**Case No. 991/9619/25 dated 09/29/2025**
The subject of the dispute was the approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in criminal proceedings regarding incitement to attempt to offer an unlawful advantage to an official holding a particularly responsible position, and the possession of ammunition without legal permission.
The court, having examined the case materials, found that the agreement meets the requirements of Article 472 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as it contains all the necessary information, including the parties to the agreement, the wording of the charge, essential circumstances, unconditional admission of guilt, agreed punishment, and consequences of the agreement. The court also took into account that the criminal offenses with which the person is charged are among those for which the law provides for the possibility of concluding a plea agreement, as they are serious corruption crimes committed without complicity. The court also established the existence of sufficient factual grounds for admitting guilt and the correctness of the legal classification of the accused’s actions. The terms of the agreement are in the interests of society, as they ensure a speedy trial and the transfer of funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons. The conclusion of the agreement was a voluntary act of its participants, and the agreed punishment meets the requirements of the law.
The court approved the plea agreement and imposed the agreed measure of punishment on the accused.
**Case No. 910/2217/23 (910/7486/23) dated 11/19/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of contracts in a bankruptcy case.
The Cassation Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, rejecting the cassation appeal of Aksatop Elite LLC. The actual circumstances of the case, based on which the courts of previous instances made decisions, are not provided in the excerpt. Accordingly, it is impossible to establish what arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. However, it can be assumed that the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the absence of grounds for declaring the contracts invalid, possibly due to the failure to prove the violation of the plaintiff’s rights and interests or the absence of other necessary conditions for declaring the transactions invalid.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of Aksatop Elite LLC and to uphold the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 362/3950/23 dated 11/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation by refuting inaccurate information disseminated in an online publication, and compensation for moral damages.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which partially overturned the decision of the court of first instance, distinguishing between factual stateme
Assertions and value judgments in articles posted on the website of an online publication. The court noted that liability for the dissemination of inaccurate information arises only if the disseminated information is a factual assertion and not a value judgment. Value judgments are not subject to refutation, as they are an expression of subjective opinion. The court took into account that the defendant had not provided evidence to substantiate the accuracy of the disseminated information regarding illegal construction and land seizure. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression and the need to distinguish between facts and value judgments. As a result, the court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the obligation to remove articles from the online publication, as not all the information in them was found to be inaccurate.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/15362/24 dated 02/12/2025
1. The municipal enterprise “Ternopilvodokanal” challenged in court the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, considering it illegal.
2. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case, decided to close the cassation proceedings in part on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal in part on the grounds provided for in paragraph 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the court did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the legality of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the legality of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
Case No. 15/81 (910/14924/24) dated 19/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the substitution of the plaintiff – the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine – with its legal successor, the State Property Fund of Ukraine, in a case regarding the invalidation of the results of the auction, the sale and purchase agreement, and the return of property.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to substitute the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine with the State Property Fund of Ukraine as the legal successor in the bankruptcy case of the “Kyiv Radio Plant.” The court noted that procedural succession is the transfer of procedural rights and obligations of a party to a case to another person in connection with the departure of a person in the disputed substantive legal relationship, and it follows the substantive one. The court emphasized that for procedural succession, it is necessary to establish the fact
of the transfer to the person of the material rights of the legal predecessor. In this case, the transfer of the “Kyiv Radio Plant” from the sphere of management of the Ministry of Economy to the State Property Fund of Ukraine based on the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is the basis for replacing a party in the case. The court also indicated that procedural succession is allowed at any stage of the judicial process.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 136/831/14-ц dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of the grain processing complex by the plaintiff, who received it as a property share in the reorganized collective agricultural enterprise.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, reasoning that the decision to allocate the property of the collective agricultural enterprise in kind must be made with the consent of all co-owners, and the plaintiff appealed to an improper defendant (the village council, which is not a party to the disputed legal relations), without involving all owners of property shares. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this approach, noting that the appellate court unreasonably reinstated the term for appealing to a person who did not participate in the case, but stated that her rights were violated, since there were not enough reasons given to consider the reasons for missing the deadline valid, especially considering the long period of time that had passed since the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the reinstatement of the term for appeal must be justified, and an unfounded reinstatement violates the principle of legal certainty. The Supreme Court also took into account the practice of the ECHR regarding the need to ensure compliance with fundamental guarantees in appellate proceedings and the importance of the principle of res judicata.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 398/3043/23 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of a physical education teacher for absenteeism and the requirements for reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the time of forced absence.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff did not start performing his official duties on May 17, 2023, and was absent from the workplace during the entire working hours provided for by his schedule, which is considered absenteeism regardless of the absolute duration of this time, which was 2 hours. The court noted that the plaintiff arbitrarily left the students unattended, did not perform his direct labor functions, which creates a special public danger, since the absence of a teacher endangers the life and health of children. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not take any actions toregarding the proper resolution of the issue of absence from work, did not apply to the employer with requests for leave. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, pointing out that the duration of a pedagogical worker’s working hours includes not only conducting lessons but also other pedagogical workload, and even during those two hours, the plaintiff did not conduct lessons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 927/1104/24 dated 28/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of Individual Entrepreneur Horodnyi Yu.M. for the recovery from LLC “Monofilament” of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the application of Individual Entrepreneur Horodnyi Yu.M., proceeded from the fact that everyone has the right to professional legal assistance, and one of the principles of commercial court proceedings is the reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made. The court noted that the defendant complied with the requirements for submitting a preliminary calculation of expenses and evidence of their incurrence. The Supreme Court emphasized that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to distribution regardless of whether they have already been actually paid or are only to be paid. The court rejected LLC “Monofilament”‘s arguments about the overestimation of the amount of work performed by the attorney, pointing out that the plaintiff did not prove the disproportion of the amount of expenses to the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court also took into account that LLC “Monofilament” itself had previously requested the recovery of significant legal aid expenses from Individual Entrepreneur Horodnyi Yu.M., which indicates the inconsistency of its arguments about the “simplicity” of the case. The court also noted that a fixed fee means that the complexity of the attorney’s actions does not matter for determining the amount of the fee.
3. The court decided to grant the application of Individual Entrepreneur Yurii Mykolaiovych Horodnyi and to recover from LLC “Monofilament” in favor of Individual Entrepreneur Horodnyi Yu.M. UAH 20,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation.
Case No. 272/435/23 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision to amend the State Register of Real Property Rights regarding the term of the land lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of LLC “Zhytomyr-Agro-Invest,” based on the fact that the dispute regarding the term of the lease agreement had already been resolved in previous court cases, where it was established that the parties had agreed on a lease term of 5 years. The state registrar’s decision was made in execution of a court decision in an administrative case, which ordered to make changes to the register regarding the lease term. The court noted that the review of court decisions that have entered into legal force within the framework of this cassation proceeding is not allowed, as it contradicts the principle of legal certainty.
also. Also, the court indicated that the registered real right must correspond to the contract on the basis of which it was registered, and in this case, the decision of the state registrar corresponds to the terms of the lease agreement established by the court.
3. The cassation appeal of Zhytomyr-Agro-Invest LLC was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 299/352/20 dated December 3, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a will drawn up on behalf of PERSON_3 in favor of her son PERSON_2 as invalid, due to the plaintiff’s (another son of PERSON_3) doubts regarding the free expression of will of the testator and her ability to sign the will in Ukrainian.
2. The court, satisfying the claim, relied on the following arguments: firstly, the forensic handwriting examination established that the signature and handwritten text in the will were not made by PERSON_3, but by another person; secondly, PERSON_3 was an ethnic Hungarian who mostly communicated in Hungarian and did not have sufficient knowledge of the Ukrainian language to understand the text of the will, but the notary did not provide a translation of the will into Hungarian, as required by law; thirdly, the will does not contain information that the will was signed by another person on behalf of the testator due to her physical disabilities or illiteracy, which is a violation of the established procedure. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the established factual circumstances of the case, and the appellate court’s refusal to order a repeated examination was justified, since the defendant did not provide convincing explanations as to why the new evidence could not be submitted to the court of first instance. Although the court of cassation agreed with the arguments of the cassation appeal that the district court, when ordering a forensic handwriting examination, in violation of the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, did not warn the expert about criminal liability, it noted that it is clear from the expert’s conclusion that the expert was personally warned about responsibility for a knowingly incorrect conclusion.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances courts unchanged, confirming the invalidity of the will.
Case No. 910/15914/24 dated November 25, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the results of the electronic auction for the sale of a non-residential building as invalid and the recovery of the guarantee fee, since, according to the plaintiff, the NBU did not provide complete and reliable information about the object of sale.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the NBU, as the organizer of the auction, did not provide complete and reliable information about the object of sale, namely, did not inform about the division of the land plot on which the object is located, and the existence of court disputes regarding this division. The court noted
that although the land plot was not the subject of sale, information about its condition is important for potential buyers, as it affects their rights and interests. The court also took into account the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it. The court rejected the NBU’s arguments that the organizer is not obliged to provide additional information about the object that is not the subject of sale, as in this case the lack of such information misled potential buyers. The court also noted that the complainant did not substantiate the need to form a uniform law enforcement practice regarding the application of the general norms of the ETS Regulation.
3. The court dismissed the NBU’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 359/12379/23 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the defense counsel’s appeal.
2. The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part of the ruling, limiting itself only to indicating the satisfaction of the cassation appeal, the cancellation of the appellate court’s ruling, and the appointment of a new hearing in the appellate instance. The reasons for this decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. Typically, such decisions are made in cases where the appellate court has committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, which prevented a full and comprehensive review of the appeal, or incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law when deciding on the admissibility of the appeal. This may include, for example, an unreasonable recognition of the complaint as filed after the deadline, or without complying with the requirements for its form and content.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 549/419/23 dated 28/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s paternity of a child born in the defendant’s marriage to another man, as well as making changes to the civil registration record of the child’s birth.
2. The court granted the claim, relying on the conclusion of a molecular genetic examination, which established the probability of the plaintiff’s paternity at 99.999999%. The court took into account that the defendant did not provide evidence to refute the plaintiff’s paternity, and did not exercise the right to conduct a re-examination. The court also noted that the plaintiff applied to the court within one year after learning of his paternity. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, noting that the plaintiff proved the fact of his biological paternity, and the defendant did not provide evidence that would indicate a violation of the child’s interests as a result of granting the claim. The court of cassation also emphasized that the child’s opinion is not decisive
regarding purely biological origin, and that there is no evidence of the plaintiff’s negative impact on the child.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction and the decisions of the previous instances without changes.
Case No. 947/9393/22 dated 11/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the right to use a residential building by demolishing an unauthorized construction and establishing a land easement.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the defendant’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances regarding the establishment of a land easement, as the plaintiff had not proven the impossibility of using their property without the burden of an easement on someone else’s land and the failure to reach an agreement with the landowner regarding the establishment of an easement. The court noted that for the establishment of an easement, it is necessary to prove the fact of contacting the owner of the neighboring plot with a proposal to conclude an agreement on the easement and the owner’s refusal. Regarding the claims for the elimination of obstacles to the use of the house by demolishing the unauthorized construction, the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, as the fact of the defendant’s unauthorized construction in violation of building codes and the plaintiff’s rights was established. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of the first and appellate instances.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances regarding the establishment of a land easement and dismissed this claim, and left the decisions of the courts unchanged regarding the elimination of obstacles to the use of the residential building.
Case No. 990/296/25 dated 11/20/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling of the First Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) refusing to open a disciplinary case against judges of the appellate court.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that current legislation does not provide for the possibility of appealing the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ refusing to open a disciplinary case, in particular, in court. The court noted that the plaintiff is trying to appeal a decision that is not subject to appeal, and that the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber is not a decision of the HCJ made as a result of consideration of a complaint against the decision of its Disciplinary Chamber, which is subject to appeal in accordance with the CAS of Ukraine. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where it was concluded that the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ refusing to open a disciplinary case cannot be an independent subject of judicial review. The court emphasized that the powers to consider complaints regarding the disciplinary offense of judges belong exclusively to the HCJ, and that the right to a court
is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions if they do not harm the essence of the right and pursue a legitimate aim.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/1562/25 of 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the Condominium “Dnipro Riviera” in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal of PERSON_1.
2. The Supreme Court granted the motion of the Condominium “Dnipro Riviera”, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made, and the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding expenses for professional legal assistance. The court found that the attorney’s fees are documented (contract, acts, payment instructions), correspond to the scope of services provided (drafting a response, participation in court sessions), are reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case. Importantly, the plaintiff did not object to these expenses. The court also took into account the preliminary calculation of expenses provided by the defendant and compliance with the deadlines for submitting evidence.
3. The court ruled to grant the motion of the Condominium “Dnipro Riviera” and recover from PERSON_1 6000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 642/4601/20 of 26/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
2. The operative part of the resolution does not contain the arguments of the court of cassation instance. It is evident from the text that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, and only the operative part has been announced so far. Accordingly, it is impossible to analyze the motives that guided the court in making the decision, as they will be set out in the full text of the resolution.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 344/3725/18 of 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of family relations and ownership of inherited property, as well as the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage in order to recognize ownership of the apartment.
2. The court granted the claims of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2, establishing the fact of their family relations with the deceased PERSON_4 and recognizing their ownership of the inherited property (apartment and cars) by right of representation, as they are cousins of the deceased. The court proceeded from the fact that the mother of PERSON_4 and the mother of the plaintiffs were sisters, and errors in the spelling of surnames arose due to the forced eviction of their family. In refusing to satisfy the claim of PERSON_3, the court noted that she had not proven the fact ofliving with the deceased as one family for the required period, and also did not confirm the maintenance of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget and participation in the reconstruction of the apartment at own expense. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, confirming the legitimacy of recognizing the ownership of the inheritance property for PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 and refusing to satisfy the claim of PERSON_3.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of PERSON_3 unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 760/20466/18 dated 02/12/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The court is considering a case on charges against a judge and a lawyer of receiving undue advantage for inaction using the judge’s authority in cases of administrative offenses.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court found that the judge, being an official, received undue advantage through a lawyer for making decisions in favor of certain individuals in cases of administrative offenses. The court considered evidence obtained as a result of covert investigative actions, including records of conversations and search protocols, during which identified funds were discovered. The court declared some of the prosecution’s evidence inadmissible due to violations in the procedure for conducting covert investigative actions, and also reclassified the lawyer’s actions from aiding and abetting in receiving undue advantage to aiding and abetting in providing undue advantage, as the lawyer acted in the interests of the individuals providing the advantage. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments of provocation of a crime, as it did not establish excessive activity by law enforcement agencies in inducing the commission of the crime.
3. **Court decision:** The court found both defendants guilty: the judge – of receiving undue advantage, and the lawyer – of aiding and abetting in providing undue advantage, sentencing them to imprisonment.
Case No. 363/3056/20 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use of the land plot, by canceling the state registration of the adjacent land plot owned by the defendant.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the claim, since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protecting the violated right, namely, the requirement to cancel the state registration of the defendant’s land plot is a disproportionate measure, as it will lead to the deprivation of the defendant’s ownership of the entire plot, and not only that part of it, which may overlap with the plaintiff’s plot. The court indicated that the proper method of protection in this case is a vindication claim for the recovery of the part of the land plot that actually overlaps with the plaintiff’s plot, provided that this fact of overlapping is proven.
He also noted that in order to resolve such disputes, it is necessary to identify the disputed land plot, in particular, by determining the coordinates of the turning points of the boundaries and data on the reference of the turning points of the boundaries to the points of the state geodetic network, which can be established on the basis of an expert’s opinion. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the courts’ failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since they do not concern the issue of choosing a proper method of protection or contradict the later position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 753/9122/20 dated 19/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as having lost the right to use a residential premise, and a counterclaim for reinstatement of residence.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, since the full text of the judgment was not signed by the entire composition of the court, namely by the judge who had already been dismissed from her position at the time of signing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the powers of a judge terminate from the moment a decision on her dismissal is made, and she cannot continue to administer justice in a specific case. The court emphasized that the reasoning part of the decision is an important component that reflects the quality of the court decision, and that the case is duly resolved only from the moment the full text of the court decision is drawn up. Also, the Supreme Court referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which states that the term “prescribed by law” covers not only the legal grounds for the existence of the court, but also the court’s compliance with certain norms that regulate its activities.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 757/19253/22-ц dated 26/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the bank’s actions regarding the withholding of funds for the transfer and the termination of the bank account agreement.
2. The court of first instance, with which the court of appeal agreed, partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the bank’s actions as illegal, since the bank did not provide evidence of the existence of legal grounds for suspending the plaintiff’s financial transactions for more than 30 working days, establishing the status of unacceptably high risk for the plaintiff, and complying with the procedure for applying to a specially authorized body. The courts also applied the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Consumer Rights” and recovered a penalty from the bank for violation of the terms of the payment transaction. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with these conclusions, pointing out that the courts of previous instances did not ensure a complete and comprehensive consideration of the case, did not take into account the bank’s arguments about the plaintiff’s failure to provide documents that
b) confirmed the origin of funds, and also did not provide a legal assessment of the bank’s arguments that the plaintiff’s account was opened as a natural person, not as an entrepreneur, and was not intended for crediting funds received from entrepreneurial activities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 362/1520/24 dated November 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of alimony from adult children for the maintenance of a disabled father.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings on the defendants’ complaints against the decision of the court of first instance, considering it a default decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that for the adoption of a default decision, the presence of a court hearing with notification of the parties is necessary, which was not the case in this case, since the consideration was carried out in the order of simplified proceedings without calling the parties. The court of first instance did not issue a ruling on the default consideration of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural rules to ensure fair justice and legal certainty, referring to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, which impede further proceedings in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 369/3744/17 dated November 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict of the appellate court, supporting the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt. The court noted that the conclusion about PERSON_7’s guilt is based on an objective clarification of all the circumstances, confirmed by evidence examined and verified during the trial, in particular, on the testimony of witnesses, the protocol of the accident scene inspection, and the conclusions of forensic examinations. The court emphasized that PERSON_7’s violation of traffic rules is directly related to the consequences that occurred. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, the absence of a causal relationship, and the violation of the right to defense. The court also noted that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the defender’s appeal and provided reasonable answers to them.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6 in the interests of the convicted PERSON_7 without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated May 13, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 – without change.
Case No. 754/2174/24 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the rulings of previous instances regarding the distribution of procedural costs in the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of previous instances regarding the distribution of procedural costs related to the involvement of an expert. The court decided to allocate these costs in the amount of UAH 6,058.24 to the state. In making this decision, the court likely took into account the practice of distributing procedural costs in criminal proceedings, as well as the specific circumstances of the case that could have influenced the decisions of previous instances. It is possible that the previous instance courts placed these costs on the accused, but the Supreme Court decided that in this case, they should be borne by the state. For the rest, the decisions of previous instance courts remained unchanged, which may indicate that the main issues regarding the guilt or qualification of PERSON_7’s actions were not reviewed.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of previous instances only in the part regarding the distribution of procedural costs, placing them on the state.
Case No. 642/4601/20 dated 26/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the first instance court and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of previous instance courts, since PERSON_8’s guilt was proven by proper and admissible evidence examined in the court session, including witness testimonies, protocols of the scene examination and corpse examination, and expert opinions. The court noted that the scene examination was conducted on legal grounds, since there was a report of a possible crime, and PERSON_8’s consent to the examination of her residence was also obtained. Also, the Supreme Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during the detention, since the detention protocol met the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and violations of the procedure for taking biological
