJSC “IC “Unika” in favor of LLC “Doc Pro” insurance compensation, penalty, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
Case No. 873/73/25 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the arbitration court to recover from LLC “Agroprogress Plus” in favor of LLC “Saatbau Probstdorfer Ukraine” debt, penalties, fines, annual interest and inflation losses under the supply agreement.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court, which refused to set aside the decision of the arbitration court, based on the fact that the dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court on the basis of the arbitration agreement, concluded in writing in the form of an arbitration clause in the supply agreement. The court noted that the supply agreement was signed using a qualified electronic signature, which is confirmed by verification protocols, and the appellant’s arguments about the invalidity of the electronic signature were not properly refuted. The court also indicated that the composition of the arbitration court was formed in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Arbitration Courts” and the Regulations of the Arbitration Court, and the appellant’s arguments about the violation of the procedure for appointing a judge are unfounded. The court also took into account that the decision of the arbitration court does not contain violations of the rights of persons who did not participate in the case, and does not resolve issues that go beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.
3. The court dismissed the appeal of LLC “Agroprogress Plus” and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/10444/22 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the satisfaction of the complaint regarding the cancellation of the state registration of the right of permanent use of land plots by the plaintiff.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the courts did not take into account that the dispute concerns property rights to land plots, where the parties are the plaintiff, who considers the cancellation of the registration of his right unlawful, and the Kobeliaky City Council, to the reserve lands of which the disputed plots are assigned. The court emphasized that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine is not a proper defendant in a dispute about property rights to land, since the plaintiff has no dispute with it about such rights. The Court departed from previous conclusions, according to which the only defendant in such disputes may be the Ministry of Justice, noting that this contradicts the conclusions about the composition of the parties in similar disputes.
x. Also, the court departed from the conclusions that the claim to challenge the order of the Ministry of Justice does not lead to the full protection of the plaintiff’s rights, stating that such a claim may be aimed at putting the plaintiff in possession through state registration of the right based on a court decision.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the claim, pointing out that the claim was filed against an improper defendant.
Case No. 916/5530/23(916/1958/25) dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a third party who does not assert independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, namely the bank, with its successor in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that procedural succession is possible only in the case of the transfer of rights in disputed substantive legal relations, and in this case, the dispute concerns the mortgage. The court indicated that the involvement of the bank in the case as a third party was due to its status as a mortgagee. Since the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim under the mortgage agreement was not notarized and did not undergo state registration, as required by the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” and the Civil Code of Ukraine, the right of the mortgagee did not pass to the new creditor. Therefore, there are no grounds for replacing the original mortgagee with a new creditor as a third party in the case, since the decision in the case will not affect the rights of the new creditor as a mortgagee. The court also rejected the appellate court’s argument about the creation of an “abstract mortgage” due to the impossibility of proper оформлення (registration/execution) of the assignment of claims, since the main thing is the absence of the transfer of the mortgagee’s rights in accordance with the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to replace the third party.
Case No. 910/9063/22 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of electricity transmission services.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, regarding the volume of services provided in the temporarily occupied territories and the legality of charging penalties. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments that part of the electricity was consumed in the temporarily occupied territories, which could affect the amount of debt. In addition, the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the procedure for applying planned and actual volumes of services in calculations. The court also pointed out the need to investigate evidence regarding the defendant’s receipt of acts and invoices to determine the moment of occurrence of liability for violation of a monetary obligation.
Considering these shortcomings, the court of cassation concluded that a new trial was necessary for a complete and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recovery of the disputed debt and penalties, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/824/20 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court to close appellate proceedings on a shareholder’s complaint against the ruling of the court of first instance on the appointment of an expert examination in a case regarding the invalidation of the decision of the supervisory board of a joint-stock company on the redemption of shares.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that in order for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal a court decision, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly concerns their rights, interests, or obligations. The appellate court found that the ruling on the appointment of an expert examination does not contain any conclusions regarding the rights and obligations of the complainant as a shareholder, but only decides the procedural issue of the expediency of conducting an expert examination to clarify the circumstances of the case. The court also took into account that the complainant was present at the general meeting of shareholders, where the decision to separate the new company was made, and had the opportunity to exercise their rights as a shareholder. The complainant’s arguments about a possible decrease in the amount of dividends are only assumptions, since the decision to pay dividends is made by the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the appellate court reasonably closed the appellate proceedings, since the ruling of the court of first instance did not decide on the rights, interests, or obligations of the complainant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/7445/23 dated 11/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar regarding the registration of ownership of real estate for LLC “Linkor Trade Ukraine”, which was acquired at electronic auctions.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim of LLC “Linkor Trade Ukraine”, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the subject composition of the parties in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The court noted that in disputes concerning property rights, the defendant should be the person whose right to the property is disputed (in this case, PJSC “Ukraine”), and not only the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, with which the plaintiff has no dispute about property rights. Since LLC “Linkor Trade Ukraine” did not involve PJSC “Ukraine” in the case, the court concluded that the claim should be dismissed due to its submission to
improper defendant. The court also referred to the fact that the determination of defendants is the right of the plaintiff, but the establishment of the proper defendants is the duty of the court. **** The court noted that it departs from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the only defendant could be the Ministry of Justice.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous courts and refused to satisfy the claim of LLC “Linkor Trade Ukraine”.
**Case No. 910/2417/24 dated 04/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of the church by the Limited Liability Company “Center for Spiritual Development” (LLC).
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the case, took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the subject composition of the parties in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, noting that in such disputes it is necessary to take into account the legal nature of the legal relations. Since the dispute arose regarding property rights to the church, and the parties are the LLC, which considers the cancellation of ownership unfounded, and the Religious Organization, which initiated the cancellation, claiming its rights to the church and land, the court concluded that the Religious Organization should also be a defendant in the case. The court noted that filing a claim only against an improper defendant (Ministry of Justice) is grounds for rejecting the claim. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances mistakenly focused on assessing the plaintiff’s arguments regarding violations committed by the Ministry of Justice, instead of properly determining the defendants. **** The court departed from previous conclusions that in similar disputes the only defendant may be the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged, changing only the reasoning part of the decisions.
**Case No. 921/770/23 dated 12/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of FOP (Individual Entrepreneur) Kosmyna Andriy Volodymyrovych for the recovery from LLC “Eco-Pet” of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application for reimbursement of legal aid costs, was guided by the following arguments: a party has the right to reimbursement of costs if it declared this before the end of the court debate, provided evidence of the costs incurred and their justification; the absence of objections from the other party regarding the disproportion of costs is an important condition for their reimbursement; the court may reduce the amount of reimbursement if the costs are inflated, unjustified or do not correspond to the services actually provided, however, such a reduction requires justification and evidence of non-compliance; the court takes into account the criteria of reality of attorney’s fees, their necessity and reasonableness of the amount, as well as proportionality to the subject of the dispute.
The court noted that interference in the contractual relations between a lawyer and a client is possible only if there is evidence of inconsistency of expenses with the services provided. Considering that Eko-Pet LLC did not object to the amount of expenses and did not file a motion to reduce them, the Supreme Court partially granted the application of Private Entrepreneur Kosmina, reducing the amount of compensation to UAH 20,000, considering it commensurate with the work performed in the cassation instance.
3. The court partially granted the application of Private Entrepreneur Andrii Volodymyrovych Kosmina and ordered Eko-Pet LLC to pay UAH 20,000 in expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 756/2959/24 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the plaintiff’s dismissal due to staff reduction, reinstatement, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether a comparison of the plaintiff’s productivity and qualifications with other employees in similar positions was carried out to determine the preferential right to remain at work. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the employer’s obligation to offer all available vacancies that match the employee’s qualifications, and not only those that were listed in the formal list of vacancies at the time of the warning about dismissal. The court of cassation emphasized that when considering labor disputes related to dismissal due to staff reduction, courts must carefully check the employer’s compliance with the requirements of the law regarding the employee’s employment and taking into account their preferential right to remain at work. The incomplete establishment of these circumstances by the appellate court led to an incorrect resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 620/6216/24 dated 12/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Northern Office of the State Audit Service to the Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise “Regional Center for Emergency Medical Assistance and Disaster Medicine” to eliminate violations discovered during the audit of financial and economic activities.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the enterprise’s claim to invalidate the demand of the State Audit Service, pointing out that the courts did not analyze the violations established by the controlling body during the audit and did not properly assess the content of the demand as an individual legal act that creates rights and obligations for the supervised institution. The court emphasized that the demand for compensation for damages established by the controlling body is mandatory, and failure to comply with this demand may result in an appeal to the court in the interests of the state. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should have verified the validity
the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the financial control body’s compliance with the law when adopting the disputed requirement, as well as the validity of the controlling body’s arguments regarding whether the disputed requirement creates rights and obligations for the plaintiff. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances prematurely concluded that the claim should be dismissed on the grounds of an improper method of protecting the violated right.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 620/18380/23 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court noted that it is necessary to take into account the changes in legislation introduced by Law No. 2352-IX, which came into force on July 19, 2022, and to divide the disputed period into two parts: before and after this date. Until July 19, 2022, the version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine without a limitation on the payment period applies, and after – with a limitation of six months. The court also emphasized the need to take into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the principle of proportionality in determining the amount of compensation, even after the amendments to Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court pointed out the need to establish the amount of average earnings for the entire period of the delay in settlement, the total amount of payments due to the plaintiff upon dismissal, as well as the share of paid and unpaid funds.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 520/29083/24 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the refusal of the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) to issue a referral to the Medical and Social Expert Commission (MSEC) and the refusal to pay a one-time financial assistance in connection with the establishment of a disability group related to military service.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, emphasized that for the payment of a one-time financial assistance to a person serving in the SBI, the simultaneous presence of three conditions is necessary: disability must be the result of a disease related to service, established within six months after dismissal, and dismissal must be due to this disease. The court emphasized that the very fact that the disease began before service is not decisive, but it is important to establish disability as a result of a disease related to service. The court also noted that determining the causal relationship between the disease and military service is a discretionary power of the Military Medical Commission (MMC), and the courts cannot assume these functions. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out the need for the courts of the previousof their instances, a proper legal assessment of the evidence available in the case file, in particular, the certificate of illness, the MSEK (Medical-Social Expert Commission) certificate, and the order to dismiss the plaintiff from service, in the context of establishing the three mandatory conditions with which the law associates the right to receive a one-time monetary allowance.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 560/8127/25 dated 12/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Department for Registration of the Khmelnytskyi City Council to register the child’s place of residence at the mother’s address, who is the owner of the dwelling.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings, arguing that the dispute is of a civil law nature, not a public law one. The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the plaintiff is appealing precisely against the decision of a subject of power to refuse to provide an administrative service, and not a dispute over the right to use housing. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not claim a violation of her property rights to housing or obstacles to the realization of her private law rights, but her right was violated precisely by the decision of a subject of power. The court also noted that the dispute arose in connection with the refusal to provide an administrative service, and not because another person acquired the right to use the dwelling. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances prematurely concluded that the plaintiff’s appeal to the court was due to the need to protect her housing and property rights, and therefore the case should not be considered under the rules of administrative proceedings.
The court decided to grant the cassation appeal, overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and send the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 620/16629/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (MES) to amend the Unified State Electronic Database on Education (EDEBO) regarding information on the plaintiff’s violation of the sequence of obtaining education.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the right to deferment from military service during mobilization is granted to students who study in full-time or dual form and obtain a level of education higher than the previously obtained one, in the sequence defined by law. The court noted that the main criterion is the completion of the previous stage of education and obtaining the relevant document on education. Since the plaintiff did not complete studies for a bachelor’s degree and did not receive the corresponding diploma, his enrollment in studies to obtain a professional junior bachelor’s degree is not a violation of the sequence of obtaining education. The court also indicated that it is the MES, as the manager
the EDEBO, has the authority to make changes to the database regarding the sequence of education, and not the educational institution where the plaintiff is studying. Considering that the certificate from EDEBO is generated automatically, but the procedure is determined by the MES, the Ministry itself must ensure that the certificate is generated in compliance with the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized the actions of the MES as illegal and ordered changes to be made to the EDEBO.
Case No. 580/5079/23 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the commander of the military unit recognizing the plaintiff as having unauthorizedly left the location of the military unit.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the court without valid reasons, since he received a copy of the appealed order on 20.12.2022, but appealed to the court only on 21.06.2023, that is, with a delay of one month established for appealing orders on military service. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that he could not appeal the order in time due to lack of information about the reasons for its adoption, since the lawyer’s request on this matter was submitted only after the deadline for appealing to the court, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence of taking measures to prepare for appealing the order during this period. Also, the court did not recognize as valid reasons for missing the deadline for appealing to the court inpatient treatment that the plaintiff underwent before the appealed order was issued, and outpatient treatment, since it does not deprive the opportunity to appeal to the court. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff does not deny the fact of absence from service from the moment the order was issued, therefore, references to martial law and the performance of tasks to repel the armed aggression of the Russian Federation are not justified.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.
Case No. 280/1645/18 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of damages caused to the energy supplier as a result of the consumer’s violation of the Rules for the Use of Electrical Energy (RPUEE), namely unauthorized connection to the power grid.
2. The appellate court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that a contract for the use of electricity was concluded between the parties, and during the inspection, the defendant’s violation of RPUEE was discovered, which is confirmed by the act of violation, which the defendant signed without comments. The court noted that the calculation of the cost of unrecorded electricity was carried out in accordance with the Methodology approved by the NERC resolution, and that the fact of the defendant’s violation of the RPUEE had already been established by a court decision in another case. The appellate court rejected the expert opinion, conduct
