Case №991/10421/25 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_6 of aiding and abetting the embezzlement of funds of the State Enterprise “Ukrpatent” in especially large amounts by a prior conspiracy by a group of persons, under martial law.
2. The court approved the plea agreement, taking into account the defendant’s full admission of guilt, the voluntariness of the agreement, the compliance of the agreement with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the interests of society, as well as the absence of grounds for refusing its approval. The court noted that the terms of the agreement, in particular, cooperation with the prosecutor in exposing other accomplices to the crime, would contribute to a comprehensive establishment of the circumstances of the case and compensation for damages. The court also took into account that the agreement would ensure a quick completion of the proceedings and bring the accused to justice for a corruption offense. When imposing the sentence, the court was guided by the provisions of Art. 69-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows imposing a sentence below the lowest limit of the sanction of the article, provided that the requirements regarding the plea agreement in corruption crimes are met. The court satisfied the civil claim, since the amount of damages was not reduced, and the agreement did not provide for voluntary compensation for damages to the civil plaintiff.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and found PERSON_6 guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Art. 27, Part 5 of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposing a sentence of 2 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
Case №580/8025/24 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy Oblast to recalculate and pay PERSON_1 a pension in accordance with Article 54 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster” as amended in 1996, in accordance with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated April 7, 2021.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, took into account that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional the provision on delegating powers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to determine the minimum pension amounts for Chernobyl victims, and obliged the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to regulate this issue. The Verkhovna Rada adopted Law № 1584-IX, which established fixed amounts of pensions, which are less than those provided for in the previous version of the Law. The court noted that Law № 1584-IX does not ensure the minimum guarantees of social protection for Chernobyl victims established by the Constitution of Ukraine. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where it was recognized that in such cases, Article 54 of Law № 796-XII as amended by Law № 230/96-VR should be applied, which provided for the payment of a pension in ро
in the amount of 6 minimum old-age pensions for persons with Group III disability. The court also emphasized the need to comply with the deadlines for applying to the court established by the CAS of Ukraine, namely a six-month period from the moment when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region as illegal and obliging it to recalculate and pay the pension of PERSON_1 in the amount of 6 minimum old-age pensions from February 5, 2024, and left the claims for the previous period unexamined due to missing the deadline for applying to the court.
Case No. 159/4545/23 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate court to reinstate the term for appealing the ruling of the investigating judge on the seizure of property.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court took a formal approach to considering the motion to reinstate the term for appealing, without taking into account important circumstances. In particular, the lawyer claimed that he was not aware of the reasons for the investigating judge’s decision, as only the operative part of the ruling was announced, and he received the full text later. The Supreme Court recalled that, according to the previous position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, ignorance of the reasons for the decision may be a valid reason for reinstating the term. The appellate court did not properly assess these arguments, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law regarding a comprehensive and objective examination of the case. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court should have taken into account the position of the Supreme Court regarding the importance of awareness of the reasons for the decision for the realization of the right to appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 473/3261/23 dated 13/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service).
The Supreme Court, following the cassation review, found certain violations committed by the appellate court in the consideration of the case, which could affect the legality and validity of the verdict. In particular, the court of cassation instance could have doubts about the completeness of the examination of evidence, the correctness of the application of substantive or procedural law, or the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to conduct a re-examination of the case in the appellate instance to eliminate the identified shorof convicts. Also, the court decided to release the convicted person from custody pending a new appeal review.
The court ruled: to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, to overturn the appellate court’s verdict and order a new hearing in the court of appeal, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 344/10486/22 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_9, PERSON_10, and PERSON_11 under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the convicted persons and their defense attorney, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance, and also chose preventive measures in the form of detention for all three defendants. The reasons for overturning the appellate court’s ruling are not stated in the operative part, but it can be assumed that the court of cassation found certain violations of the norms of procedural or substantive law that affected the legality and validity of the appellate court’s decision. The imposition of a preventive measure in the form of detention may indicate that the court took into account the risks associated with the possible hiding of the accused from justice, or the commission of other crimes by them. With regard to PERSON_11, the ruling of the court of appeal was overturned in accordance with Part 2 of Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which means that the cassation court extended its decision to this person, although no cassation appeal was received from her, because it found violations that concerned her rights.
The court ruled to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal, and also chose preventive measures in the form of detention for all three defendants.
Case No. 523/8956/25 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the defense attorney’s motion to send materials on the seizure of property from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
The Supreme Court, refusing to grant the defense attorney’s motion, proceeded from the following. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine clearly defines the grounds and procedure for sending criminal proceedings from one court to another. Such sending is possible, in particular, in cases where, during the pre-trial investigation or court proceedings, it turned out that the criminal offense was committed on the territory that does not fall under the jurisdiction of this court, or when there is a need to combine materials of criminal proceedings that are being considered by different courts. In this case, the defense attorney did not provide sufficient arguments and evidence that would indicate the existence of grounds for sending the case materials to another court. In addition, the issue of seizure
the property is being considered within the framework of a specific criminal proceeding, and a change of jurisdiction at this stage could lead to delays in the process and violation of the rights of the participants. The court also took into account that the consideration of a motion for seizure of property falls within the competence of the investigating judge of the court within the territorial jurisdiction of the pre-trial investigation body conducting the investigation.
The court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion.
Case No. 991/7639/21 dated 04/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court (AC HACC) to open proceedings on the defense counsel’s application for review of the verdict regarding PERSON_4 based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation found that the judge of the AC HACC, in refusing to open proceedings, actually considered the defense counsel’s application on its merits, despite the fact that at the stage of deciding on the opening of proceedings, the court should only verify the compliance of the application with formal requirements, and not assess the validity of the arguments presented therein. The court noted that the judge of the AC HACC did not conclude that the submitted application did not meet the formal and substantive requirements of the law, which could have been the basis for leaving it without movement. The court also pointed out that the reference of the judge of the AC HACC to the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the circumstances of this proceeding, as it concerns the possibility of review based on newly discovered circumstances of the investigating judge’s rulings. The court emphasized that the assessment of the validity of the arguments set forth in the application for review based on newly discovered circumstances should be carried out following the trial after the opening of proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the AC HACC judge and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 134/1575/24 dated 14/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of accountant as illegal due to staff reduction, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The court denied the claim because it found that changes in the organization of production and labor did indeed occur at the lyceum, namely the reduction of staff and the introduction of a new position of economist. The plaintiff was duly notified of the dismissal and was offered available vacancies. The court also took into account that the employer conducted a comparative analysis of the employees’ qualifications and reasonably determined that another employee had a preferential right to remain in the job. Importantly, the trade union committee did not object to the plaintiff’s dismissal. The court emphasized that it is not within its competence to assess the expediency of staff reduction, but only to verify the existence of a
Grounds for dismissal and compliance with the procedure.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 990/300/25 of 23/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to refuse to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the complaint of PERSON_1 against the decision of the HCJ, which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ to refuse to bring Judge Honcharuk O.P. to disciplinary responsibility. The court heard the arguments of the complainant and the representative of the HCJ. During the consideration of the case, the court was guided by the norms of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for appealing decisions of the HCJ. The court carefully studied the materials of the disciplinary proceedings and the arguments of the complaint, assessed the legality and validity of the HCJ’s decision. The court took into account the discretionary powers of the HCJ when deciding on issues of disciplinary responsibility of judges.
3. The court decided to dismiss the complaint of PERSON_1, and the decision of the High Council of Justice was upheld.
Case No. 160/5640/24 of 14/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Territorial Department of the Judicial Security Service regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to the plaintiff, provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, and the obligation to accrue and pay this remuneration.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the cassation appeal, focused on the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the terms of applying to the court, established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LC). The court took into account that until 19.07.2022, the wording of Article 233 of the LC, which did not limit the term for applying to the court in cases of recovery of wages, was in effect, and after that date, a new wording came into force, which establishes a three-month term. The court also noted that the beginning of this term is calculated from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their right. The court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court regarding claims for the period from 19.07.2022 to 01.01.2023, as he did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. At the same time, the court of cassation instance pointed to the error of the courts of previous instances regarding the basis for returning the statement of claim, since paragraph 1 of part four of Article 169 of the CAS of Ukraine was applied instead of paragraph 9 of the same article in conjunction with part two of Article 123 of the CAS of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances regarding the grounds for returning the statement of claim.
Case No. 161/9503/23 dated 11/14/2025
The subject of the dispute was the eviction of a person from an apartment without providing other housing and compensation for moral damage.
The appellate court granted the claim in the part of evicting the defendant, as she lived in the apartment without the owner’s consent and prevented him from using his property, but refused to compensate for moral damage, as the plaintiff did not prove a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the deterioration of her health. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that for compensation for moral damage, it is necessary to prove the existence of the damage itself, the illegality of the defendant’s actions, and the causal link between them, which the plaintiff did not do. The court also emphasized that the revaluation of evidence is not within the competence of the cassation court.
The decision of the appellate court was left unchanged, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 756/6408/24 dated 11/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of the children and the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation.
2. The court of cassation granted the motion for an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs, since the issue of the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the review of the case in cassation proceedings had not been previously resolved. The court took into account the evidence provided regarding the scope of services provided, their cost, as well as the absence of objections from the other party regarding the amount of the claimed expenses. At the same time, the court proceeded from the criteria of the reality of attorney’s fees, their reasonableness and proportionality to the complexity of the case, the amount of work performed and the time spent by the attorney. The court also noted that the amount of the fee is determined by agreement between the attorney and the client, and the court has no right to interfere in these legal relations if the expenses are documented and reasonable.
3. The court issued an additional decision to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the costs of legal assistance in the amount of UAH 21,000.00.
Case No. 520/15858/23 dated 11/14/2025
1. Subject
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notice-decision by which the monetary obligation for income tax of financial institutions was increased for the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify the economic feasibility of the expenses incurred by the plaintiff for the use of the trademark, did not investigate the acts of services provided under license agreements, did not take into account the connection of the plaintiff with the individual who owns the trademark, and also did not assess the arguments of the tax authority regarding the decrease in the plaintiff’s income during the period of use of the trademark. The court noted that economic activity must have a reasonable economic reason, and each economic transaction must be aimed at generating income. The court also pointed out the need to examine the primary documents that confirm the actual provision of trademark use services and their compliance with the requirements of the law. Considering these shortcomings, the court of cassation concluded that the decisions of the courts of previous instances should be cancelled and the case should be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/102/25 dated 11/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) as invalid regarding the violation by Promin Bud Service LLC of the legislation on the protection of economic competition in the form of anticompetitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of the results of the auction.
2. The court of cassation, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, emphasized that the AMCU duly established and proved the fact of concerted actions between Promin Bud Service LLC and another participant in the auction, which led to the distortion of the results of the auction, taking into account the relationship between the companies, the joint use of the Internet address, the synchronicity of actions, the identity of electronic files, as well as other factors indicating collusion. The court noted that in order to qualify actions as anticompetitive, it is not necessary to prove the existence of losses, it is sufficient to establish the fact of agreeing on competitive behavior. Also, the court emphasized the obligation of the AMCU to comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, and the courts must verify the correctness of the AMCU’s application of legal norms, without taking over the functions of the body. The court of cassation also took into account the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for final court decisions, and noted that the review of decisions is possible only to correct fundamental errors, which were not detected in this case.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Promin Bud Service LLC, and the decisions of the previous courts
of all instances – without changes.
**Case No. 607/17534/23 dated 11/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for the illegal acquisition, storage, and sale of psychotropic substances.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, failing to provide reasoned answers to all arguments of the convicted person’s appeal, in particular regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during the inspection of the scene, considering the possible actual detention of the person before the investigative actions and the seizure of the mobile phone. The appellate court did not motivate the legality of the person’s detention and did not assess the evidence obtained as a result of actions that could have been carried out in violation of the right to defense. Also, the court did not pay attention to the contradictions in the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the location of the psychotropic substances. Given these violations, the cassation court concluded that the appellate court’s ruling should be overturned and a new trial should be appointed in the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and also imposed a measure of restraint on the accused in the form of detention.
**Case No. 914/3261/24 dated 11/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the communal property lease agreement and the obligation to return this property.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case, stating that the appellate court had not adequately substantiated the impossibility of considering the case on the lease of property before resolving another case regarding the ownership of this property, since the issue of the invalidity of the lease agreement could be resolved independently of the resolution of the issue of ownership. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not explain why the evidence available in the case was insufficient to establish the circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute regarding the lease. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of complying with reasonable time limits for the consideration of cases and the inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights, since an unjustified suspension of proceedings leads to a delay in the consideration of the case. The court took into account that the mere fact of the connection between the two cases is not an unconditional basis for suspending proceedings in one of them.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case and sent the case to the appellate court for continued consideration.
**Case No. 909/196/21 dated 11/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the results of the auction, the recognition of contracts as invalid, the cancellation of registration.
Rights of ownership and other claims related to property rights.
3. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the ruling to dismiss the claim without consideration, emphasizing that formal compliance with procedural requirements regarding notification of the plaintiff and their non-appearance in court is not sufficient to dismiss the claim without consideration. The court must take into account the procedural activity of the party throughout the entire trial, their good faith in exercising their rights and obligations, as well as their real interest in resolving the dispute. In this case, the appellate court reasonably took into account the active participation of the plaintiff’s representative in previous court sessions, the filing of motions and other applications, which indicates their interest in resolving the case. The court of cassation emphasized that leaving the claim without consideration should be an exceptional measure, not a punishment for formal non-appearance, and should be applied only in the absence of signs of the plaintiff’s procedural interest and/or detection of their bad faith use of procedural rights.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/7499/24 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement, termination of the right of private ownership of land, and obligation to return the land plots to the territorial community due to systematic non-payment of rent, incomplete construction, and misuse of the land.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing to the need for a comprehensive examination of the case’s circumstances. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the Kyiv City Council regarding the inaction of UkrZhytloBud LLC in fulfilling the terms of the lease agreement regarding the construction of the land plot within the established deadlines. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which a significant violation is the lessee’s failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement regarding construction, which deprives the lessor of what they expected when concluding the agreement. Also, the Supreme Court pointed to an incomplete analysis of the circumstances regarding the systematic non-payment of rent and misuse of land plots, in particular, regarding the evidence provided by the Kyiv City Council, such as the land plot inspection report and the decision of the District Administrative Court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 910/16014/23 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for legal services provided between Yukhman and Partners Law Firm LLC and Service SE.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court.
on the court, as the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, exceeded the limits of the appellate review, having reviewed the decision of the court of first instance in full, although the cassation court sent the case for a new trial only in the satisfied parts of the claim; the court of appeal did not take into account the principle of “prohibition of turning to the worse”, since DP “Servis” received a worse position after the review of the case by the appellate court than it was before; the appellate court violated the principle of dispositivity, as it reviewed the decision in a part that was not appealed. The court of cassation emphasized the mandatory nature of the instructions of the court of cassation by the lower courts during the new trial of the case. The court also noted that improper documentary оформлення of a business transaction cannot indicate its inconsistency if the services were actually provided.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of DP “Servis”, canceled the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the same court.
Case No. 916/3704/24 (No. 916/4176/24) dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal to open proceedings in the case of bankruptcy of LLC “Yu-Gaz” at the initiative of PJSC CB “Ukrgasbank” based on the surety agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to open proceedings in the case of bankruptcy of LLC “Yu-Gaz” as a guarantor, since the main debtor, LLC “Odesagaz-Postachannya”, is in the process of pre-trial rehabilitation approved by the court, the plan of which includes the requirements of “Ukrgasbank”. The court noted that the guarantee is an accessory obligation and depends on the terms of the main contract. The existence of an approved rehabilitation plan, which provides for the repayment of the main debtor’s debt within a certain period, indicates the existence of a dispute about the right regarding the occurrence of the term of fulfillment of the obligation between the bank and the guarantor. Given the existence of a dispute about the right, the courts reasonably refused to open bankruptcy proceedings on the basis of part six of Article 39 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court also referred to its own practice, according to which a change in the terms of fulfillment of an obligation is not a novation if it does not change the essence of the obligation itself.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC CB “Ukrgasbank” without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and the decision of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 925/233/24 dated 13/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under medical equipment supply contracts, as well as compensation for lost profits.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with
rendered by the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of debt, confirming that the absence of budget financing does not exempt from liability for breach of contractual obligations, and rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from this established legal position. The court emphasized that the cassation review does not provide for a re-evaluation of evidence, and the appellant’s arguments did not contain fundamental justifications for deviating from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the SC reversed an additional ruling of the appellate court regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, pointing to the court’s incomplete clarification of the circumstances regarding the procedure for calculating and the form of the attorney’s fee, which makes the court’s conclusion on the recovery of expenses premature. The court partially granted the application for the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance in the cassation instance, recovering UAH 3,000 from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant, taking into account the criteria of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness of such expenses.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances regarding the recovery of debt, but reversed an additional ruling regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, partially granting the application for the distribution of expenses in the cassation instance.
Case No. 205/3998/22 dated 11/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of inheritance as ownerless and its transfer to the ownership of the territorial community.
The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which left the application of the Dnipro City Council unconsidered, as it established the existence of a dispute over the right. The appellate court reasonably noted that proceedings in another court are already pending in a case on the claim of the Dnipro City Council against PERSON_1 and other persons regarding the recognition of inheritance as ownerless, i.e., there is a dispute regarding the same inheritance that is the subject of consideration in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that cases of separate proceedings are considered in the absence of a dispute over the right, and in the event of its occurrence, the application must be left unconsidered. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases were rejected, as these conclusions concerned other legal relations. The court of cassation also noted that the decision of the appellate court meets the requirements of legality and validity, and the arguments presented in the cassation appeal boil down to disagreement with the established circumstances of the case.
The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 642/3201/23 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment imposed on PERSON_8 for committing criminal offenses related to forgery.
