**Case No. 520/4343/25 dated 10/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against tax assessment notices regarding the accrual of land tax for land plots used by a farm enterprise, of which this individual is the founder.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim to cancel one of the tax assessment notices and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part, based on the fact that the individual received the land for farming and created a legal entity – a farm enterprise, which uses this land and pays taxes, therefore, the accrual of land tax to the individual is unlawful. The court agreed that since the farm enterprise uses the land plot, which was received by the plaintiff for permanent use for farming, is duly registered as a legal entity, makes tax payments, including for the use of the disputed land plot, therefore, the accrual of land tax from individuals to the plaintiff is illegal, since the individual who received land plots for ownership “for farming” carries out activities on these lands not personally, but through the legal entity created by him – the farm enterprise. Regarding other tax assessment notices, the court agreed with the appellate instance that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court and the claim in this part remains unconsidered. The court of cassation also noted that the introduction of martial law is not an unconditional ground for renewing the deadline for applying to the court.
3. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim to recognize as unlawful and cancel one of the tax assessment notices, and in the other part left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 924/1040/24 dated 02/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the assignment of claim agreement (cession) concluded between two business entities.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, focused on whether the appellate court took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to recognize a transaction as invalid based on the claim of an interested party who is not a party to this transaction, it is necessary to prove the violation of the rights or legitimate interests of this person by this transaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court correctly established the absence of evidence of violation of the rights of “Fabryka Rivnenchanka” LLC by the disputed cession agreement, and also reasonably indicated
ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection, as the recognition of the contract’s wording as invalid does not cancel the contract itself. The Supreme Court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court, and references to other court decisions are not relevant, as they relate to cases with other factual circumstances where a violation of the interested party’s rights was proven.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 906/1674/23 dated 01/12/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – recovery from the joint-stock company and the majority shareholder in favor of the minority shareholder of the amount of underpayment for shares, inflationary losses and 3% per annum in connection with the unlawful underestimation of the price of shares during their compulsory redemption (squeeze-out).
2. The court of cassation instance, leaving the decisions of previous instances unchanged, proceeded from the following:
* The statute of limitations has not been missed, since, taking into account the quarantine and martial law, the statute of limitations was suspended.
* The expert opinion made in another case is proper evidence if it contains answers to questions relating to the subject of the dispute, and is submitted in a properly certified copy.
* The minority shareholder’s receipt of payment for compulsorily withdrawn shares, calculated on the basis of an unfairly determined share value, with subsequent challenge of such value and recovery of funds in the amount of the difference between the fair redemption price and the actually paid price, is an established practice and cannot be considered as the minority shareholder’s prior consent to the price determined by the applicant of the public irrevocable demand, and, accordingly, a further change in his behavior, which is expressed in challenging such price.
* The application of sanctions in the form of recovery of double the fair price on the basis of paragraph 27 of the EU Directive on Takeover Bids No. 2004/25/EC of 21.04.2004 is justified, since the squeeze-out and sell-out procedures are aimed at protecting the minority shareholder, who is offered to sell his shares at a fair price.
* There are no grounds for imposing a penalty, since the procedure for redemption of shares is regulated by the Law “On Joint Stock Companies”, the norms of which are special norms, and such type of liability as the imposition of a penalty is not provided for by it.
* The court of cassation instance did not agree with the court of appeal instance that when determining the plaintiff’s costs for legal assistance in the court of appeal instance, partial satisfaction of the plaintiff’s appeal and, accordingly, recovery of such costs with the application of the corresponding proportion should be taken into account, since, as a result of the appellate review of the case, in addition to the fact that the plaintiff’s appeal was partially satisfied, the appeals of both defendants were also dismissed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals of the respondents.
of Appeals and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal against the main decisions, while partially granting the plaintiff’s cassation appeal against the additional ruling.
Case No. 120/5273/24 of 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of tax assessment notices by which “SHLYAKH-BUD-MONTAZH” LLC had the amount of its monetary obligation increased for income tax and value-added tax.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal regarding the satisfaction of the claims of “SHLYAKH-BUD-MONTAZH” LLC, as the tax authority did not prove the absence of actual business transactions between the plaintiff and its counterparties. The court noted that the primary documents provided by the plaintiff reflect the content of business transactions, their value and quantitative indicators, and the tax authority did not provide convincing arguments that would refute these facts. Also, the court emphasized that the mere fact of the presence or absence of individual documents, as well as shortcomings in their execution, cannot be the basis for a conclusion about the absence of business transactions if changes in the structure of assets and liabilities of the payer are apparent from other data. The court took into account that the purchased goods were used in the plaintiff’s business activities, and the tax authority did not prove that the plaintiff acted without due diligence in selecting counterparties. The court also noted that information from information and analytical databases regarding the plaintiff’s counterparties is purely informative and is not proper evidence of tax offenses.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Vinnytsia Oblast and upheld the ruling of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal.
Case No. 380/18661/23 of 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the State Migration Service in Lviv Oblast to accept a declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship instead of a document on the termination of Russian citizenship.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, considering the refusal unlawful, since the plaintiff could not obtain a document on the termination of Russian citizenship due to the severance of diplomatic relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that current legislation does not provide for the acceptance of a declaration under such circumstances, and the severance of diplomatic relations does not affect legal relations. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, took into account that at the time the plaintiff applied to the court, there was no legal regulation regarding the extension of the deadline for the termination of Russian citizenship under martial law. The court emphasized that the state cannot leave a person without legal status if the temporary certificate of a citizen of Ukraine expires due to circumstances beyond their control. The court also noted that the plaintiff took active steps to fulfill the obligation to terminate Russian citizenship, обраюч
is to consular offices.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
**Case No. 300/670/25 dated December 16, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a natural person-entrepreneur against tax assessment notices regarding the application of penalties for violations of the maintenance of inventory records and failure to provide documents during tax control.
2. The court of cassation found that a reasonable basis, as provided by the Tax Code of Ukraine, is required to conduct an actual audit, in particular, the availability of information about possible violations of the law by the taxpayer. In this case, although the controlling authority referred to the memorandum and the appeal of an individual as grounds for the audit, the courts of previous instances did not properly examine the content of the SFS letter and the appeal of an individual to establish whether they contained specific information about possible violations by the plaintiff. The court noted that a formal indication in the memorandum of information regarding possible violations, without examining the SFS letter itself, is not evidence of reasonable grounds for conducting the audit. Also, the courts did not clarify whether the appeal meets the requirements of the law, which are mandatory for its consideration as an actual basis. Given that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess these circumstances, which affects the correctness of the resolution of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that the court decisions should be canceled and the case should be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 583/2187/24 dated December 17, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the representative of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court in criminal proceedings on charges against a person of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).
The Supreme Court decided to transfer the criminal proceedings to another chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court. Since the drafting of the full text of the ruling requires considerable time, the court announced only the operative part, guided by the provisions of Articles 376, 433, 434, 434-1, 434-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the ruling of the cassation instance enters into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement and is not subject to appeal. The full text of the ruling will be announced later. In fact, the panel of judges came to the conclusion that it was necessary to transfer the case to a chamber with greater specialization or experience in handling similar cases. This may be due to the complexity of the case, the need to form a uniform law enforcement practice, or other objectiveacts that complicate the consideration of the case by this panel.
The court ruled to transfer the criminal proceedings regarding the person to the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court for consideration.
Case No. 466/5319/17 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state re-registration of ownership rights to the apartment and the recognition of ownership rights to it.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the plaintiffs had chosen an ineffective way to protect their rights by demanding the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights instead of filing a vindication claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court noted that if the owner believes that his property has left his possession illegally, the proper way to protect it is a vindication claim, and not challenging decisions on state registration. The court also took into account that satisfying the claims for cancellation of state registration will not automatically restore the plaintiff’s rights to the property, unlike a decision to recover the property, which is the basis for entering the corresponding entry in the register. The court of first instance correctly concluded that the claim should be dismissed, but was mistaken as to the grounds for the dismissal, so the cassation court changed the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the prejudicial nature of court decisions and the failure to involve the legal successor of the deceased person were rejected by the court, since the choice of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim, changing its reasoning part.
Case No. 160/12891/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the tax authority to refuse registration of tax invoices and the obligation to register them.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the tax authority missed the deadline for appealing, and the reasons given for the omission (lack of budget allocations for payment of court fees) were not considered valid. The court emphasized that the parties to the case, especially entities with public authority, must exercise their procedural rights and fulfill their obligations in good faith, in particular, regarding the payment of court fees within the established deadlines. The lack of funding is not an objective obstacle to timely application to the court, since funds for court fees must be provided for in the institution’s budget. The court emphasized that the renewal of the deadline for appeal is possible only in exceptional cases if there are circumstances of an objective and insurmountable nature.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation
left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case №754/10344/23 dated 27/11/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the acquittal of a person accused of hooliganism (Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
This operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the full text will be announced later. Accordingly, it is impossible to provide an analysis of the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as they are not stated. However, given that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was left without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court was left unchanged, it can be assumed that the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the insufficiency of evidence of the person’s guilt in committing hooliganism, or there were significant violations of the criminal procedural law that affected the legality and validity of the acquittal. It is also possible that the court took into account certain mitigating circumstances or other aspects that influenced the decision of the appellate court. Final conclusions can be drawn only after reviewing the full text of the ruling.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
**Case №463/5991/20 dated 27/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling dated May 17, 2022.
2. The court refused to satisfy the application, as the clerical error made in the cassation court’s ruling is not a newly discovered circumstance within the meaning of Part 2 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, because the court decision, in the designation of the subject of which the clerical error was made, was the subject of revision by the panel of judges of the cassation court when deciding on the existence of grounds for opening cassation proceedings. The court noted that the procedure for reviewing court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is not a retrial of the case on its merits, but only checks for the existence of circumstances provided by law that could affect the correctness of the court’s decision. The court also took into account the principle of legal certainty, which provides for respect for the finality of court decisions. The court also noted that the applicant was not deprived of the right to re-apply to the investigating judge with a complaint about inaction and had the opportunity to appeal the investigating judge’s ruling in the appellate procedure.
3. The court decided to leave the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling dated May 17, 2022, without satisfaction.
**Case №855/11/25 dated 16/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience to terminate the religious organization of the Kyiv Metropolis of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
and the application for securing the claim.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, rejecting the appeal of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience. The court likely agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the lack of grounds for granting the application for securing the claim. Possibly, the court considered the arguments of the defendant, the Kyiv Metropolis of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, regarding the unsubstantiated nature of the plaintiff’s claims to terminate the activities of the religious organization. Additionally, the court may have taken into account the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the plaintiff to substantiate the need for taking measures to secure the claim. The court likely proceeded from the principle of proportionality and the need to ensure a balance between the interests of the state and the right to freedom of religion.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, leaving unchanged the ruling of the appellate court.
Case №855/11/25 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience to terminate the religious organization of the Kyiv Metropolis of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by liquidation and transfer of its property to the state, as well as an application for securing this claim.
2. The court refused to grant the application for securing the claim, as the plaintiff requested to prohibit any registration actions regarding the property of the Kyiv Metropolis of the UOC and to prohibit the disposal of its assets, motivating this by the risk of withdrawal of property and funds. The court noted that such requests do not correspond to the subject of the dispute, since the case concerns the termination of a legal entity, and not the resolution of issues regarding property. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm a real threat of property withdrawal, and its arguments are merely assumptions. The court indicated that measures to secure the claim must be commensurate with the claims and not cause more harm than that which can be prevented. Taking this into account, the court concluded that taking such measures is premature and unjustified.
3. The court dismissed the appeal of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, leaving the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case №757/64192/19-ц dated 17/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the allocation of court costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation after the closure of cassation proceedings on the complaint of a person who was not a party to the case.
The court noted that a person who was not a party to the case, but the court decided the issue of his/her rights, acquires the status of a party to the case after the opening of cassation proceedings on his/her complaint, and therefore, he/she is subject to the obligation to reimburse court costs. The court emphasized
that the filing of a cassation appeal and the opening of cassation proceedings require other participants in the case to take actions to protect their interests, which entails court costs that must be taken into account, even if the cassation proceedings were closed. The court also took into account the criteria for the proportionality of expenses for legal assistance with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the price of the claim, and the significance of the case for the party. The court refused to reimburse expenses that were not necessary for the provision of legal assistance, in particular, expenses for studying the cassation appeal, forming a legal position, as well as expenses for preparing applications regarding the unreliability of evidence. The court also noted that the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance cannot be a way for the party to be unjustly enriched.
The court partially granted the application for the distribution of court costs and recovered from the person who filed the cassation appeal, in favor of the plaintiff, UAH 5,000 as reimbursement for expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 758/10963/17 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a residential building purchase and sale agreement as invalid and the recovery of this property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling regarding the claims for the recovery of real estate, since the appellate court did not take into account that 1/2 of the disputed house was disposed of from the plaintiff’s possession on the basis of a court decision, which was subsequently overturned, which, according to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, indicates the disposal of property against the owner’s will. The court also noted that the appellate court focused only on the decision of the Shakhtarsk City District Court, without establishing all the necessary circumstances for the correct resolution of the case, and prematurely concluded that the plaintiff did not have ownership of the disputed property. In addition, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the cancellation of measures to secure the claim, since the case was not finally resolved and the need to secure the claim had not disappeared.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of real estate and the ruling on the cancellation of measures to secure the claim, sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 203/3846/22 dated 12/08/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily harm).
Unfortunately, the provided operative part of the постановa does not contain the arguments that the court of cassation instance was guided by when making the decision. The text only shows that the cassation court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the judicial decision is required.
Decision.
The court ruled: the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal shall be dismissed.
Case No. 203/3846/22 dated 08/12/2025
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 under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of minor bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation upheld the court decisions, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances had thoroughly verified the arguments similar to those stated in the cassation appeal and reasonably found them unfounded, relying on the evidence examined in the court session. In particular, the courts took into account the testimony of the victim and witnesses, expert opinions, protocols of investigative actions, video recordings from the scene, and other written evidence, which collectively confirm the person’s guilt in intentionally inflicting minor bodily injuries. The court of cassation also noted that the issue of evidence evaluation is within the competence of the courts that rendered the judgment, and that the courts of previous instances properly assessed all the evidence in terms of its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and interconnection. The court also did not find any violations in the service of the notice of suspicion.
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.
Case No. 638/4950/23 dated 10/12/2025
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 under Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (extortion committed by an organized group or combined with the infliction of grievous bodily harm).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the arguments of the court of cassation. The text only indicates that the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, leaving them unchanged. The full text of the decision, with the court’s reasoning, will be announced later.
3. The decisions of the courts of previous instances were upheld, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
Case No. 297/2481/22 dated 27/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the convict’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the review of the sentence for theft committed under martial law.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court, although lawfully overturned the judgment of the court of first instance due to the incorrect application of the law regarding exemption from serving the sentence with probation, did not fully take into account the circumstances mitigating the convict’s punishment. In particular, the appellate court did not take into account the convict’s positive characteristics, his admission of guilt, assistance in solving the crime, sincere remorse, intention to compensate for the damage, and the presence of diseases. Considering this
and the circumstances, as well as the value of the stolen property and the fact that the convicted person works and has a permanent place of residence, the court of cassation concluded that it was possible to apply Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and impose a sentence lower than the lowest limit established by the sanction of Part 4 of Art. 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the convict’s arguments regarding the need to close the criminal proceedings on the basis of the Law of Ukraine No. 3886-IX, since the value of the stolen property exceeded the amount established for administrative liability.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amended the appellate court’s verdict, applied Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposed a punishment lower than the lowest limit prescribed by law, in the form of imprisonment for a term of 2 years and 6 months, and for the totality of verdicts – 3 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 640/8137/20 dated 12/16/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal of tax notifications-decisions, by which the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv increased the amount of monetary obligation of VIOTECHSOM LLC on income tax, personal income tax and military tax.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, which established that the tax authority did not prove with proper evidence the violation of tax legislation by VIOTECHSOM LLC. In particular, the cash disbursement orders, which the tax authority referred to, did not contain sufficient information to identify them as related to the company’s activities. In addition, the expert opinion on which the audit report was based was obtained in the course of criminal proceedings, and not in the manner prescribed by the Tax Code of Ukraine, and the plaintiff was not familiarized with the decision to appoint the expert examination and its conclusions. The court also took into account the conclusion of the forensic examination, which did not confirm the tax authority’s claim of understatement of income tax. It is important that the court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the protocol of interrogation of a witness in criminal proceedings is not proper evidence in administrative proceedings until a verdict is rendered.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv, and left the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 200/1673/24 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the recalculation and payment of pensions, taking into account the restriction of the maximum amount of indexation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which recognized as lawful the limitation of the amount of indexation of the plaintiff’s pension to the amount of UAH 1,500, referring to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 185, which establishes such a limit. The court noted that the Government has the right to determine the procedure and amount of pension indexation, taking into account
financial resources and the need to balance the interests of different categories of pensioners, especially in the conditions of martial law. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue, emphasizing the importance of the unity of judicial practice. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the need to deviate from the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, as there was insufficient justification for such a deviation. The court also found the appellant’s reference to the failure to consider the case with his participation via video conference to be unfounded.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s decision and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 300/4942/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for violation of the procedure for maintaining records of товарних запасів (inventory).
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that the controlling authority did not prove with proper evidence the entrepreneur’s violation of the requirements for maintaining records of товарних запасів (inventory), since the entrepreneur provided a printed electronic form of accounting during the inspection, and also provided copies of primary documents for the purchase of goods during the submission of objections to the inspection report and complaints against the tax notice-decision, to which the tax authority did not express any objections. The court also noted that there were no violations on the part of the controlling authority during the inspection, since the order for the inspection complied with the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and the existence of a letter from the State Tax Service of Ukraine regarding possible violations was a sufficient basis for its conduct. The court of cassation agreed that the failure to provide documents confirming the accounting of goods located at the point of sale at the beginning of the inspection is an independent basis for applying a penalty, but in this case, the entrepreneur provided evidence of accounting. The court of cassation also referred to the legal opinion of the Supreme Court in case No. 420/9909/23 regarding the criteria for assessing the lawfulness of the inspection order.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the entrepreneur’s claim.
Case No. 480/8296/24 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against tax notices-decisions on refusal to reimburse VAT from the budget and the application of a fine for late registration of tax invoices for the export of goods.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, indicating the following:
* The refusal to reimburse VAT from the budget was illegal, since sanctions were applied to the founder and ultimate beneficial owner of the company, and not to the company itself, at the time of the disputed legal relations.
* P
* The tax authority had no right to refer to a violation that was not defined as an offense in the legislation at the time of the audit.
* The court of appeal did not properly assess all the circumstances of the case and the evidence, which is a violation of the principle of comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of evidence.
* Regarding the fine for late registration of tax invoices, the courts of previous instances reasonably proceeded from the fact that the date of occurrence of tax obligations upon export is the date of customs declaration, and not the date of crossing the customs border.
* Since the plaintiff did not register the tax invoices in time, the application of the fine is lawful.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the refusal to cancel the tax notice-decision on the refusal of budget reimbursement and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal, and in the other part, left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 320/33910/23 dated 12/15/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the legality of the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the enforcement fee based on a previously issued resolution on the recovery of this fee in other enforcement proceedings, which were completed by returning the writ of execution to the claimant.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that the state enforcement officer acted lawfully, since after the return of the writ of execution to the claimant, he has an obligation to open enforcement proceedings for the execution of the resolution on the recovery of the enforcement fee, which is a separate writ of execution. The court also noted that the amount of debt was not determined when opening new enforcement proceedings, but was established in the resolution on the recovery of the enforcement fee, which is not the subject of the dispute. In addition, the court rejected the arguments of the appellant about the violation of part eight of Article 27 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” since this norm concerns cases of transfer of a writ of execution from a state to a private enforcement officer, which was not the case in this case. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the court of appeal did not examine the evidence, since the copy of the decision provided to the appellant does not contain the signatures of the judges, which is standard practice.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 420/30264/23 dated 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the state enforcement officer’s resolution on the recovery of the enforcement fee from the enterprise and the obligation to close the enforcement proceedings for the recovery of this fee.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the enforcement fee was recovered lawfully, since the enforcement proceedings were completed.
based on the debtor’s full compliance with the decision, and not due to the recognition of the writ of execution as invalid. The court indicated that the recognition of the court order as unenforceable is not a ground for canceling the resolution on the collection of the enforcement levy, since at the time of the termination of the enforcement proceedings, the court decision had been executed. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the resolution on the collection of the enforcement levy is valid, as it has not been overturned by the court. The court also noted that the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to, are not relevant to this case, as they relate to a different version of the law and other circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 442/9294/24 dated 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court decisions of previous instances regarding the resolution of the issue of the fate of the material evidence in the criminal proceedings against a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (forgery of documents).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court and the verdict of the court of first instance only regarding the resolution of the issue concerning the material evidence, namely the tractor driver’s license. The court of cassation instance, guided by the provisions of Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, decided to leave the material evidence in the materials of the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the reasoning for such a decision is absent in the operative part of the resolution, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. In other parts, concerning the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the imposed punishment, the court decisions were left unchanged.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the court decisions of previous instances regarding the resolution of the issue of the fate of the material evidence, leaving it in the materials of the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 583/3259/24 dated 11/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription for military service during mobilization, during a special period).
2. This operative part of the resolution does not provide the court’s arguments. A full text of the court decision is needed to provide a detailed response.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 463/5991/20 dated 11/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling of May 17, 2022.
In the court session, the Supreme Court considered the application of PERSON_6 for review of the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s ruling of May 17.
of May 17, 2022, based on newly discovered circumstances. The panel of judges, guided by Articles 376, 441, 442, 459, 467 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, having thoroughly examined the case materials and the arguments of the applicant, found no grounds to grant the application. The court concluded that the circumstances referred to by the applicant are not newly discovered within the meaning of the criminal procedure law and are not of decisive importance for reviewing the previous court decision. Thus, the court did not establish the existence of grounds for reviewing the ruling of the Supreme Court of May 17, 2022.
The court ruled to leave the application of PERSON_6 for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the ruling of the Supreme Court of May 17, 2022, without satisfaction.
Case No. 953/466/25 dated December 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict of the court of first instance due to missing the deadline for appeal.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the motion to renew the term for appeal, without taking into account that the defense counsel objectively did not have the opportunity to file an appeal in time, since the full text of the verdict was received with a delay not through his fault. The court noted that valid reasons for missing the deadline are only those circumstances that are objectively insurmountable, do not depend on the will of the person, are associated with significant obstacles or difficulties that made it impossible or difficult to appeal to the court in a timely manner. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which recognizes the late receipt of the full text of a court decision as a legitimate and objective reason for renewing the term, and excessive formalism in such cases is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 760/14187/21 dated December 17, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim).
This operative part of the resolution does not provide the court’s arguments. It can only be assumed that the cassation court found certain violations of the criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court during the review of the verdict of the court of first instance, which became the basis for overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the court of appellate instance. Also, the court of cassation chose a preventive measure in the form of detention, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which the court took into account, given the gravity of the crime.
The court granted the cassation appeal of the convicted person in part, overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, and also imposed a preventive measure on the convicted person in the form of detention.
Case No. 360/669/23 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman additional monetary reward in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in combat operations during martial law.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the courts did not fully establish the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify what tasks the plaintiff performed during the secondment and how this is confirmed, and also did not properly assess the reports on the payment of additional remuneration. The court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not establish the circumstances regarding the availability of mandatory documents such as a combat log or a post record and a report (submission) of the head (commander) of the unit on the participation of each serviceman in combat operations. The court also emphasized that Orders of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service No. 392-AH and No. 628-AH, although not registered with the Ministry of Justice, are subject to application to determine the procedure and conditions for payment of additional remuneration, since they determined the mechanism for implementing Resolution No. 168 in the disputed period. The court emphasized that the task of administrative legal proceedings is to protect the rights and interests of individuals in the field of public law relations.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 552/2500/22 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot of forestry purpose from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation established that the prosecutor filed a negatory claim, demanding the return of the land plot, referring to the fact that the disputed plot belongs to the lands of the forest fund, and that the filing of a negatory claim is a proper method of protection. The court of appeal mistakenly believed that the prosecutor filed a vindication claim, demanding the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court cannot go beyond the scope of the claims and independently choose the legal basis and subject of the claim, as this violates the principle of dispositiveness of civil proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court, reclassifying the claim, violated the right to a fair trial, since the parties were not given the opportunity to argue their position in the context of the new qualification. The Supreme Court noted that the court’s independent change of the legal grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal to the court significantly affects the application of
regarding the statute of limitations, since a negatory action can be brought for the entire duration of the violation of rights. Considering that the appellate court reviewed claims that were not filed, and did not review those that were filed, the Supreme Court cannot make its own judicial decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the claims for the return of the land plot and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 336/271/22 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the labor dispute commission (LDC) to cancel the order to suspend an employee from work due to refusal of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance, was guided by the following arguments:
* Suspension from work of employees who refuse mandatory vaccinations against COVID-19 is provided for by the legislation of Ukraine.
* It is necessary to take into account not only the formal belonging of the profession to the list of those subject to mandatory vaccination, but also to assess the real threat posed by an unvaccinated employee in a specific workplace.
* The court of first instance reasonably established that the plaintiff’s work involves contact with other employees, which increases the risk of infection and spread of COVID-19, and that the organization of remote work is impossible.
* Suspension from work is not a violation of the right to work, as the employee retains the job, and the payment of wages is restored after vaccination or provision of a medical report on contraindications.
* The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the need to assess the urgency of suspension from work and its proportionality to the goal of health protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which overturned the decision of the labor dispute commission.
Case No. 580/10933/24 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Sokar-Petroleum LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Western Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for working with large taxpayers.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that violation of the terms for equipping excise warehouses with flow meters-counters and their registration is not a basis for applying penalties, if the equipment was installed and registered at the time of the audit; writing off debt to individual entrepreneurs is not an object of personal income tax at the source of payment; business transactions with RUTMART LLC had economic expediency, as they brought profit to the plaintiff.
reduction of the object of taxation for income tax under the loyalty program complies with IFRS requirements; car wash services provided to sole proprietors on the territory of gas stations have already been reflected in the reporting, therefore no additional taxation is required; and that tax information about the counterparty is not an unconditional basis for conclusions about the unreality of business transactions, if there are other documents confirming their implementation. The court also noted that the taxpayer should not be held responsible for the counterparty’s violations, unless his awareness of such violations is proven.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the cassation appeal of Sokar-Petroleum LLC.
**Case No. 320/32019/23 dated 12/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax notices-decisions by which the Company’s tax liabilities for income tax and value added tax were increased, the negative value of the object of income tax was reduced, and penalties were applied for violations of the terms of settlements in the field of foreign economic activity and other violations of tax legislation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the Company’s claims, noting that the taxpayer has the right to form a tax credit and expenses if business transactions are actually carried out and confirmed by proper primary documents. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence of the absence of the real nature of business transactions, and references to violations of tax discipline by the taxpayer’s counterparties are not a sufficient basis for refusing to recognize the tax credit and expenses, if the taxpayer acted with due diligence and was not aware of the illegal activities of the counterparties. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the individual responsibility of the taxpayer and the need for the controlling body to prove unreasonableness, bad faith, or lack of due diligence in the taxpayer’s actions. The Court also noted that it departs from the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, set forth in the decision of December 1, 2015 in case No. 826/15034/17, that the status of a fictitious, illegal enterprise is incompatible with legal business activity, since the status in the legal sense is a list of rights and obligations of a certain subject. At the same time, no regulatory legal act in Ukraine contains a definition of the status of a fictitious enterprise.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
**Case No. 638/4950/23 dated 12/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the sentence and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for evAggravated extortion (Part 4, Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict and ruling, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person guilty of extortion, relying on the testimony of the victim, a witness, materials of covert investigative actions (CIA), inspection protocols, and other evidence. The court noted that the appellate court thoroughly examined the defense’s arguments about provocation of the crime and incorrect qualification of the convicted person’s actions but reasonably rejected them, pointing to the existence of significant grounds for law enforcement agencies to suspect the person of extortion even before the CIA. Also, the court of cassation noted that the absence in the case file of the investigative judge’s rulings granting permission to conduct CIA is not an unconditional basis for признання evidence inadmissible, since the defense did not file a motion for their provision for review during the pre-trial investigation and trial, and the prosecution provided evidence of the destruction of these rulings in connection with hostilities. The court also emphasized that current legislation does not require individuals involved in conducting investigative actions to have access to state secrets, and the defense’s arguments regarding the non-interrogation of the witness were refuted by the case file.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 754/10344/23 dated 27/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of hooliganism, that is, грубе violation of public order on grounds of явна disrespect for society, accompanied by особлива зухвалістю.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which acquitted the person, since the prosecution did not prove the existence of a criminal offense in the person’s actions, as provided for in Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely, hooliganism. The courts found that although the person used obscene language and did not respond to remarks, his actions did not have signs of особлива зухвалості or виняткового цинізму, but were provoked by a conflict and the protection of another person. The court of cassation agreed that there was no мотив явної неповаги до суспільства in the person’s actions, which is a mandatory feature of hooliganism. The court also noted that the appellate court rightly agreed with the assessment of the evidence by the court of first instance and was not obliged to re-examine the evidence with which it agreed.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 924/1200/23 dated 02/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Iziaslav City Council and the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Khmelnytskyi region regarding the refusal to renew land lease agreements and withTargeted use of land plots.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that for cassation review, it is not enough to refer only to the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the rule of law, but the identity of the factual circumstances of the case under review and the case in which the conclusion is stated is also necessary. In this case, the circumstances differ, since the Iziaslav City Council decided to refuse the renewal of lease agreements, while in the cases referred to by the complainant, there was either no response to the request for renewal, or there were other factual circumstances. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated from previous conclusions regarding the non-binding nature of the grounds for renewing a lease agreement provided for in different parts of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease,” and the courts must take into account the latest legal position of the Grand Chamber. The court also took into account that the appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, found that the defendant did not violate the procedure for exercising the plaintiff’s preferential right to renew the lease agreement.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the resolution of the North-Western Economic Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 400/6623/24 dated December 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices by which TOV “KRYNYCHANSKE” had its VAT tax liabilities increased and penalties applied.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the tax authority’s cassation appeal. It agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of additional VAT assessment in connection with the sale of agricultural products at prices lower than usual and the write-off of third-category waste. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not prove that the sale prices did not correspond to market prices, did not take into account the qualitative characteristics of the products and the terms of delivery, and also did not prove the use of waste in non-economic activities. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the legality of forming a tax credit for consulting services from TOV “UKRLYTA,” since the courts did not examine the content, scope, purpose, and result of the services provided, as well as the counterparty’s ability to provide them and the plaintiff’s need for these services. In this regard, the case in this part was sent for a new trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part concerning the tax credit for consulting services and sent the case for a new trial, and in the other part, it left the decision unchanged.
Case No. 904/6505/23 dated December 11, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim for the termination of the legal entity – Association of “Owners of Residential Buildings
“Golden Keys”.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove that their rights and interests were violated by the decision to create the Association, its charter, or the fact of its existence, and also did not provide evidence that the Association’s activities are fictitious. The court noted that the main activity of the Association is aimed at ensuring the rights of co-owners to use common property, maintain and service infrastructure. The court also took into account that the termination of the Association would violate the interests of other co-owners who voluntarily created it to protect their rights, and that the interests of an individual owner may not coincide with the interests of the majority of the Association members, therefore the court should avoid excessive interference in the Association’s activities. The court also applied the analogy of the law, since the current legislation of Ukraine does not regulate the joint use of property by estate owners, considering the analogy of the law (Article 8 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Condominium Associations” should be applied when resolving this dispute, which regulates similar legal relations.
3. The court upheld the decisions of the previous instances to dismiss the claim for the termination of the legal entity.
Case No. 160/18696/23 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax assessment notice regarding the accrual of real estate tax, other than land, for an industrial building owned by an individual but used by a legal entity, the founder of which is this individual.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that for the application of the real estate tax exemption, other than land, according to subparagraph “e” of subparagraph 266.2.2 of paragraph 266.2 of Article 266 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, it is not necessary that the owner of the industrial building and the business entity using it are the same person. It is important that the building is used in economic activity classified in sections B-F of NACE DK 009:2010, and that the use of the property is carried out on a legal basis other than lease, leasing or loan for use. The court noted that in the case where an individual is the owner of the building and the sole founder of the legal entity that uses this building in its economic activity, it is considered that the owner of the building carries out economic activity through the legal entity created by them, which corresponds to the purpose of introducing the tax incentive. The court also took into account that the personal servitude agreement does not provide for the transfer of powers of possession and use of property, as is the case in lease, leasing or loan for use.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, confirming the legality of the cancellation of the tax assessment notice.
Case №297/2481/22 dated 27/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of theft committed in large amounts.
The Supreme Court partially granted the convicted person’s cassation appeal, justifying it by the fact that the appellate court did not take into account all the circumstances of the case that mitigate the punishment. In particular, the court of cassation instance decided to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for the imposition of a punishment below the lowest limit provided by law, taking into account circumstances that mitigate the punishment and significantly reduce the severity of the crime committed. The court took into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person, his sincere remorse, and voluntary compensation for the damage caused. Also, the court took into account the presence of minor children and the state of his health. Taking into account all these circumstances in aggregate, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to mitigate the punishment.
The court changed the verdict of the appellate court, applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposing a punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of 2 years and 6 months, and also added the unserved sentence under the previous verdict.
Case №320/24040/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court, although it correctly applied the norms of substantive law regarding the effect of the moratorium on penalties and the peculiarities of martial law, committed significant violations of procedural law, in particular, did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case. The appellate court formally applied the provisions of the CAS of Ukraine on the prohibition of changing the grounds of the claim, refusing to assess important arguments of the plaintiff regarding the incorrect calculation of penalties, repeated bringing to responsibility for the same tax invoices, and did not differentiate between tax invoices and adjustment calculations when calculating fines. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court had to verify the legality of the tax notice-decision in all aspects, regardless of the completeness of the presentation of arguments in the initial statement of claim, since this concerns the detailing of the method of protection, and not a change in the grounds of the claim. Considering that a detailed clarification of the circumstances regarding each tax invoice and adjustment calculation is necessary to resolve the dispute, the court of cassation instance concluded that it is impossible to establish these circumstances at the stage of appellate review.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of LLC “AV Pharmacia”, overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of the claims regarding the appeal of the tax notice-decision in the amount of UAH 14,912,230.78 and sent the case in this part toa new trial to the court of first instance, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
Case No. 140/5829/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax assessment notice regarding the application of penalties for violations of the requirements for the use of registrars of settlement operations (RRO).
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify whether the settlement documents were indeed not issued to buyers upon actual receipt of the goods, and also did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments about the specifics of conducting business activities, when fiscalization of transactions through the RRO and the issuance of receipts occur at the time of transfer of goods, and not at the time of payment through the terminal. The court noted that the controlling authority must prove not only the fact of the settlement operation but also the fact of non-compliance by the business entity with the obligation to issue a settlement document to the person receiving the goods. The court also pointed out the inconsistency of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances with the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the subject of proof in cases of applying penalties for violations of RRO requirements. In addition, the courts did not verify the method of calculating the amount of penalties and did not correlate it with the number and nature of the established violations.
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. 739/2476/23 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decisions of previous courts regarding the recovery from the MTSBU (Motor Transport Insurance Bureau of Ukraine) of expenses for treatment and compensation for the period of temporary disability of the victim as a result of a traffic accident in which PERSON_7 was found guilty.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the representative of the MTSBU, overturning the decisions of the previous courts only in the part of recovering from the MTSBU in favor of the victim expenses for treatment and compensation for the period of temporary disability. The court noted that the issue of recovering such payments from the MTSBU should be resolved in the order of civil proceedings, and not within the framework of criminal proceedings. The court took into account that the MTSBU is a civil defendant in criminal proceedings, and the issue of the extent of its liability should be resolved taking into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Owners of Land Vehicles.” In the other part, the judgment and ruling were left unchanged, which indicates the court’s agreement with the qualification of the accused’s actions and other aspects of the case’s resolution.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of recovering from the MTSBU expenses for treatment and compensation for the period of temporary loss of capacity to work.
regarding legal capacity, remanding this part for a new consideration under civil procedure, and leaving the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 160/15683/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued based on a tax audit, which, according to the plaintiff, was conducted in violation of the established moratorium.
2. The court agreed with the position of the previous instances, noting that the initial scheduled audit was appointed and conducted during the moratorium on such audits, which is a violation of the Tax Code of Ukraine and makes its results unlawful. The court emphasized that any activity based on illegal decisions is deprived of legitimacy. The repeated unscheduled audit, conducted based on objections to the act of the initial audit, was also deemed unlawful, as it is derivative from the illegal initial audit. The court applied the “rotten apple” principle, according to which the illegality of the initial action invalidates all its consequences. The use of materials from an illegal audit to justify a subsequent audit is unacceptable, as it allows the controlling authority to eliminate the consequences of its own violation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the illegality of the tax assessment notices.
Case No. 320/24040/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by AV Pharmacia LLC against the tax assessment notice issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv regarding the application of penalties for violation of the registration deadlines for tax invoices.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals of AV Pharmacia LLC and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv, noted that the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive law regarding the effect of the moratorium and the peculiarities of the legal regime of martial law, as well as the limits of application of paragraphs 89, 90 of the Transitional Provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the appellate court committed significant violations of procedural law, in particular, unreasonably refused to examine the plaintiff’s arguments, which detailed the method of protection within the already stated dispute, referring to the change in the grounds for the claim. The court of cassation instance indicated that the appellate court failed to fulfill its obligation to fully and comprehensively investigate the case materials, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the incorrect calculation of the penalty in view of the different regime for calculating the deadlines for registration of tax invoices and adjustment calculations, did not check the allegations of possible other cases of repeated application of penalties, and also did not investigate how the defendant actually applied the transitional provisions regarding the deadline of July 15, 2022. Given that the correct resolution of the dispute requires a full, comprehensive, and detailed clarification
regarding each individual tax invoice and each individual adjustment calculation, the Supreme Court concluded that the case should be sent back to the court of first instance for a new trial.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of LLC “AV Pharmacia”, overturned the appellate court’s decision in the appealed part, and sent the case back to the court of first instance for a new trial, while the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv.
Case No. 583/3259/24 dated 27/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription for military service during mobilization, motivated by religious beliefs.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, referring to the fact that the legislation of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of refusing military service during mobilization based on religious beliefs, and such beliefs do not exempt from criminal liability for evading mobilization. The court noted that the right to freedom of religion is not absolute and may be restricted in the interests of public safety, especially in martial law, when there is a threat to the existence of the nation. The court also took into account that Ukraine is forced to defend itself against military aggression, which requires taking all possible measures for self-preservation, including mobilization. The court emphasized that although religious beliefs should be taken into account during military service, they cannot be the basis for avoiding the obligation to defend the country, but may affect the execution of orders related to the use of weapons. The court also noted that similar issues have already been considered by the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which reached similar conclusions.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and to uphold the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted person.
Case No. 420/6236/25 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region regarding the limitation of the maximum amount of the plaintiff’s pension, recalculated in execution of a court decision, taking into account allowances, increases, surcharges and indexations.
2. The court justified its decision by stating that since December 20, 2016, after the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Certain Other Persons” does not contain valid norms that would provide for limiting the maximum amount of pensions assigned in accordance with this Law. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” cannot repeal or change the scope of rights and obligations, benefits, compensations and guarantees provided for by other laws of Ukraine, and therefore cannot limit
that limit the maximum pension amount. The court also indicated that the application to pensions of the provisions of Article 46 of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which establish coefficients for the payment of pensions exceeding a certain amount, is illegal, as it contradicts Article 1-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Certain Other Persons” and the Constitution of Ukraine. The court emphasized that a change in pension conditions is possible only by amending the special law, and not by the law on the state budget. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court on similar issues.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa region unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 420/38773/24 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from LLC “Construction Group “Quality Guarantee” and a counterclaim to declare illegal and cancel the tax notice-decision.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the counterclaim of LLC “CG “Quality Guarantee,” because the Company did not provide evidence that the clarifying calculation of tax liabilities was signed by an unauthorized person, since tax reporting can be signed not only by the manager, but also by an authorized person with a valid qualified electronic signature, which was confirmed by a receipt of acceptance of the calculation by the tax authority. The court also rejected the Company’s arguments regarding the violation of the terms for conducting an office audit, since the audit was conducted within the 30-day period provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine. In addition, the courts of previous instances established that LLC “CG “Quality Guarantee” did not apply to the tax authority to correct the data in the declaration accepted taking into account the clarifying calculation. Since the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region proved the legality of the adoption of the disputed tax notice-decision, the court of cassation agreed with the decision to refuse to satisfy the claims for its cancellation.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Construction Group “Quality Guarantee” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 535/2514/22 dated 12/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for collaborative activity under Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
2. The court of cassation left the verdict unchanged, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances took into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular the degree of severity of the crime, the identity of the convicted person,
mitigating circumstances and imposed the minimum penalty provided by the article’s sanction. The court noted that the convicted person’s incomplete admission of guilt cannot be considered sincere repentance, and positive character references do not negate the severity of collaborative actions under martial law. The court also emphasized the court’s discretionary powers in sentencing and the need to consider public interest in times of war when dealing with crimes that undermine the foundations of the state. The court indicated that it sees no grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the imposition of a more lenient penalty, as the circumstances of the case do not indicate a significant reduction in the degree of severity of the crime. The court emphasized that the imposed penalty is necessary in a democratic society given the realities of wartime and is consistent with the principle of justice.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 925/733/22 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by an individual against a private enterprise for the provision of information about the company’s activities, including copies of financial and business documents.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the individual’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for the provision of copies of certain documents. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the refusal to provide information, considering that the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not take into account the right of a shareholder/participant to receive information about the company’s activities. The court pointed out the need to investigate the validity and proportionality of restrictions on the provision of information, as well as to take into account the balance of interests of the company and its participant. In particular, the courts had to verify whether the requested information is necessary for the realization of the participant’s rights, whether it constitutes a trade secret, and whether the participant is abusing their right to information. Considering that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to send the case back for a new trial in this part.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for the provision of copies of documents and sent the case back to the court of first instance for a new trial.
Case No. 260/1212/25 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices of the Zakarpattia Customs, which increased the amount of monetary obligations of FURLENDER WINDTECHNOLOGY LLC for value-added tax and customs duties on goods imported into the territory of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the customs authority did not properly prove the grounds for
for conducting a documentary audit, as the order for its appointment did not contain justifications, which makes it impossible to identify the actual basis for the appointment of the audit, as required by the Customs Code of Ukraine. Also, the courts noted that the customs authority did not provide evidence that FURRLENDER WINDTECHNOLOGY LLC provided false information or concealed necessary information during customs clearance of goods. The court also took into account that the customs authority did not make a decision to change the commodity classification code according to the Ukrainian Classification of Goods for Foreign Economic Activity (UCG FEA), and the code specified by the customs did not correspond to the functional purpose of the imported goods. In addition, the court noted that the customs did not send requests for additional information or technical documentation to resolve inconsistencies regarding the classification of the goods. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the right to reassess these circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Zakarpattia Customs Office, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 440/5298/25 dated 15/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax authority’s decision to terminate the retail trade license for fuel and the application for securing the claim by suspending the effect of this decision.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the application for securing the claim, reasoning that the company did not prove the real impact of the appealed decision on its economic activity, and the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the evidence and limited themselves to general statements about possible negative consequences. The court noted that the termination of a license for one type of activity is not irrefutable evidence of the impossibility of fulfilling economic obligations, especially in the presence of other types of activities and licenses. Also, providing only contracts with counterparties is not enough to prove the impact of the decision on economic relations, and arguments about the dismissal of employees and the inability to pay taxes are not justified without proper evidence. The court emphasized that securing a claim must be based on real violations of rights, and not on probable violations in the future.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and rejected the company’s application for securing the claim.
Case No. 380/4205/24 dated 16/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by ALIANСE MARKET LLC of tax assessment notices issued by the Western Interregional Department of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim of ALIANСE MARKET LLC, based on the fact that the tax authority
