Case №464/242/23 of 11/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed repeatedly, under martial law) and the imposition of punishment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, as the court of appeal, reviewing the case after the cancellation of the previous decision, correctly applied Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine when imposing punishment based on the aggregate of verdicts, taking into account the instructions of the Supreme Court. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the defense counsel regarding the need for re-examination of the evidence, as no convincing arguments were provided regarding the incompleteness of the investigation of the circumstances by the court of first instance. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the court of appeal reasonably refused to request additional data on the health condition of the convicted person, as the available data had already been taken into account when imposing punishment. The court of cassation did not establish any significant violations of substantive and procedural law that would be grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions.
The court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case №455/1415/23 of 11/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for offering an unlawful benefit to an official (Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances, in its opinion, fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion regarding the guilt of the person. The court noted that the offer of an unlawful benefit is a completed crime from the moment it is expressed, and the courts took into account all significant circumstances, including witness testimony, protocols of the scene examination, and other evidence. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal provided exhaustive answers to all arguments of the defense’s appeal, and no violations of the criminal procedural law that could affect the legality of the court decisions were established. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that there were no signs of provocation of the crime by the official.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal, and to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case №683/1770/23 of 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of land plots from the illegal possession of others by the “Horobyna” Farm Enterprise from individuals who received these plots as property from the state.
2. The court of appeal, whose decision is being reviewed, granted the claim of the “Horobyna” FE, reclaiming the land plots from the defendants, since in
established that the right of permanent use of the land plot by the “Horobyna” farm was not terminated in accordance with the procedure established by law, and the transfer of the disputed plots to the defendants occurred in violation of the farm’s rights. The court took into account the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including the expert’s opinion and the cadastral plan, which confirm the overlap of the defendants’ land plots with the plot used by the “Horobyna” farm. The court also noted that the recovery of property is a proportionate measure that does not violate Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it corresponds to a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the right of permanent use of land is indefinite and can be terminated only on the grounds provided by law, which were not established in this case. Regarding one of the defendants, the Supreme Court pointed out the need for additional investigation of the circumstances of the partial overlap of land plots and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of three defendants, and regarding one defendant, it overturned the decision of the court of appeal regarding the recovery of the land plot and sent the case for a new trial.
Case No. 914/2823/15 dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the recovery of court costs in the amount of UAH 50,000.00 from PERSON_2 and PERSON_3.
2. The court of cassation upheld the additional ruling of the court of appeal, which dismissed the application of PERSON_1 for the recovery of court costs from the plaintiffs. The court took into account that PERSON_1 was one of the founders of “Stryi Furniture Factory” Additional Liability Company and participated in making decisions that led to the deprivation of PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 of the right of ownership to shares in the authorized capital of the company. The court of appeal established the fact of violation of the plaintiffs’ rights and causing them material damage, including by the unlawful actions of the applicant. Taking these circumstances into account, the court concluded that imposing an additional burden on the plaintiffs in the form of recovering court costs in favor of PERSON_1 contradicts the principle of fairness of court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that the distribution of court costs is a discretionary power of the court, which is exercised taking into account the circumstances of a specific case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the additional ruling of the Western Economic Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/339/25 dated 11/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the case of bankruptcy of “Ryzhivsky Granite Quarry” PJSC at the initiative of “Aritox” LLC.
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal took a formal approach to the case.
reviewing the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case, without carefully verifying the validity of the initiating creditor’s claims, in particular, the existence of signs of relatedness between the creditor and the debtor through LLC “Enerhiya Klasik,” which could indicate the creditor’s vested interest and possible abuse of rights. The court of cassation emphasized the need to maintain a balance of public and private interests in bankruptcy cases, as well as the importance of judicial control when opening proceedings, which includes verifying the validity of the creditor’s claims and preventing the inclusion of fictitious debt. The court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court did not examine the evidence regarding the conclusion and performance of contracts, and also did not clarify the legal grounds for the debtor’s obligations, in particular, regarding the return of the advance payment under the supply agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that unfounded opening of proceedings in a bankruptcy case may violate the rights of other creditors and the public interest.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part that upheld the first instance court’s ruling on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case and remanded the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.
Case No. 991/4914/25 dated 11/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court on the return of an appeal to the person who filed it due to missing the deadline for appealing.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not clarify important circumstances, namely, when the person who was not summoned to the hearing of the complaint by the investigating judge received a copy of the appealed decision, which is decisive for calculating the deadline for appealing. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the deadline for appealing for a person who was not summoned to the hearing of the complaint is calculated from the date of receiving a copy of the court decision. Since the case materials confirmed that the copy of the investigating judge’s ruling was received later than the appellate court considered, the appeal was filed within the established deadline. Thus, the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which calls into question the legality and validity of its decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 357/3787/24 dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 and PERSON_5 on the basis of paragraph 10, part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely, sending the indictment to court after the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the criminal proceedings, noting thatthe pre-trial investigation expired before the indictment was sent to court. The court took into account that, according to Clause 5, Part 1, Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the moment of completion of the pre-trial investigation is the sending of the indictment to the court, and this term is not extended for the time of familiarization with the case materials by the victim, since the victim is not a party to the criminal proceedings in the context of Part 5, Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also emphasized that the defense counsel’s statement on the completion of familiarization with the materials, sent to the district police department, is considered received from the moment it is received by the institution, and not from the moment it is actually received by the investigator, since the prosecutor’s office did not prove that the district police department and the investigation department have different locations or peculiarities of record management that would affect the terms of receipt of the statement. Considering that the indictment was sent to the court after the expiration of the term of the pre-trial investigation, the courts of previous instances rightfully closed the criminal proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the appellate court.
Case No. 454/1032/24 dated 11/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office for compensation for property and moral damages caused, in his opinion, by the unlawful refusal to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations based on his statement of a criminal offense.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of property or moral damages, as well as a causal relationship between the actions of the prosecutor’s office and the negative consequences. The court noted that the mere fact of improper consideration of the application is not a sufficient basis for compensation for moral damages, since the plaintiff’s rights were restored by the ruling of the investigating judge, which obliged the prosecutor’s office to consider his application. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not substantiate the amount of the claimed moral damages and did not prove the humiliation of his honor, dignity or business reputation. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies, and the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. The court of cassation also noted that it does not have the authority to decide on the issue of appealing to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on issues of constitutionality of laws, therefore the petition of PERSON_1 was dismissed without consideration.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 916/3707/22 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the Odesa City Council regarding the sale of land plots as illegal, the recognition of purchase and sale agreements and state acts of ownership as invalid.
and these plots, as well as the obligation to return the land plots to state ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance, when reviewing the case, focused on the issue of proving the fact that the disputed land plots belonged to the land of the water fund, since this fact was key to satisfying the prosecutor’s claims. The court found that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence that the disputed land plots belonged to the land of the water fund at the time of their sale. The court also took into account that at the time of making decisions on the sale of land plots, the legislation did not contain restrictions on the sale of land for recreational purposes, and the land management projects received all the necessary approvals. In addition, the court noted that information from the State Land Cadastre does not confirm that the disputed plots were ever related to the land of the water fund. The court also pointed out the erroneous application by the court of appeal of the provisions on reclaiming property from a bona fide purchaser, since the illegality of the alienation of property was not proven.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but leaving unchanged the decision to refuse to satisfy the prosecutor’s claims.
Case No. 908/2406/20 dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the state executor regarding the refusal to renew the enforcement proceedings on the recovery of debt from LLC “Zaporizhia Titanium and Magnesium Combine” in favor of LLC “Zaporizhiaelectroposatachannya”.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of LLC “Zaporizhiaelectroposatachannya”, since the state executor lawfully suspended the enforcement proceedings on the basis of paragraph 12 of the first part of Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since LLC “Zaporizhia Titanium and Magnesium Combine” was included in the list of large-scale privatization objects of state property. The court noted that the inclusion of the enterprise in the list of large-scale privatization objects is an imperative basis for suspending enforcement actions, and the privatization procedure had not been completed or terminated as of the time of the case consideration. The court also emphasized that the suspension of enforcement actions in connection with privatization is aimed at ensuring the public interest in controlling the disposal of state property. The court pointed out that the state’s violation of the obligation to ensure the enforcement of a court decision within a reasonable time is not a basis for imposing a debt on it, but the creditor may demand compensation for improper enforcement. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations of the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, procedural legislation and the practice of the ECHR.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Zaporizhiaelectroposatachannya”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/16291/22 dated 2
7/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
The Supreme Court partially granted the defenders’ cassation appeals, overturning the decision of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance, releasing the convicted person from custody. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the Supreme Court in making such a decision based on the provided operative part of the ruling. Usually, this may be due to significant violations of the criminal procedure law, incompleteness of the judicial review, or incorrect application of substantive law by the appellate court. For a complete understanding of the Supreme Court’s position, it is necessary to review the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later.
The court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 161/10457/24 dated 24/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted person regarding the amount of compensation for moral damages and legal aid expenses awarded by the court to the victim in the criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation instance, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, noted that the amount of moral damages (UAH 15,000) was determined taking into account the nature and extent of the victim’s mental suffering, based on the principles of reasonableness, balance, and fairness. Regarding the legal aid expenses (UAH 20,000), the court took into account the scope of work performed by the lawyer, the number and duration of court hearings, as well as the availability of evidence confirming the expenses incurred by the victim, in particular, a receipt for payment of the lawyer’s fee. The court emphasized that the current legislation does not establish an exhaustive list of evidence to confirm the costs of legal aid but requires evidence confirming the amount of such costs. The court also took into account the criteria of the reality of attorney’s fees and the reasonableness of their amount, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_8, and dismissed his cassation appeal.
Case No. 727/945/25 dated 19/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the minor child’s place of residence after the divorce of the parents.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances dismissed the mother’s claim, reasoning that at the time of the case’s consideration, the child was already living with the mother, where all conditions for her comfortable living and development were created, and the father did not demand a change in the child’s place of residence and did not impede communication with her, which, in their opinion, indicated the absence of a dispute between the parents. The court of cassation instance disagreed with such conclusions, emphasizing that the absenceThe defendant’s arguments regarding the child’s residence with the plaintiff are not a sufficient basis to assert the absence of a dispute, especially considering that the dispute between the parents regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence actually existed, and the issue was not resolved. The courts also failed to consider the importance of the opinion of the guardianship authority, which is mandatory in such cases, and did not ascertain the child’s opinion, which is a violation of their rights. Furthermore, the courts did not properly assess all the circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, they did not take into account the child’s health condition and individual needs.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 947/37809/20 dated 11/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the rulings of the court of first instance and the appellate court regarding the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 and PERSON_5.
The operative part of the decision, unfortunately, does not contain any arguments of the court. The text only shows that the prosecutor filed a cassation appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. The judges overturned the decisions of the lower courts, referring to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that regulate cassation review. The full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the reversal, will be announced later.
The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, reverse the rulings of the lower courts, and order a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 136/970/14-ц dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of real estate (a calf house) that the plaintiff received in lieu of property shares.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court unreasonably reinstated the time limit for appealing to a person who was not involved in the case, as the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, which was almost 10 years, was not properly investigated. The appellate court did not determine when the person learned about the decision of the court of first instance and whether they could have learned about it earlier. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the person was not a party to the case, therefore, the court of first instance was not obliged to notify them about the consideration of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the unfounded reinstatement of the time limit for appealing a court decision is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the principle of res judicata. The court also took into account that the appellate court did not properly motivate its conclusion regarding the existence of valid reasons for reinstating the time limit, which is a violation of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the lower courts because they did not provide a proper legal assessment of the circumstances of the commencement of the limitation period and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the statute of limitations in similar cases, where a man who believes himself to be the biological father files a lawsuit for recognition of paternity after information about another father has already been entered into the civil registration record of the child’s birth based on a statement of acknowledgment of paternity. The court also pointed out the need to take into account the best interests of the child, including the child’s opinion, especially in the case when the child has reached a significant age. In addition, the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff knew about his paternity for a long time, but applied to the court only after many years, which may indicate an abuse of right. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between the interests of the child and the rights of the alleged biological father, as well as the need to ensure legal certainty and stability of civil legal relations.
3. The decisions of the previous instance courts were overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №703/2155/23 dated 08/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order to dismiss the plaintiff from his position in connection with the reorganization of the Social Insurance Fund and its merger with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the dispute arose in connection with the reorganization of the Social Insurance Fund and its merger with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, which provides for specific legal succession. Since the powers of the Fund were transferred to the Pension Fund of Ukraine as a legal entity of public law, and the plaintiff’s claims are aimed at reinstatement to work in the bodies of the Pension Fund, the dispute concerns admission to public service. The court took into account that disputes related to the reinstatement of employees dismissed as a result of the Fund’s reorganization to positions classified as civil service positions in the bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine are subject to consideration under the rules of administrative procedure. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Supreme Court as part of the joint chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated December 9, 2024 in case № 712/4776/23, according to which such disputes should be considered according to the rules of administrative procedure, even if at the time of dismissal the employees were not in civil service.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the case.
**Case №179/1919/24 dated 27/11/2**
025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of emphyteusis agreements concluded between the owner of land plots and a farm through representatives under a power of attorney as invalid.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff’s representatives acted within the scope of the powers granted to them by the power of attorney, which allowed them to conclude any agreements regarding land plots, including emphyteusis. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not lose ownership of the land, but only transferred the right to use it for a certain period. Also, the court took into account the prejudicial decision in the previous case, where the circumstances regarding the powers of the representatives had already been established. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff’s arguments about the unfairness of the terms of the contract and the lack of payment were not properly proven, and the possibility of appealing the non-payment under the emphyteusis agreement does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to appeal to the court to recover the debt. The court also rejected the arguments about the violation of the principle of freedom of contract, since the terms of emphyteusis do not contradict the norms of legislation and the general principles of civil law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 219/2095/22 dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute 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_7 for collaborative activity (Part 5 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, since the court of appeal did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law regarding proper notification of the accused PERSON_7 about the date, time and place of the appeal hearing in the procedure of special court proceedings. The court of appeal was to not only send a notification to the last known place of residence of the accused (in the temporarily occupied territory), but also ensure that this information was published in mass media of the national sphere of distribution and on the official website of the court. Failure to comply with these requirements is a significant violation of the criminal procedure law, as it could have prevented the court from making a legal and reasoned decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the obligation to properly notify the accused rests with the court of appeal, which is actually the last instance for verifying the completeness of the trial. Also, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the ECHR on the issue of proper notification of a person about criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 904/5405/24 dated 26/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties from Top-Tex LLC in favor of the Main Center for Capital Construction, Reconstruction and Procurement of the State Border Service
of Ukraine for untimely delivery of goods under the purchase agreement.
3. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims, recovering a penalty and a fine from Top-Tex LLC, but reducing their amount by 20%. The courts proceeded from the fact that Top-Tex LLC violated the terms of delivery of goods stipulated by the contract and did not provide proper evidence of force majeure circumstances that would release it from liability. The court noted that the certificate of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not an indisputable proof of force majeure, and the defendant did not prove the causal relationship between the fire at the manufacturer and the impossibility of fulfilling the obligations. Regarding the reduction of penalties, the courts took into account the interests of both parties, the measures taken by the defendant to fulfill the obligations, the absence of losses for the plaintiff and a slight delay, as well as the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that reducing the amount of the penalty is the right of the court, which depends on the specific circumstances of the case, and the courts of previous instances exercised their discretionary powers lawfully.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 495/341/21 dated 25/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 on the basis of the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court, upholding the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of criminal proceedings, did not take into account the provisions of Part 5 of Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which the term for reviewing the materials of the pre-trial investigation by the parties to the criminal proceedings is not included in the term of the pre-trial investigation. The court did not take into account that the defender of PERSON_6 received a notification on the completion of the pre-trial investigation, which stops the running of the pre-trial investigation period until the end of familiarization with the materials. Also, the appellate court incorrectly assessed the evidence regarding the proper notification of PERSON_6 about the completion of the investigation, without examining the documents provided by the prosecutor. The court of cassation referred to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, according to which the term for reviewing the materials of the pre-trial investigation must be calculated from the moment of notification of the completion of the pre-trial investigation and the provision of access to its materials, and not from the actual provision of such access.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 918/1061/24(450/2426/24) dated 20/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment, concluded between two individuals, since one of them, according to the plaintiff, did not have the right to dispose of this apartment.
2. SuThe court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the preliminary contract, the person acting as the seller no longer had the appropriate authority, since the term of the joint activity agreement (simple partnership), on the basis of which it acted, had expired. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the extension of the simple partnership agreement by performing conclusive actions, since such actions were not executed properly, as required by law and the agreement itself. The court also noted that the arguments about the need to apply the analogy of the law are unfounded, since the disputed legal relations are already regulated by current legislation and the terms of the agreement. In addition, the court emphasized that the owner of the property in respect of which the preliminary contract was concluded has the right to challenge such a contract, even if the main contract was not concluded.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared the preliminary contract for the sale of the apartment invalid.
Case No. 419/703/16-к dated November 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of fraud (Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), due to the lack of sufficient evidence of his guilt.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, citing a number of violations of the criminal procedural law. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the protocol of covert investigative (search) actions (CISD) dated July 28, 2015, and did not substantiate the conclusions about the inadmissibility of the protocols of investigative experiments, without giving reasons for the absence of data on the reproduction of the circumstances of the event in them. The court of appeal unreasonably refused to interrogate witnesses, without motivating the reasons for the refusal. In addition, the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the absence of the elements of fraud in the actions of PERSON_7, since the appellate court did not take into account that PERSON_7, being a military commissar, did not check the military registration data of PERSON_9, which may indicate deception. The court also noted that the appellate court mistakenly demanded prior awareness of the guilty party about certain circumstances in order to establish the objective side of the fraud.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 523/4682/20 dated November 26, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 for committing criminal offenses, in particular under Part 3 of Article 15, Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (attempted theft, committed on a large scale).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 and PERSON_7 under Part 3 of Article 15, Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, motivated
considering the need for a new trial in the court of appeal. At the same time, the rest of the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged. The decision to overturn the attempted theft is likely due to the discrepancy between the court’s findings and the actual circumstances of the case or the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, requiring re-examination by the appellate court. Also, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 and PERSON_7 under Part 3 of Article 15, Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, leaving the rest of the ruling unchanged.
**Case No. 947/4084/24 of 26/11/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacturing, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
The operative part of the decision does not specify the court’s arguments. Therefore, I cannot provide them.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the defense counsel’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding PERSON_7 – without change.
**Case No. 922/4729/24 of 27/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from a company in favor of the state due to the inconsistency of the land plot’s intended purpose with the type of activity of the company.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of the State Geo кадастр, on the following grounds:
* The plaintiff did not prove the fact of using the land plot for purposes other than its intended purpose or causing harm to the environment.
* The State Geo кадастр recognizes the legality of the acquisition of the land plot by the previous owner.
* The appellate court considered the claim as confiscation of property, which is possible only in cases prescribed by law.
* The Supreme Court noted that the circumstances of the case referred to by the appellant are not similar to circumstances that would indicate a violation of the priority of preserving agricultural land or causing harm to public interests.
* The appellant did not specify the specific norm of law that was incorrectly applied by the appellate court.
* The arguments of the complaint actually amount to the absence of legal grounds for the defendant’s acquisition of the right to the plot, which is not the subject of the dispute.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Geo кадастр in the Kharkiv region without satisfaction, and to leave the decision of the Eastern Economic Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 199/4120/24 of 25/11/2025**
1. The subject of the
