**Case No. 359/6713/23 dated 05/11/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order on suspension of the employment contract, restoration of the employment contract, and recovery of wages for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the appellate court’s decision, emphasizing that the very fact of military aggression is not an unconditional basis for suspending an employment contract, and for this, a simultaneous impossibility of providing work by the employer and its performance by the employee is required. The court indicated that JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” continued to operate, and the absolute impossibility of providing work to the plaintiff was not proven. The court also noted that in the case of an illegal suspension of the employment contract, it is the employer, not the aggressor state, who must compensate the employee for the average earnings for the period of forced absence, applying analogy with the provisions of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the cassation court agreed with the refusal to restore the employment contract, since the plaintiff was dismissed from work, and there is no evidence of the invalidity of the dismissal order. Regarding the amount of average earnings, the case was sent for a new consideration to the appellate court due to the failure of the court of first instance to take into account certain payments that are not included in the calculation of average wages.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of recognizing as illegal the order on suspension of the employment contract and recovery of average earnings, upholding the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recognition of the order as illegal, and sending the case in the part of recovery of average earnings for a new consideration to the appellate court.
**Case No. 761/9997/14-Ρ dated 19/11/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the foreclosure on the subject of mortgage and eviction of the debtor and members of his family from the mortgaged apartment in connection with non-performance of the terms of the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance decided to overturn the decision of the appellate court, since the appellate court did not properly verify the fact of state registration of the transfer of the mortgagee’s rights from the bank to the financial company, which is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of the new creditor’s claims. The court took into account that for the financial company to have the right of the mortgagee, not only a notarized agreement on the assignment of rights is necessary, but also state registration of these rights. The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the moratorium on the foreclosure of property of citizens of Ukraine provided as security for loans in foreign currency” has expired, therefore it cannot be applied. At the same time, the appellate court correctly suspended the execution of the decision in the part of foreclosure on the subject of mortgage.
and for the period of martial law, in accordance with current legislation. The court of cassation emphasized that the requirement to remedy the violation of the main obligation applies only to an out-of-court settlement method, and in this case, the creditor applied directly to the court.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 522/20190/17 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation for material damage in the form of lost earnings and lost profits, caused, as the plaintiff claims, by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of loss of earnings, as he himself claimed that he did not receive a salary as the director of the firm, and also did not provide evidence of receiving any other income, including dividends. Regarding lost profits, the court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the real possibility of receiving the income he expected, and his calculations are based on assumptions about the activities of the firm, which did not actually carry out profitable activities. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove a causal link between the actions of pre-trial investigation bodies and the impossibility of making a profit. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that it has no authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence provided to the courts of first and appellate instances. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of procedural law, in particular regarding improper notification of the court session, as the appellate court took all necessary measures to ensure the plaintiff’s participation in the court proceedings.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 345/245/25 dated 05/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the bailiff’s decision to terminate enforcement proceedings for the recovery of alimony.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to renew the term for appealing the bailiff’s decision, considering that the applicant had not proved valid reasons for missing the term, since the case file contained her statement that she had no claims against the debtor in connection with the payment of alimony in full. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that the case file does not contain evidence of sending the applicant the appealed decision of the bailiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the applicant learned about the viola
rights only after receiving the application for review of the default judgment, and therefore, properly substantiated the legal grounds for renewing the term for appealing to the court. The Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of the state executor to take measures for the enforcement of judgments, as well as the importance of the execution of court decisions as an integral part of the “judicial proceedings” in accordance with the practice of the ECHR.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.
Case No. 537/1118/20 dated November 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of court costs incurred by the defendant in connection with the review of the case in cassation proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the additional decision of the appellate court, reasoning that the distribution of court costs is carried out by the court that makes the final decision in the case, and the person is not deprived of the opportunity to petition for the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the previous cassation review of the case, after the final decision of the court. The court noted that the appellate court rightfully considered the application for an additional decision, since the previous decision of the appellate court did not resolve the issue of the distribution of the court fee paid for filing the cassation appeal. The court also stated that the amount of the court fee paid by the defendant meets the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” since it took into account both the property and non-property nature of the claims. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the application for an additional decision was not sent to the applicant, since the applicant’s representative was familiar with the content of the application and filed objections.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the additional decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 201/2286/20 dated September 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a communal land plot by demolishing an unauthorized extension to an apartment, as well as the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of this apartment.
2. The court of cassation decided that the appellate court did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments that the city council is not the owner of the land plot, since it was transferred to the management of the Homeowners Association, and the residents of the building gave their consent to the extension. Also, the appellate court did not substantiate how the unauthorized construction violates the rights of the city council, and whether the demolition of the extension is a proportionate measure in this situation. The court noted that in order to satisfy the claim for the demolition of unauthorized construction, it is necessary to prove the violation of the plaintiff’s rights, and the appellate court did not provide a proper assessmentassessment of the defendant’s evidence, which refutes the city council’s ownership of the disputed land plot and the absence of violation of the plaintiff’s rights. Since the appellate court did not examine all important circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence, its decision does not meet the requirements of legality and validity.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the requirements to remove obstacles by demolishing the unauthorized extension and the distribution of court costs, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 643/10818/19 dated November 12, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claims, as it established that a loan agreement was concluded between the parties, under which the defendant received funds but did not return them within the established period. The court took into account that the defendant signed the loan agreement, which stated the fact of receiving the funds, and did not provide sufficient evidence to refute this fact. Also, the court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal come down to disagreement with the court decision and reassessment of evidence, which is not a basis for overturning a legal and justified decision of the appellate court. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances. In addition, the court of cassation took into account the ECHR’s practice regarding the justification of court decisions.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 357/2297/23 dated November 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the recovery of the debtor’s income and the appeal against the decision to levy execution on these incomes.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the debtor was duly notified of the opening of the enforcement proceedings, as the decisions were sent to the address indicated in the writ of execution, which meets the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”; the enforcement officer is not obliged to verify that the debtor has received a copy of the decision, it is sufficient to send it by registered mail; the debtor did not exercise the right to correct errors in the enforcement document regarding the address; the appellate court considered the case with a competent panel of judges. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court of cassation agreed with the assessment of the previous instances regarding their proportionality, reality and reasonableness, and also took into account that the costs that have already been paid or are subject toare subject to payment, and the existence of actual payment is not a mandatory condition for their reimbursement. The court also noted that the right to professional legal assistance is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and does not depend on the availability of legal knowledge in a private enforcement officer.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances courts remained unchanged, partially satisfying the application for reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 766/6459/21 dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the refusal to close the enforcement proceedings, which the applicant considered fully completed.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of the private enforcement officer. The courts proceeded from the fact that the decision of the court of first instance contained a clear amount of debt in hryvnias, albeit with an indication of the equivalent in US dollars. It is important that the total amount of the debt was determined in hryvnia, and it was this amount that was to be executed. The court emphasized that the executor does not have the right to change the amount of debt determined by the court decision. Since the court decision on debt collection was actually executed in full, the private enforcement officer was obliged to close the enforcement proceedings. The court also took into account that the bank did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance, and therefore agreed with the determined amount of debt in hryvnia.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “MTB Bank”, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 753/23291/21 dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of JSC “OTP Bank” as illegal regarding the refusal to conduct a restructuring of the credit debt of PERSON_1 and obliging the bank to conduct such restructuring.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal that the plaintiff had the right to restructuring, as he submitted an application with all the necessary data, and the bank did not require additional documents. Also, the court took into account that JSC “OTP Bank” did not inform the courts of previous instances about the assignment of the claim to LLC “Digi Finance”, and LLC “Digi Finance” recognized that all actions taken before its involvement in the case are binding on it. The court of cassation instance noted that the arguments of the cassation appeals of JSC “OTP Bank” and LLC “Digi Finance” do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal regarding the legality of the restructuring. Regarding the distribution of court costs, the court of cassation instance recognized as justified the reduction by the court of appeal of the amount of expenses for legal assistance, taking into account the complexity of the case and the amount of assistance provided. The court also noted that the reference appeof Appeal’s consideration of the “success fee” was erroneous, but did not affect the correctness of the decision, as these costs were not actually taken into account during the distribution.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decision of the court of appeal and the additional ruling remained unchanged.
Case No. 2-o-182 dated 19/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the court of appeal to close the appeal proceedings on the complaint of the Lviv City Council against the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of ownership of non-residential premises by a private enterprise.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the ruling of the court of appeal, noted that the court of appeal had no legal grounds to close the appeal proceedings on the basis of an erroneous opening, since the list of grounds for closing the appeal proceedings is exhaustive and does not include such a ground. The court indicated that the court of appeal actually reviewed its own decision to renew the term for appeal, which is unacceptable. Also, the court of cassation referred to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that procedural rights must be exercised in good faith, and their abuse is not allowed, and the filing of an appeal with a missed deadline and indication of false information may be recognized as abuse. However, the court of appeal cannot close the proceedings, but must take this into account when considering the case on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and sent the case to the court of appeal to continue the proceedings.
Case No. 917/45/25 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusal to recognize the monetary claims of the tax authority (Main Department of the State Tax Service) to the debtor enterprise in the bankruptcy case regarding the amounts of penalties and fines.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recognize the claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service regarding penalties and fines at the stage of opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, referring to the fact that, according to Article 1 of the Bankruptcy Code, the amount of monetary obligations does not include penalties, fines, late payment interest, and other financial sanctions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not contain a prohibition on declaring such claims together with the main obligation, but on the contrary, obligate the creditor to provide information on the amount of penalty, fine, late payment interest. The court also noted that the refusal to recognize these claims at the stage of opening proceedings violates the principle of procedural economy, as it forces the creditor to repeatedly apply to the court with a separate application, paying an additional court fee. In addition, the court indicated that additional monetary claims,
provided by Article 45 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, should not be equated with accrued penalties and fines for non-performance of the main monetary obligation recognized by the court in the preparatory hearing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts regarding the refusal to recognize the monetary claims of the State Tax Service regarding fines and penalties and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 15/81 (910/14635/24) dated 11/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine) with its legal successor (State Property Fund of Ukraine) in the case of invalidating the results of public auctions, a sale and purchase agreement, and the return of property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of lower courts that granted the motion to replace the party, based on the following: procedural succession follows material succession, and in this case, the transfer of the State Enterprise “Production Association “Kyiv Radio Plant” from the sphere of management of the Ministry of Economy to the sphere of management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine took place based on the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court emphasized that for procedural succession, it is necessary to establish the fact of the transfer of material rights of the predecessor to another person. Since such a transfer occurred, the replacement of the party is lawful in accordance with Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows procedural succession at any stage of the court proceedings. The court also noted that the lower courts correctly applied the provisions of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which refutes the arguments of the cassation appeal.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and to leave the ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 161/8771/24 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to privatize the apartment.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not provide all the necessary documents for privatization, in particular, copies of documents of a minor who also has the right to privatize the disputed apartment, since he/she is registered in it and retains the right to housing; the court indicated that the plaintiff asks to recognize his/her right to privatization without taking into account the interests of this minor; the lower courts found that the plaintiff did not provide a copy of the birth certificate and copies of registration cards of taxpayers of the person who has the right to privatize the disputed apartment; the courts referred to the fact that the plaintiff asked to recognize the right of privatization only for himself/herself, without taking into account the interests of the minor, who retains the right to housing; the court of cassation
instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that they had reasonably concluded that there were no grounds for granting the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 522/8106/22 dated 24/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on payment of contributions between the servicing cooperative and an individual for a parking space.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim to declare the agreement invalid, since the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights and interests, and the recognition of the agreement as invalid would not lead to the restoration of the situation that existed before the conclusion of the agreement, since the ownership of the disputed parking space already belongs to a third party. The court noted that in order to satisfy the claim for recognition of a transaction as invalid, it is necessary to establish not only the existence of grounds for invalidity, but also a violation of the rights of the person who applied to the court, and to determine an effective way to protect these rights. The court also took into account that the consequences of the invalidity of the agreement provide for restitution, but in this case, the return of the property to the plaintiff’s ownership is impossible, since he is not the owner at the time of the case consideration. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in the assessment of evidence, unless there were violations of the procedure for its provision and receipt.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 911/2316/23 dated 17/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PrJSC “Kinto” against the actions and omissions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement actions and the failure to seize the funds of PJSC “Centrenergo” within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that PJSC “Centrenergo” is included in the list of large-scale privatization objects, and 78.289% of the shares belong to the state, which, in accordance with paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” is the basis for suspending enforcement actions. The court noted that the executor’s obligation to suspend enforcement actions is unconditional, and this rule does not provide for exceptions regarding the types of recovery. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of this rule of law, according to which the suspension of enforcement actions during privatization is a restriction provided for by law in order to ensure the public interest in controlling the realization of state property. The court rejected the arguments of the complainant about the violation
of protecting his rights to the execution of the court decision, indicating that the creditor is not deprived of the opportunity to obtain execution after the completion of privatization, and until then, he may claim compensation for violation of the reasonable time for execution of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Kinto” without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the commercial court remained unchanged.
Case β295/9998/19 dated 11/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the amount of compensation for moral damage caused by the death of the victim’s wife in a traffic accident, in which the convicted person was found guilty.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the victim, noting that the appellate court did not fully take into account the duration and depth of the moral suffering of the victim, who for a long time has been heavily grieving the death of his wife as a result of the traffic accident, as well as the fact that he is forced to take medications to overcome this suffering. The Court emphasized that the loss of a loved one is the highest non-property loss that cannot be restored, and that the moral suffering of the victim continues from the moment of his wife’s death to the present day. The Supreme Court noted that the amount of compensation for moral damage should not be greater than sufficient for the reasonable satisfaction of the victim’s needs and should not lead to his unjustified enrichment. The Court took into account that the amount of compensation for moral damage should be reasonable, proportionate, and correspond to the nature, scope, and duration of the suffering experienced by the victim.
3. The Supreme Court changed the decision of the appellate court, increasing the amount of compensation for moral damage from UAH 400,000 to UAH 800,000.
Case β351/1604/25 dated 11/25/2025
The subject of the dispute is the motion of the defense attorneys to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
In this ruling, the Supreme Court does not provide detailed arguments that it relied on, as only the operative part of the decision was announced. However, considering the context, it can be assumed that the court did not find sufficient grounds to satisfy the motion of the defense attorneys. Usually, a change of jurisdiction, i.e., the transfer of a case to another court, is possible in cases provided for by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, for example, if the court that is to hear the case cannot ensure its objective consideration. It is possible that the defense attorneys did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of such circumstances, or the court decided that the existing circumstances do not prevent an objective consideration of the case. Also, the court could have taken into account the consistency of judicial practice regarding the determination of jurisdiction of criminal proceedings.
The court ruled to dismiss the motion of the defense attorneys without satisfaction, i.e., to refuse it.
on the transfer of criminal proceedings to another court.
**Case No. 369/2072/24 dated 20/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the verdict convicting PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code (illegal trafficking of narcotic substances) with the application of Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a punishment below the lowest limit and release from serving the sentence with probation).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. The court noted that the appellate court duly took into account mitigating circumstances, including the sincere remorse of the convicted person, his positive post-criminal behavior, employment, as well as difficult personal and family circumstances. The court also took into account that the convicted person had no prior criminal record, is positively characterized at his place of residence, is married, works and takes care of his family. The court of cassation emphasized that the combination of these circumstances provided grounds for applying Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code, and the gravity of the crime alone is not a decisive criterion for refusing release from serving the sentence with probation. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code, stating that the appellate court properly assessed all the circumstances of the case and the prosecutor’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 465/1456/16-Ρ dated 19/11/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the Lviv City Council against the ruling of the court of first instance approving the settlement agreement between two individuals, which, according to the City Council, violates its rights to dispose of the land plot.
The court of cassation noted that the appellate court mistakenly closed the appellate proceedings, justifying this by the fact that the City Council missed the deadline for appealing without good reason. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court had no right to close the proceedings on a ground not provided for by procedural law, namely, the erroneous opening of appellate proceedings. The court pointed out that the issue of restoring the deadline for appealing had already been resolved at the stage of opening the proceedings, and the appellate court cannot review its decision. Also, the Supreme Court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates the inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights, but noted that in this case the closure of the proceedings was erroneous.
The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 757/16491/22-ΠΊ dated November 24, 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 appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 2 of Article 111 (treason) and Part 5 of Article 407 (unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, pointed out the need for a new appellate review. The judges of the cassation instance likely found violations of the norms of criminal procedure law during the appellate review, which could have affected the legality and validity of the appellate court’s ruling. Possibly, the appellate court did not fully examine the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, did not properly assess the evidence, or committed other procedural violations that cast doubt on the fairness of the court decision. Considering the severity of the crimes with which PERSON_8 is accused, and in order to ensure his proper conduct during the new appellate review, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention. This decision underscores the seriousness of the charges and the need for strict adherence to the norms of procedural law in the consideration of such cases.
The court ruled to partially satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure of detention for the accused.
**Case No. 638/19366/18 dated November 17, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for fraud on a particularly large scale, committed by a prior conspiracy by a group of persons.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, as it did not properly verify the arguments of the defense, set out in the appeal, in particular, regarding the unreasonable estimated value of the object of the crime, the lack of proof of the crime committed by prior conspiracy, the absence of evidence of crimes related to the theft and forgery of documents, as well as the failure to prove the absence of the victim during the signing of the apartment sale and purchase agreement. The appellate court, although stating the arguments of the defense, did not disclose their content sufficiently and left them without response and justification, which is a significant violation of the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Considering that ensuring the right to an appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of justice, the cassation court concluded that the decision of the appellate court does not meet the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
**Case No. 760/2567/20 dated 11/19/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement formalized by a receipt.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court erroneously applied Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, recognizing the plaintiff’s evasion of providing the original receipt for examination, since the plaintiff provided evidence of the original receipt being in the materials of the criminal proceedings. The appellate court did not take sufficient measures to fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not consider the possibility of requesting evidence from the criminal proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have facilitated a comprehensive and complete clarification of the circumstances of the case, which was not done. Also, the court of cassation noted that the presence of the original debt receipt with the plaintiff (creditor) indicates that the debt obligation has not been fulfilled. The court of cassation pointed out the need to provide a legal assessment of the actions of the parties to the case regarding possible evasion of providing relevant evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 179/272/24 dated 11/19/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state executor to refuse to sign the protocol of the land auction and the obligation to sign this protocol.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the state executor unreasonably refused to sign the protocol of the land auction, since the plaintiff provided all the necessary documents, including the passport of a citizen of Ukraine, which is sufficient proof of citizenship. The court emphasized that the requirement of the state executor to provide additional documents to confirm citizenship is not based on the requirements of current legislation, in particular the Land Code of Ukraine and Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1013. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the improper defendant, since it was the actions of the state executor that led to the violation of the plaintiff’s rights, and it is the defendant who has the obligation to sign the protocol. The court of cassation emphasized that its task is to verify the correct application of the rules of law, and not to re-evaluate the evidence, and that a decision correct in substance cannot be overturned for formal reasons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 910/21974/21 dated 11/20/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the general meeting of members of the servicing cooperative “Housing and Construction Cooperative “Da
regarding changes in the composition of the board, election of the chairman of the board, and changes in the number of members of the cooperative.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff was not a member of ZhBK “Darnytsia-2” at the time of the challenged decisions, since he had previously sold the apartment in the cooperative’s building, and therefore, his corporate rights could not be violated by these decisions. The court noted that in order to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting, it is necessary to establish the fact that this decision violates the rights and legitimate interests of a member of the company. The court also pointed out that not all violations of the law committed during the convocation and holding of the general meeting of a legal entity are grounds for invalidating the decisions taken by them. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part concerning the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since it established that the cases cited by the appellant are not similar to this one, as they concern other legal relations and are regulated by other norms of law, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Business Associations”, and not the Law of Ukraine “On Cooperation”. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding incomplete investigation of evidence and unjustified rejection of requests for the requisition of evidence, since it was not confirmed that this made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 446/491/23 dated 28/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for material and moral damage caused as a result of a traffic accident caused by a driver whose civil liability was not insured.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part concerning the resolution of civil claims, since the courts did not properly investigate the evidence confirming the amount of material and moral damage caused, and also did not take into account the objections of the civil defendants regarding the validity of these claims. The court noted that in order to receive insurance compensation, the injured person must provide not only payment documents, but also document the need to purchase medicines and the existence of a causal relationship between the traffic accident and the treatment. In addition, the courts did not question the victims about the extent of their moral suffering and its dependence on the amount of the claimed claims. Also, the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the claims for recovery of procedural costs for legal assistance, since they are not based on the requirements of the law and can be resolved in separate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the resolutionfiling civil suits for compensation for material and moral damages and sent the case for a new trial in civil proceedings.
**Case No. 910/14701/24 dated November 18, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the amendment of a supply agreement concluded in the course of public procurement regarding the term of fulfillment of the obligation due to force majeure circumstances.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the courts did not take into account that the certificates of force majeure circumstances confirm their existence in the relations between the plaintiff and its counterparty, and not under the main supply agreement with the defendant. The court emphasized that, according to current legislation, non-compliance with obligations by the debtor’s counterparty is not considered a force majeure circumstance for the debtor. Also, the court indicated that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied Article 617 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff are not objectively insurmountable for fulfilling obligations under the main contract. The court took into account that the terms of the agreement between the parties did not provide for an unconditional extension of the delivery time of the goods in the event of force majeure circumstances with the supplier’s counterparty. As a result, the court concluded that there are no legal grounds for amending the contract, since the existence of force majeure circumstances that would directly affect the fulfillment of obligations by the plaintiff to the defendant has not been proven.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim for amending the contract.
**Case No. 645/1075/22 dated November 20, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted PERSON_6 for crimes under the articles on theft, attempted theft, and illegal handling of weapons.
The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments.
The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s ruling, and order a new appellate review.
**Case No. 496/2053/21 dated November 24, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder).
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, rejecting the convicted person’s cassation appeal. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the provided operative part. However, it can be assumed that the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_6 in committing a criminal offense, the correctness of the qualification of his actions, and
