Case No. 922/3532/24 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), by which the actions of the Kramatorsk City Military Administration regarding the establishment of the procedure for transporting the bodies of deceased persons were recognized as a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition.
2. The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances, when canceling the decision of the AMCU, focused on the legal nature of the order of the military administration, but did not take into account how this order affected competition in the market of funeral services, in particular, whether this order gave advantages to certain business entities. The court also indicated that the compliance of the actions of business entities with civil or commercial legislation does not automatically mean compliance with antimonopoly legislation. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that state authorities should promote the development of competition and prevent violations of antimonopoly legislation within their powers. Considering that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court decided to cancel their decisions and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/19158/16 dated 11/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings based on a complaint by a person who did not participate in the case, against a ruling of the court of first instance approving a settlement agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that the person who filed the appeal did not prove that the ruling of the court of first instance approving the settlement agreement decided the issue of her rights, interests and/or obligations, since neither the reasoning nor the operative parts of the ruling contain any references that would relate to the rights and obligations of this person; The Supreme Court noted that the conclusions that the settlement agreement cannot be considered as a contract in the civil law sense were made in the context of specific circumstances of the cases and the essence of the claims for recognizing the settlement agreement as invalid, and cannot be applied to this situation; The Court also took into account the principle of legal certainty and res judicata, according to which the review of a final court decision cannot be carried out only for the purpose of re-examining the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/8620/24 dated 11/11/2025
The subject of the dispute was the obligation of the bank to transfer funds from the account of the unit investment fund in favor of the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court satisfied the
The court of cassation upheld the bank’s cassation appeal, reversing the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the obligation to recalculate funds and recover court fees in favor of the plaintiffs, and dismissed the claim in this part. The court of cassation, presumably, concluded that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law, or did not take into account certain circumstances relevant to the case. There may have been breaches of contractual obligations or insufficient evidence to substantiate the plaintiffs’ claims. Also, the court decided to recover from the plaintiffs in favor of the bank the court costs associated with the appeal and cassation appeal.
The court of cassation rendered a new decision dismissing the claim in the reversed part, and left the rest of the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 910/16665/21 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the 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 ownership of immovable property.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances, guided by the fact that the courts did not take into account the legal position 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, namely that the proper defendant in such a case is the person whose right to property is disputed, and not only the Ministry of Justice. The court noted that the plaintiff did not involve the person whose right is disputed in the case and insisted on satisfying the claims only against the Ministry of Justice, with which he has no dispute over property rights. Also, the court took into account that at the time of filing the claim against the person whose right is disputed, bankruptcy proceedings were opened, which provides for a special legal regime and concentration of disputes within the bankruptcy case. The court departed from the previous conclusions of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court regarding the subject composition of the parties in such disputes, taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim for cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
Case No. 904/3276/24 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the procurement contract as invalid and the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the contract concluded between the executive committee of the village council and an individual.
2. The court of cassation, reversing the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the dispute arose from civil, and not commercial, legal relations, since the procurement contract was concluded between the executive committee of the village council and an individual, and not an individual-entrepreneur. The court noted that the mere fact of registration of a person as an individual-entrepreneur does not mean that all of their legal relations automatically become commercial. It is important that an individual acquired ownership of the vehicle as an individua natural person, and the funds under the contract were received in the account of a natural person, not a sole proprietor. The court also took into account that the prosecutor did not dispute the fact that the defendant acquired ownership of the vehicle as a natural person. Considering all the circumstances, the court concluded that the dispute is not related to economic activity but is the realization of the civil legal capacity of a natural person.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s ruling to close the case.
Case No. 910/1758/24 dated November 4, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which canceled the decisions of private notaries on the registration of ownership of the grain terminal for Sanolta Korm LLC and subsequent transfers of ownership.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the courts did not take into account the legal position 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, namely that in disputes relating to property rights to property, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine cannot be the sole defendant, since the dispute must be resolved between persons who have property rights and interests in this property. The court noted that in this case, the dispute arose regarding property rights to the grain terminal, therefore, the proper defendant is Olimpex Coupe International LLC, which disputes the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of this terminal, and not only the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Since the plaintiff did not involve Olimpex Coupe International LLC as a co-defendant, the court concluded that the claim should be dismissed due to its presentation to an improper defendant.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim of Sanolta Korm LLC.
: The court indicated that it deviates from the previous conclusions of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court regarding disputes where the Ministry of Justice can be the sole defendant, and regarding claims challenging the order of the Ministry of Justice, which do not lead to the full protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
Case No. 910/15082/24 dated November 4, 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 decision of the state registrar regarding the ownership of an unfinished construction object.
2. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, but changed their reasoning part, guided by the following: The key point was taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/2546/22 regarding the subject composition of the parties in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice, where the defendant should be not only the Ministry of Justice, but also the person with whom there is a dispute about property rights. In this case, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the Kamianets-Podilskyi City Council regarding ownership of the unfinished construction object.
therefore, the city council should also be involved as a defendant. Since the plaintiff did not involve the city council as a co-defendant but insisted on the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice only, the court concluded that the claim should be dismissed due to being filed against an improper defendant. The court emphasized that determining the proper defendant is the court’s obligation, not just the plaintiff’s right. **** The court noted that it deviates from previous conclusions of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court in similar cases where the Ministry of Justice could be the sole defendant.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged, with only the reasoning part of the decisions being amended.
Case No. 278/2203/15-к dated 10/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 186 (robbery) and Part 3 of Article 289 (illegal seizure of a vehicle) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the decision does not provide the court’s arguments. It is only known from the text of the resolution that the court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous instance courts and left them unchanged. To provide a more detailed response, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, and the defender’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 240/35419/23 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to consider the serviceman’s report on dismissal from military service and the obligation to consider this report.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, which led to the adoption of an illegal ruling that obstructs further proceedings in the case. The court of cassation instance established that the registration card of the electronic case, formed by the court of first instance, contains an incorrect identification code of the defendant, which made it impossible to automatically send documents in the case through the “Electronic Court” subsystem. The court emphasized the importance of proper оформлення (formatting/execution/registration) of electronic cases, in particular, registration cards, for the correct functioning of the “Electronic Court” subsystem. It was also taken into account that the military unit did not have access to electronic documents of the case formed by the court of first instance, and that the error of the court of first instance led to the receipt of an electronic copy of the court decision by a person who is not the defendant in the case. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellate court did not pay attention to the absence in the registration log of outgoing correspondence of the court of first instance of all the necessary information, including the identification data of the defendant in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appellate instance.
ці.
**Case No. 580/12926/24 dated November 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a tax notice-decision on the assessment of real estate tax, other than land, considering the benefits provided for war invalids and Chernobyl disaster liquidators.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, pointing out that since 2011, benefits to war veterans and Chernobyl disaster liquidators are granted in accordance with the Tax Code of Ukraine (TC of Ukraine), and not on the basis of separate laws on their status; the TC of Ukraine is a special law that regulates taxation issues, and it is the one that defines the list of benefits; local self-government bodies have the right to establish additional real estate tax benefits, but the absence of such benefits established by the local council does not give grounds for exemption from tax payment; the courts took into account that the city council’s decision did not establish benefits for the relevant category of persons. The court also noted that a violation of the deadlines for sending the tax notice-decision is not a ground for its cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 520/7470/25 dated November 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a tax notice-decision regarding the assessment of financial sanctions for violation of the requirements regarding the use of registrars of settlement operations.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the tax notice-decision is considered served on the taxpayer on the date indicated by the postal service in the delivery notification with the reason for non-delivery, namely August 22, 2024, since the postal item was returned with the mark “expiration of the storage period”. The court noted that the taxpayer is obliged to ensure receipt of correspondence at the address indicated in the Unified State Register and cannot refer to non-receipt of documents as a basis for avoiding negative consequences. The court also took into account that the taxpayer was aware of the audit and had the opportunity to submit objections, and also acknowledged that they received a copy of the tax notice-decision within the period for appeal. Arguments about the difficulty of receiving mail during wartime were not considered sufficient to renew the term, since the payer has the opportunity to receive documents through an electronic account. The court refused to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine, since no reasonable exceptional grounds for such deviation were given.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 160/16422/24**
Case No. 615/2295/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. Unfortunately, the operative part of the decision does not contain any arguments of the court. Usually, when considering such cases, the cassation court checks the correct application of substantive and procedural law by lower courts, in particular, examines the issues of proving the person’s guilt, the existence of grounds for exemption from mobilization, compliance with the conscription procedure, and the compliance of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person. The court could have agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the absence of violations during the consideration of the case, or призначити визнати the arguments of the cassation appeal unfounded. A full text of the ruling is necessary for a more detailed analysis.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 642/3201/23 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person accused of aiding and abetting the forgery of documents and illegal transfer of persons across the border.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court, without providing any arguments in the operative part. It only states that the defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s verdict was upheld. The full text of the ruling with the justification of the decision will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the verdict of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 260/9788/23 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the department of compulsory execution of judgments regarding the compulsory execution of a court decision on the recalculation and payment of pension.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the non-payment of recalculated pension amounts in the absence of allocation of funds by the Pension Fund of Ukraine for their payment cannot be considered a failure to execute a court decision without valid reasons, since this is due to circumstances beyond the debtor’s control. The court noted that the imposition of a fine for non-execution of a decision is a type of legal liability, but the condition for this is the non-execution of the decision without valid reasons. The court also took into account that previous rulings on the imposition of a fine had been overturned by the court, since the partial non-execution of the court decision occurred for reasons beyond the debtor’s control. The court noted that actions to obtain information from state bodies are the right, not the obligation, of the executor. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
stations – without changes.
**Case No. 761/34884/15 dated 11/13/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated April 08, 2025, in the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_7 of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The operative part of the decision does not state the arguments of the court, but only indicates that the full text of the resolution will be drawn up later. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot provide information on the arguments of the court that it used when making the decision, since only the operative part is available.
The court ruled: To leave the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of April 08, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6 in the interests of the convicted PERSON_7 – without satisfaction.
**Case No. 953/6086/22 dated 11/11/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the cassation appeal of the defense attorney against the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted PERSON_6 for crimes against sexual freedom and sexual integrity of a person, as well as for crimes related to the circulation of child pornography.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, mitigating the punishment under Part 6 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code to 15 years of imprisonment, but upheld the verdict in the part of conviction under other articles, as well as the additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold positions related to children. The court apparently took into account certain circumstances that allowed reducing the term of punishment for one of the incriminated crimes, but did not find grounds for full cancellation or modification of court decisions of previous instances. At the same time, the cassation court agreed with the qualification of the actions of the convicted person under other articles of the Criminal Code, as well as with the need to apply additional punishment, taking into account the nature of the committed crimes. The court also took into account that the crimes were committed against sexual freedom and sexual integrity of a person, as well as related to the circulation of child pornography, which indicates a high public danger of the actions of the convicted person.
The court decided to amend the verdict and ruling in the part of the punishment under Part 6 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code, mitigating it to 15 years of imprisonment, but upheld other parts of the verdict.
**Case No. 200/1644/25 dated 11/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Territorial Department of the Court Security Service regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration and the recovery of the corresponding amount.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse to open proceedings, since there is already a court decision in case No. 200/159/23, which obliges the defendant to accrue and pay the plaintiff additional remuneration for the same period. The court noted that the realization of the right to a court depends on the specifics of the implementation of individual judicial procedures.
, and the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine provides for special methods of judicial control over the execution of court decisions. A repeated lawsuit for the recovery of funds that have already been awarded for payment by a previous decision is actually aimed at enforcing this decision, rather than resolving a new dispute. The court emphasized that it is impossible to oblige a subject of power to enforce a court decision by issuing another court decision on this matter, since enforcement is carried out within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 126/1953/20 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person accused of illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court. The court, applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 2 years, considering it possible to mitigate the punishment, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person. On the basis of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court partially added the unserved part of the sentence under the previous verdict, finally determining the sentence as imprisonment for a term of 2 years and 6 months. In other respects, the appellate court’s verdict was left unchanged. The court was guided by Articles 369, 376, 433, 434, 436, 438, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The court amended the appellate court’s verdict, mitigating the punishment of PERSON_6 to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Case No. 560/13859/24 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff for the period from 01/01/2016 to 06/27/2017.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, since the military unit missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court noted that the lack of funds to pay the court fee is not a valid reason, since the state must ensure adequate funding for its bodies to protect their interests in court. Also, the court did not recognize the reasons related to martial law as valid, since no specific evidence was provided as to how these circumstances affected the timeliness of applying to the court. The court emphasized that the party to the case must take all possible actions dependent on him to comply with procedural deadlines. It is important that the court fee was paid on 01/08/2025, but the document confirming its payment was sent by military unit NUMBER_1 to the court of appeal only on 02/28/2025 during the repeated appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal
the military unit unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 474/11/23 dated 10/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for fraud in obtaining state social assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably established the fact that the convicted person lived as one family with a person whose property status she concealed in order to receive assistance, based on the totality of evidence, including testimonies, declarations, and certificates of family composition. The court also rejected the arguments that the abolition of the certificate of family composition form makes the information contained therein unreliable, and that the courts should have verified the convicted person’s right to receive assistance on other grounds, as this goes beyond the scope of the indictment. The Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the qualification of the convicted person’s actions as repeated fraud, since each application for assistance with concealment of information is considered a separate criminal episode that interrupts the statute of limitations for previous episodes. The court also noted that the appellate court properly considered the convicted person’s motion for re-examination of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 208/13539/25 dated 13/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
The Supreme Court, considering the defense counsel’s motion, was guided by the provisions of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which defines the grounds for transferring criminal proceedings from one court to another. The court took into account the circumstances stated in the motion and concluded that there were no grounds for granting the motion to transfer the proceedings to another court. At the same time, the court noted that the full text of the ruling would be announced later, which complies with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows the announcement of only the operative part of the decision in cases where the preparation of the full text requires significant time. The court also emphasized that the ruling is not subject to appeal, which is consistent with the norms of procedural law that define the list of decisions that can be appealed in cassation proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court, having assessed the arguments of the defense counsel and the circumstances of the case, found no grounds for changing the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings.
The court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s motion.
Case No. 693/1218/20 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the head of the Fastiv Department of the State Enforcement Service regarding the cancellation of measures of compulsory enforcement of a court decision on the recovery of alimony from ОС
ОСОБА_2 in favor of ОСОБА_1.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of ОСОБА_1, since the state executor lawfully took into account the receipts provided by the debtor for the payment of alimony, where the purpose of the payment indicated their intended purpose (“alimony”, “for children”, etc.), and there is no evidence of other debt obligations of the debtor to the claimant regarding the maintenance of children. The court also noted that the claimant did not provide evidence of refusal to receive these money transfers, which confirms their designation as alimony. In addition, the court emphasized that the transfer of enforcement proceedings from one state executor to another took place in compliance with the established procedure, and there are no violations of the applicant’s rights. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not re-evaluate the evidence, as it is a court of law, not of fact.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 420/15934/24 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant in favor of the university of the amount to compensate for the costs associated with maintenance during training.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to suspend proceedings in the case, since the defendant is a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which is the basis for suspending proceedings in accordance with paragraph 5 of part one of Article 236 of the CAS of Ukraine, which is an imperative norm. The court noted that the suspension of proceedings is temporary and is limited to the period of a person’s stay in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Also, the court took into account that the defendant could not have known about the existence of the dispute during the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, which made it impossible to file a motion to suspend proceedings. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the suspension of proceedings would lead to a violation of the terms of consideration of the case, since the suspension is valid only until the termination of the defendant’s stay in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court noted that the circumstances of this case differ from the circumstances in the cases cited by the plaintiff, since in this case the fact of the defendant’s stay in the Armed Forces of Ukraine was duly established.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of appeal on the suspension of proceedings in the case – unchanged.
Case No. 440/9764/24 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Agro Vitchyzna” against tax notices-decisions, by which the Company’s monetary obligation for single tax was increased due to the underestimation of the minimum tax obligation (MTO) for agricultural land plots.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that for exemption from payment of MTO for land plots contaminated with explosive objects, it is necessary
It requires a clear definition of such plots by a relevant decision of the regional military administration, with indication of cadastral numbers. The court emphasized that a general order to carry out demining of the district’s territory is not sufficient to confirm the contamination of specific land plots. Also, the court noted that the benefit for the payment of the minimum tax liability (MTL) applies only to those land plots that are *defined* by regional military administrations as contaminated with explosive objects, and not to all plots in the territory where demining is carried out. The court took into account that the land plot is an object of civil rights from the moment it is assigned a cadastral number, therefore, the decision on contamination must identify specific plots. Since LLC “Agro Vitchyzna” did not provide evidence that the specific plots leased by it were defined by the Sumy RMA as contaminated, the court recognized the accrual of MTL as lawful.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Agro Vitchyzna” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 380/6412/24 dated 14/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of a tax invoice in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices and the obligation of the State Tax Service of Ukraine to register this tax invoice.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which established that the company did not provide sufficient documents to confirm the transaction, and also ignored the notification of the tax authority about the need to provide additional explanations and documents. The court emphasized that, according to the current procedure, in case of suspension of registration of a tax invoice, the tax authority has the right to request additional documents, and failure to provide such documents is a basis for refusal of registration. The court also noted that the company did not show due diligence in exercising its rights, ignoring the request of the tax authority. The appellate court correctly took into account the amendments to Procedure No. 520, introduced by the order of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, which provide for a new algorithm of interaction between the taxpayer and the tax authority during the monitoring of tax invoices. The court of cassation emphasized that in case a Notification is sent to the taxpayer, such taxpayer has the right to submit to the controlling body additional explanations and copies of documents specified in the Notification, based on the results of the consideration of which the commission of the regional level makes one of the decisions: 1) on registration of the tax invoice / adjustment calculation in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices; 2) on refusal to register the tax invoice / adjustment calculation in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 380/21367/24 dated 13/11/2025
Item
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal by Royal LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Lviv region.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court likely agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the unsubstantiated arguments of the tax authority, possibly regarding violations of tax legislation by Royal LLC. Also, it is possible that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, which was the basis for leaving their decisions unchanged. The lack of detailed content of the decision does not allow for a more specific analysis.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Lviv region, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances in favor of Royal LLC – to leave unchanged.
Case №560/1158/20 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Western Construction Investment Group” LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Khmelnytskyi region.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the courts did not establish important circumstances, namely: where the primary documents were located during the audit, the reasons for their non-submission to the tax authority, whether the payer reported the loss or seizure of documents, and whether these documents existed in their original form at the time of reporting. The court emphasized that the very fact of submitting documents in court does not exempt from the obligation to check whether they could have been provided during the audit. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to assess these issues taking into account the principle of the payer’s good faith, the adversarial nature of the parties, and the distribution of the burden of proof in tax disputes. The court emphasized that the return of the case for a new trial is aimed at eliminating procedural shortcomings in clarifying key facts that are crucial for the correct application of the norms of substantive law.
3. The Supreme 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 №752/7411/24 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of credit agreements and life insurance agreements concluded between the plaintiff and a financial institution as invalid, as well as the recovery of damages and moral damages.
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the plaintiff had already filed a similar claim against the same defendants, with the same claims and on the same grounds, and there is already a court decision in the case that has entered into legal force. The court noted that the simultaneous presence of three conditions is necessary for the closure of proceedings: identity of the parties, subject matter and grounds of the claim. The court did not agree with the plaintiff’s arguments that
The basis of the new claim is the creditor’s unfair business practice, as the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff had already been the subject of consideration in the previous case. The court also emphasized that the application of procedural rules regarding the impossibility of re-examining a case does not violate the right to access to justice, as the dispute has already been resolved on the merits.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 240/27721/23 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources regarding the rejection of Zhytomyrburrozvidka LLC’s application to amend the agreement on the terms of mineral use.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they did not establish the legal nature of the letter from the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources regarding the rejection of the application, did not assess its content in conjunction with the attached documents, did not clarify whether this letter meets the requirements for the form of a decision on rejection, and whether the application of Zhytomyrburrozvidka LLC met the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil. The court also noted that the courts’ assessment of the grounds for extending the deadlines without their assessment by the authorized body is premature. In addition, the courts did not establish whether there was an active action by the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources to reject the application, or inaction regarding the failure to make a decision provided for by law. Given that the courts did not investigate all the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court cannot make a new decision and sends the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme 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. 487/2528/21 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of inspector as illegal due to staff reduction, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff’s dismissal occurred in violation of labor law, as the employer did not offer him all available vacancies for which he could qualify. The courts found that at the time of the plaintiff’s warning about the reduction, the employer was aware of the introduction of two new positions with a service function, for which persons whose positions were being reduced could qualify, but the plaintiff was not offered these positions. Importantly, the positions of leading inspectors were offered to other employees (drivers), and they were transferred to these positions, while the plaintiff did not receive such offers. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of a comparison of the productivity and qualifications of employees in order to determine the preferential right to remain at work.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
n, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remain unchanged.
Case No. 600/1000/23-а dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the incomplete calculation and payment to the serviceman of additional remuneration for participation in combat operations in December 2022 and January 2023.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the serviceman has the right to receive increased additional remuneration provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, since he directly participated in measures to ensure national security and defense, repulse and deter armed aggression, being directly in the areas of combat operations. The court noted that Order No. 628-AG, which regulated the procedure and conditions for payment of additional remuneration, contains an additional condition, namely “subject to fire damage or direct contact with the enemy”, which is not provided for by the provisions of Resolution No. 168. The court emphasized that the heads of ministries and state bodies have the authority to determine the procedure and conditions for payment of additional remuneration, but not the grounds for a serviceman to acquire the right to such remuneration. The court also noted that supplementing the circumstances that determine the basis for the emergence of the right to remuneration for servicemen with the requirement of its combination with “fire damage or direct contact with the enemy” is essentially a change in the grounds established by Resolution No. 168, which is actually a narrowing of the scope of such grounds by an act of lower legal force.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remain unchanged.
Case No. 380/11622/24 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against 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 instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned part of the claims due to the expiration of the term for appealing to the court. The court noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the conclusions of the Supreme Court, set forth in another case, since the circumstances of this case differ. In this case, the dispute concerns the accrual and payment of the same component of monetary allowance (indexation) for the same period, and the plaintiff challenged the amount of payment made earlier. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the fact of final settlement is important for establishing the beginning of the term for appealing to the court, and in this case the payment was not final, since its amount was challenged. Therefore, according to the court, there is no reason to assert that the previous payment was the day of actual settlement.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance.
