Case №351/2365/23 dated 03/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, as well as compensation for moral damage caused by the dissemination of information that, according to the plaintiff, is unreliable.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which reasonably refused to satisfy the claim, since the information disseminated by the defendant is evaluative judgments, and not factual statements, and therefore is not subject to judicial protection. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of distinguishing between facts and evaluative judgments, noting that evaluative judgments cannot be verified for their accuracy. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression, which protects not only information that is perceived positively, but also information that may offend or disturb. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to determine the unreliability of information, it is necessary to evaluate it in the context of the entire situation, and not just individual phrases. Since the illegality of the defendant’s actions was not proven, there are no grounds for compensation for moral damage.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the claim.
Case №333/1925/16-ц dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of persons as having lost the right to use a dwelling, the removal of obstacles to the use of the apartment and the resettlement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the original claim to recognize persons as having lost the right to use housing, and also partially satisfied the counterclaim, eliminating obstacles to the use of the apartment by resettlement. The appellate court proceeded from the fact that the defendants acquired the right to use the disputed housing on legal grounds as members of the family of the previous tenant, and the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of their non-residence without valid reasons. The court also took into account that the former tenant of the apartment did not dispute the right of use of the defendants. An important factor was that the defendant proved the validity of the reasons for his non-residence in the disputed apartment, in particular, due to the child’s illness, which required special care and avoidance of a conflict environment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case №753/22568/14-ц dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between the bank and the borrower, as well as a guarantee agreement.
ensured the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which, having overturned the default judgment of the court of first instance, partially satisfied the bank’s claim. The appellate court reasonably proceeded from the fact that the bank’s right to accrue interest and penalties under the loan agreement terminates after the expiration of the loan period or the presentation of a demand for early repayment of the loan. In this case, the bank exercised the right to demand early repayment of the loan, therefore, the appellate court lawfully limited the period of accrual of interest and penalties to the date when the loan repayment period was considered to have arrived. The court also noted that the defendants did not provide a counter-calculation of the debt, which would refute the calculation provided by the bank. The arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 183/11711/23 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation of the plaintiff and the defendant without registration of marriage, recognition of the apartment as jointly acquired property, and division of financial savings.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of cohabitation with the defendant as a family without registration of marriage, joint household, joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent to spouses. The court noted that the testimony of witnesses and joint photographs are not decisive evidence in such a matter. Also, the court took into account that the disputed apartment was purchased by the defendant before the registration of the marriage, and the plaintiff did not prove the existence of joint funds used for its purchase. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to re-evaluate them. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance courts that there are no legal grounds for recognizing the property as jointly acquired property, since the fact of cohabitation as a family without marriage has not been proven.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/1276/24 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the limited liability company to carry out warranty repairs of the car.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the terms of the Extended Warranty Program do not provide for additional warranty obligations for the replacement of friction discs of the automatic transmission (AT) of the car, and the terms of the Program are subject to the restrictions provided by the servicebook, which exclude warranty obligations for the replacement of automatic transmission friction discs. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of their rights due to improper diagnostics and maintenance of the automatic transmission by the defendant, as there is no causal link between the vehicle malfunction and the actions/inaction of the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized that its powers are limited to verifying the compliance of the courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law based on the established factual circumstances of the case and exclusively within the limits of the arguments of the cassation appeal, and it does not have the right to re-evaluate the circumstances from which the courts proceeded when resolving the case. The court of cassation also rejected the appellant’s reference to the incorrect application by the courts of Article 218 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, as the disputed legal relations are not similar to those in the case referred to by the appellant. The court of cassation also noted that the basis for cassation appeal is the failure to consider the conclusion of the Supreme Court precisely regarding the application of the rule of law, and not any conclusion made by the court of cassation to substantiate the reasoning part of the judgment.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 920/1061/23(920/179/25) dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for services of supplying thermal energy and subscriber services.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not properly examine the evidence relevant to the case, namely: whether heating services were actually provided to common areas, whether heat metering devices were installed in these areas, and also did not assess the counter-calculation submitted by the defendant. The previous instances referred to the fact that disconnecting the apartment from centralized heating does not exempt from the obligation to pay for heating common areas, but did not verify the actual provision of these services. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out that the courts did not examine the evidence provided by the appellant, namely the counter-calculation. Also, the court of cassation noted that the courts did not establish whether such services were actually provided based on the study of heating device readings in common areas and establishing the fact of the existence of such devices.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 904/2963/25 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the agreement on opening a revolving credit line and guarantee agreements.
2. The court of cassation upheld the
by virtue of the rulings of the previous instances courts, which dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff failed to appear at the court session, did not report the reasons for the failure to appear, and did not file a motion to have the case heard in their absence, which is the basis for dismissing the claim pursuant to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that proper notification of the plaintiff about the time and place of the court session, their failure to appear or failure to report the reasons for the failure to appear, as well as the absence of a motion to have the case heard in the plaintiff’s absence, are simultaneous conditions for applying the consequences of the plaintiff’s failure to appear. The court also emphasized that a party to the case must formalize their expression of will to waive the right to participate in court sessions by filing an appropriate motion, and cannot waive this right based on the principle of silence. The court also noted that the possibility of dismissing the claim is independent of the stage of the trial, and this can be done at the stage of preparatory proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances courts.
**Case No. 741/1181/19 dated December 8, 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 the rape of a minor.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court, based on the following arguments:
* The appellate court duly considered the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, assessed them, and reasonably upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
* The appellate court reasonably refused to re-examine the evidence, as it had been fully and comprehensively examined by the court of first instance.
* The appellate court’s reference to evidence that was not directly examined in the appellate instance is not a violation, as the court referred to it in the context of analyzing the evidence on which the judgment of the court of first instance was based.
* The refusal to conduct an investigative experiment was justified, in particular, by the need to protect the interests of the child who suffered from sexual violence.
* The courts considered all versions of the defense, including the possibility of a different origin of the injuries to the victim, and gave them due assessment.
* The appellate court created the necessary conditions for the parties to exercise their procedural rights.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ruling of the appellate court and dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
**Case No. 185/7229/23 dated December 8, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the correctness of the qualification of the actions of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine) and Part 5 of Article
Art. 111-1 of the CC (collaborative activity in the form of participation in the organization and conduct of an illegal referendum in the temporarily occupied territory).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which found PERSON_7 guilty under both articles. The court noted that in order to distinguish between the elements of crimes under Part 2 of Art. 110 of the Criminal Code and Part 5 of Art. 111-1 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to take into account the purpose of the crime: in Part 2 of Art. 110 of the Criminal Code, the purpose is to alienate part of the territory of Ukraine, while in Part 5 of Art. 111-1 of the Criminal Code, the purpose is to assist the aggressor state. Since the actions of PERSON_7 were aimed both at facilitating the holding of an illegal referendum and at changing the borders of the territory of Ukraine, there is an ideal aggregate of crimes, which provides for qualification under both articles. The court also emphasized that the appellate court objectively examined and evaluated all the evidence in its entirety and came to the correct conclusion that the guilt of PERSON_7 was proven. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not call into question the legality of the appealed court decision and do not refute the correctness of the conclusions stated therein.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/5530/23(916/3327/25) dated 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a ruling on securing a claim, which prohibited taking actions to satisfy the claims of the mortgagee and conducting state registration of the mortgagee’s ownership of real estate.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling on securing the claim, since there was a real threat of foreclosure on the disputed property, which would make it impossible to effectively protect the rights of the applicant in this case if the court decision on the merits of the dispute is made in his favor. The court took into account the repeated assignment of rights under credit and mortgage agreements, as well as the possibility of termination of the assignment of claim rights agreement, as a result of which any of the listed legal entities may become the mortgagee. The applied measures to secure the claim are commensurate with the stated claims and do not violate the rights of the mortgagee, since they do not terminate the legal relationship under the appealed mortgage agreements and do not cancel the entries on the mortgage. The court emphasized that the good faith of the mortgagee is a circumstance that affects the validity of the claims and should be investigated during the consideration of the dispute on the merits. The court also noted that the measures taken to secure the claim in this case are different from the measures that were taken in another case, given the different subjects of the claims, the nature of the disputes and the composition of the participants in the proceedings.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the court decisions of the previous instances.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the arguments that the court relied on when making its decision. It is only known that the defender’s cassation appeal was partially granted, and the appellate court’s verdict was overturned with the assignment of a new trial in the appellate instance. The full text of the ruling, with the court’s reasoning, will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case №754/11380/21 dated 12/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damages caused to the plaintiff by the inaction of law enforcement agencies and improper investigation in criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation, partially granting the cassation appeals, proceeded from the fact that in order to compensate for moral damages, it is necessary to establish and prove the existence of all the constituent elements of a civil offense, including a causal connection between the unlawful act of the tortfeasor and the damage caused to the victim. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the validity of the claims in terms of the excessive duration of the pre-trial investigation, which led to the moral suffering of the plaintiff. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out the lack of proper justification for the amount of compensation for moral damages by the previous courts, which did not fully clarify the circumstances of the damage and did not check the submitted evidence for relevance and sufficiency. Also, the court of cassation drew attention to the error in indicating in the operative part of the court decision the procedure for recovering funds from the State Budget of Ukraine and recovering court costs directly from the government body.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, amending the decisions of the previous courts regarding the determination of the amount of moral damages and the procedure for its recovery, and also overturned the decision regarding the recovery of court fees and amended the decision regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case №450/3042/22 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in exercising the right to use and dispose of a land plot of the water fund by returning it to the state and canceling the state registration of private ownership of this plot.
2. The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, granted the prosecutor’s claim, since it was established that the disputed land plot is partially located within the coastal protective strip of the river, which is a violation of the requirements of the Land and Water Codes of Ukraine, which prohibit
constitute the transfer of such lands into private ownership. The court noted that the absence of a separate land management project regarding the establishment of a coastal protective strip does not negate the fact of its existence, since its dimensions are established by law. The court also indicated that a negatory action is an appropriate way to protect the rights to land of the water fund, which can be brought throughout the duration of the violation of the owner’s rights. The court took into account the information of the State Environmental Inspection, which confirmed the location of the plot within the coastal strip. The court also noted that the prosecutor reasonably represents the interests of the state, since the protection of these interests is not properly carried out by the local self-government body.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the legality of the decision to return the land of the water fund to state ownership.
Case No. 755/8818/23 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of mortgaged property due to non-performance of obligations under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, namely, it did not take into account that the defendant was duly notified of the hearing of the case in the court of first instance and had the opportunity to declare the application of the statute of limitations, but did not do so. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court has the right to accept for consideration an application for the application of the statute of limitations only if the defendant was not duly notified of the hearing of the case in the court of first instance or if there are other valid reasons that objectively deprived him of the opportunity to make such a statement in the court of first instance. Since the defendant knew about the hearing of the case and actively used his procedural rights, the appellate court had no grounds to accept the application for the application of the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 916/2595/24 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the general meeting and the board of the condominium association as invalid, as well as the cancellation of state registration of changes to information about a legal entity.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, since they did not establish which specific rights and interests of the plaintiff as a co-owner were violated by the challenged decisions, whether the plaintiff expresses disagreement with the content of the adopted decisions, what consequences the adoption of these decisions had for the plaintiff, and how the cancellation of the decisions will restore the plaintiff’s rights. The courts did not take into account that almost 4 years had passed from the moment the decisions were made to the moment of applying to the court. Also, the courts did not assess whetherthe required number of votes for making decisions, and did not take into account the balance of interests of all co-owners. The court noted that the establishment of individual violations during the convocation and conduct of the general meeting does not always lead to the mandatory invalidation of the decision of such a meeting. The court also took into account the specifics of the relationship between co-owners in an condominium association, where minor procedural errors are possible, which should not be the basis for canceling decisions on issues of joint property management.
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. 761/2783/16-k dated 11/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal verdict regarding PERSON_8, PERSON_9, and PERSON_5, accused of blocking transport communications (Article 279 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not eliminate the violations committed by the court of first instance and did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments. In particular, the appellate court did not take into account the provisions of Part 7 of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the involvement of a specialist in the inspection of the scene, did not assess the protocols of video recordings obtained from various sources, and did not take into account the possibility of inspecting the scene before entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations in accordance with Part 3 of Article 214 and Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the confirmation of the defendants’ participation in blocking transport communications by witness testimony and other evidence. As a result, the appellate court did not ensure the legality and validity of its decision, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 904/4127/23 dated 30/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of invalid decisions of the founding and general meetings of the condominium association.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to invalidate the decisions of the founding meeting of the condominium association regarding the election of members of the board and the audit commission. The appellate court took into account the plaintiff’s written survey form, which confirmed his participation in the voting at the founding meeting, and concluded that the legislation in force at that time did not require the mandatory submission of survey forms to the protocol for state registration of the condominium association. The court also noted that the absence of evidence of notification of the meeting is not a basis for invalidating decisions if the person’s participation in the meeting is established. In addition, the appellate court took into account that the court of first instance unreasonably refused to accept evidence submitted by a thirdas a person, since the deadline for their submission was not established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 751/8510/23 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in exercising the right to use and dispose of the land plot, recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, and cancellation of the state registration of property rights.
2. The court closed the proceedings regarding the claims for recognizing the executive committee’s decision as illegal and canceling the state act of ownership of the land, since a court decision that had entered into legal force in case No. 751/4429/20 had already been made between the same parties, regarding the same subject matter, and on the same grounds; the court took into account that in the previous case, the appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, pointed out the ineffectiveness of the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff in the form of appealing decisions on land privatization, since this would not lead to the restoration of her rights; the simultaneous presence of three conditions is necessary for the closure of proceedings: identity of the parties, subject matter, and grounds of the claim; adding new circumstances while maintaining the original circumstances or changing the reference to the rules of law is not considered a change in the grounds of the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 761/2783/16-к dated 11/11/2025
The subject matter of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the acquittal of persons accused of committing actions that violate traffic safety or the operation of transport (Article 279 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, motivating this by the fact that the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and the prosecutor’s arguments, and also did not properly assess the evidence that was important for the correct resolution of the case. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need for a thorough analysis of all the collected evidence, taking into account the testimony of witnesses, expert opinions, and other materials that may confirm or refute the guilt of the accused. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court should have properly substantiated its conclusions, citing specific reasons why it rejected certain evidence presented by the prosecution. Considering the indicated violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and appoint a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.
The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 924/91/25 dated 10/12/2025
Pr
Subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the right of communal ownership and the return of the land plot of forestry purpose to state ownership.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, justifying this by the fact that at the time of entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Delimitation of State and Communal Lands,” the disputed land plot was in the permanent use of a communal enterprise, which, according to the law, automatically transferred it to communal ownership without additional conditions. The court noted that the transfer of land for permanent use to the communal enterprise by the district state administration was carried out within its powers. Since the right of communal ownership arose on the basis of the law, there are no grounds to believe that the rights of the state were violated, and the absence of a violated right is a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim. The court also referred to the legal opinion regarding the application of the provisions of Law No. 5245-VI, set forth in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court dated 03.12.2025 in case No. 924/345/25 in legal relations related to the delimitation of forestry lands granted for permanent use to a communal enterprise.
The court made a new decision – to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 916/1339/25 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Servicing Cooperative “Housing Cooperative “Materyk Comfort” in favor of the Fontanska Village Council of funds for equity participation in the creation and development of the infrastructure of the populated area, inflation charges, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the prosecutor’s claims, recovering from the cooperative the funds for equity participation, calculated on the basis of the standards that were in effect at the time the obligation to pay the contribution arose, and not on the date of commissioning of the object. The court emphasized that the obligation to pay the equity contribution arose for the defendant at the moment of the start of construction, and not at the moment of commissioning of the object, therefore, the calculation of the amount of the contribution should be based on the regulatory legal acts in force on the date of commencement of construction. The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the moment of determining the amount of the equity contribution and emphasized that the application of standards that were not in effect at the time the obligation to pay the contribution arose contradicts civil legislation. In addition, the court noted that the cases referred to by the appellant actually raised the question of the obligation/absence of the obligation to pay the equity contribution, and not its amount.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 295/1589/18 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_5 against the decision of the court of appeal regarding the criminal proceedings on charges of committing a criminal offense 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 dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal, presumably agreeing with the conclusions of the court of appeal. Judging from the operative part, the court did not provide specific arguments, but it can be assumed that the court of cassation instance did not find significant violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the norms of substantive law that could lead to the cancellation or change of the appealed court decision. Perhaps the court of appeal properly reviewed the arguments of the convicted person’s appeal and reasonably upheld the verdict of the court of first instance. Also, the court of cassation instance may have taken into account the severity of the crime committed and the proportionality of the punishment.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_5 and to leave the decision of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal of September 12, 2024 regarding her unchanged.
Case No. 671/2373/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the court of appeal regarding the mitigation of the punishment for the convicted PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code (grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim) with the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a lighter punishment than prescribed by law).
2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, stating that the court of appeal unreasonably applied
used Art. 69 of the Criminal Code, as he did not prove a significant reduction in the degree of severity of the crime. The court noted that the appellate court took into account the same circumstances as the court of first instance, which refused to apply Art. 69 of the Criminal Code, and did not refute the conclusions of the local court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse, assistance in solving the crime, compensation for damages) does not always indicate a significant reduction in the severity of the crime, especially given the method of committing the crime, the number and nature of bodily injuries, as well as the behavior of the convict after the crime and his negative characteristics. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the specific circumstances of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator, but took a formal approach to the issue of the possibility of applying Art. 69 of the Criminal Code.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case №350/126/22 dated 01/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the will, drawn up by the plaintiffs’ father in favor of the defendant, their brother, as invalid due to alleged physical and psychological pressure on the testator.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the will was drawn up under physical or psychological pressure on the testator, or that the testator’s will was not free and did not correspond to his internal will. The court also took into account the expert’s opinion, which confirmed that the signature in the will belongs to the testator. The court noted that the mere fact of the testator’s illness is not a sufficient basis for declaring the will invalid, unless it is proven that the illness affected his ability to freely express his will. The court also emphasized that the plaintiffs did not file a motion to conduct a posthumous forensic psychiatric examination to establish the testator’s mental state at the time of drawing up the will, although it mistakenly stated this. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the freedom of the will includes the need to respect the will of the testator and the obligation to fulfill it.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case №914/364/24(914/2474/24) dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the debtor’s transactions (commission agreement and sale and purchase of a vehicle) as invalid and the recovery of the vehicle within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed agreements are fraudulent, as they were made with the aim of withdrawing the debtor’s assets to the detriment of creditors, in violation of the principles of integrity. The court noted that the alienation of property took place against the will of the owner
