**Case No. 990/352/25 dated 12/11/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the judge’s failure to confirm the ability to administer justice according to the criterion of personal competence.
2. The court granted the claim because the HQCJ, in assessing the judge, did not provide sufficient reasons for the conclusion that the criterion of personal competence was not met, in particular, did not substantiate why it did not take into account information about the judge’s continuous development. The court emphasized that the assessment of compliance with the criteria must be properly motivated, and the decision must be justified and proportionate. The court pointed out that the Commission should assess and analyze the candidate’s responses and explanations in their entirety, and not selectively take into account only certain parts of the explanations, answers, or examples. Also, the court noted that a motivated decision of the Commission on recognizing a person as one who has not confirmed the ability to administer justice in the relevant court according to the criterion of personal competence is not only a formal compliance with the requirements of the law but must ensure compliance with the principle of legal certainty in the matter of establishing the grounds for such a conclusion.
3. The court declared illegal and overturned the decision of the HQCJ and obliged the commission to re-examine the issue of confirming the judge’s ability to administer justice, taking into account the legal assessment provided by the Supreme Court.
**Case No. 160/25589/23 dated 12/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax assessment notice regarding the accrual of penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the tax authority, indicating that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances regarding the lawfulness of the penalty accrual for one of the tax invoices, namely, whether there were objective obstacles to its timely registration. The court noted that the appellate court did not substantiate the acceptance of additional evidence submitted by the plaintiff and did not verify the arguments of the tax authority regarding the possibility of registering the invoice earlier. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court regarding the lawfulness of the penalty accrual for other invoices, since the Law, which mitigated liability, does not have retroactive effect, and reduced penalties apply only to invoices registered late after the entry into force of this Law. The court also emphasized that the amount of penalties depends on the elements of the offense, and in this case, the offense arose as a result of a violation of the term established by the Tax Code, and not by temporary provisions introduced for the period of martial law. The court also referred to its previous practice, in particular, to the ruling of the judicial chamber of February 26, 2025, where similar conclusions were made regarding the application of these legal norms.
City:
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part regarding the recognition of the tax notice-decision in the amount of UAH 1,807,370.47 as unlawful and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the appellate court, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 922/92/25 dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the lease agreement for non-residential premises, concluded between the Condominium Association and the Kharkiv Regional Organization of the Ukrainian Red Cross Society, due to the lack of consent of the general meeting of co-owners to its conclusion.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights and interests by the conclusion of the disputed lease agreement, since the agreement creates rights and obligations only for the Condominium Association as a legal entity, and the legal status of the co-owners of the building does not change. The court also took into account that the general meeting of co-owners had previously expressed consent to the transfer of basement premises for lease, therefore, the board of the Condominium Association acted within the previously determined expression of the co-owners’ will. In addition, the court noted that the disagreement of an individual co-owner with the transfer of property for lease does not indicate an unconditional violation of his rights and interests, and the plaintiff did not prove the complication of access to communications or the deterioration of living conditions. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to initiate the convening of an extraordinary meeting of co-owners to respond to the conclusion of the disputed transaction.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 120/15266/23 dated 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Trostianets Settlement Council and the Hordiivka Gymnasium regarding the failure to prepare a civil defense protective structure – an anti-radiation shelter.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the prosecutor has no right to apply to the court with a claim to oblige the asset holder to prepare a civil defense protective structure, as this is not provided for by law. The court noted that the protection of the interests of the state in such cases should be carried out using administrative measures or by applying to the court with a claim for the application of response measures, such as the suspension of the object’s activity in case of violations that create a threat to life and/or health of people. The court emphasized that the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU) has the authority to control in this area, and the prosecutor cannot replace the proper subject of power. It was also taken into account that the prosecutor’s claims were formulated too generally and did not contain justification for the impossibility of applying administrative measures. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber
that the prosecutor may apply to the court as an independent plaintiff only in exceptional cases, when there is no authorized body or when this body itself violates the interests of the state.
2. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claim of the head of the Haisyn District Prosecutor’s Office of Vinnytsia Oblast.
[**Case No. 909/66/24 dated 12/18/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132744947)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the supply of agricultural products.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances because they formally approached the consideration of the case, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court set forth in the previous ruling in this case, and did not properly assess the evidence and arguments of the parties. The courts did not clarify whether the defendant had a monetary obligation to pay for the goods, whether the principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness were observed in the performance of obligations, and also did not take into account the standard of proof of “probability of evidence.” The court of cassation emphasized the obligation of the courts to investigate all the circumstances of the case, to evaluate all the arguments of the participants in the case, and to provide legal justification for rejecting or refuting the arguments of the parties. In addition, the courts did not take into account the previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish the real movement of assets during the supply of goods.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
[**Case No. 904/462/25 dated 12/17/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132744863)
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of debt between Strada LTD LLC and Company “Weighting Systems” LLC.
The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of Strada LTD LLC against the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the distribution of court costs after the defendant voluntarily repaid the debt. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances lawfully returned to the plaintiff the court fee paid when filing the lawsuit and reasonably reduced the amount of expenses for legal assistance, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court acted within the limits of the arguments of the appeal, and the appellant did not apply to the court of first instance with a statement to resolve the issue of court costs related to the appeal against the ruling on the return of the statement of claim. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts of first and appellate instances have discretion in the distribution of expenses for legal assistance, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority to re-evaluate their decisions if they comply with the norms of procedural law.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Strada LTD LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[**Case No. 904/3766/24 dated 12/16/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132744941)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of
of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region (STS) to the Private Joint-Stock Company “Donetsk Coke” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances because the courts did not properly examine the evidence and circumstances related to the tax debt, penalties, and fines assessed by the STS. The courts limited themselves only to stating the fact of the existence of the tax notice-decision (TND) and did not verify its compliance with the tax legislation in force on the date of the TND adoption. In particular, it was not examined whether there were grounds for determining the tax liability, calculating penalties and fines, taking into account the circumstances of the loss of control over the company’s assets and the impossibility of exporting primary documents. The court emphasized the need to apply special norms of tax legislation when assessing the legality of the tax authority’s claims in a bankruptcy case. The court also noted that it does not assess the court decisions of the administrative case regarding the appeal of the TND.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recognition of the STS’s monetary claims and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance in this part.
Case No. 906/1329/23 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the former director of LLC “SPE “Ukrainian Aviation Systems” of losses in the amount of UAH 840,006.18, which, according to the company, were caused by the illegal establishment of an increased salary for himself.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which satisfied the claim, motivating this by the fact that, according to the company’s charter approved in 2018, the establishment of the amount of remuneration to the director is within the exclusive competence of the general meeting of participants. The court emphasized that the director had no right to independently set his salary, and his actions led to losses for the company in the form of illegally accrued and paid wages, as well as taxes paid on them. The court also took into account the certificate of the director’s income before the salary increase, which made it possible to determine the amount of losses. The court noted that the appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, gave a proper assessment of the evidence confirming the presence of all elements of the civil offense in the defendant’s actions. The court of cassation rejected the defendant’s arguments that the courts did not take into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the need to establish all elements of the civil offense to recover damages, since the appellate court established the presence of all these elements based on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 420/31215/23 dated 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge of
regarding the inaction of “TKT Production Enterprise” LLC regarding the maintenance of the civil defense protective structure in proper condition.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, as the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the state represented by bodies (the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in the Odesa region and the Odesa Regional Military Administration), which do not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. The court noted that the State Emergency Service of Ukraine has the right to appeal to the court only in cases expressly provided by law, and current legislation does not grant it the authority to demand through the court that protective structures be brought into proper condition. Regarding the Odesa Regional Military Administration, its powers are also clearly defined by law and do not include the right to file such lawsuits. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as sufficient justification for such deviation was not provided. The court emphasized that the prosecutor cannot substitute authorized bodies that can and wish to protect the interests of the state.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 280/2973/24 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision and the order to cancel the license for retail sale of fuel, issued by the tax authority.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which признали визнали протиправними the actions of the tax authority regarding the cancellation of the license and the accrual of штрафних санкцій penal sanctions. The court noted that the company timely submitted documents for the reissuance of the license in connection with the replacement of the RRO, fulfilling all the requirements of the legislation, and therefore, there are no grounds for applying penal sanctions. The court also took into account the principle of the rule of law and the practice of the ECHR, according to which, in the case of ambiguous interpretation of the norms of legislation, preference is given to the most favorable interpretation for the person. The court emphasized that the appealed decisions of the tax authority are disproportionate, as the balance between the interests of the state and the rights of the taxpayer was not observed. The court also referred to its own practice in similar cases, where the lawfulness of the actions of taxpayers who timely submitted documents for the reissuance of licenses was confirmed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 914/1455/24 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the resolution of the Lviv City Council, the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot, the right of communal ownership and the right of permanent use of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, noted that the application of a specific method of protecting a civil right depends on in
depending on the type and content of legal relations, the content of the right or interest for the protection of which the person applied, as well as on the nature of its violation. The court emphasized that the right or interest must be protected in a way that is effective and corresponds to the content of the violated right. The Supreme Court indicated that in the event that the plaintiff believes that his right is violated by the fact that the right of ownership is registered to the defendant, the proper way to protect it is a claim for recovery of property from illegal possession, and the requirements for cancellation of decisions or records on state registration of the right of ownership are not necessary for effective restoration of the violated right. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper or ineffective method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case. Considering that in this case the dispute concerns the right of ownership of the land plot, the proper method of protection is a claim for recovery of property from illegal possession, and not appealing the decisions on registration of the right of ownership.
2. The court of cassation instance decided to change the decisions of the previous instances in the part of motives, leaving in force the decision to refuse the claim.
Case No. 921/514/24 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract of purchase and sale of a small privatization object (unfinished construction), cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership and obligation to return the object to state ownership due to the buyer’s failure to fulfill the terms of the contract regarding the completion of construction.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which terminated the purchase and sale agreement, based on the fact that LLC “LYUBAVA-AGRO” did not fulfill the obligation to complete the construction of the object within five years, which is a significant violation of the terms of the agreement. The courts found that the failure to fulfill this obligation deprived the state of what it expected when concluding the agreement, namely the elimination of the long-term construction and the commissioning of the object. The court of cassation instance noted that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property” do not contain an imperative provision on the mandatory termination of the contract in case of non-fulfillment of exclusive conditions, but require additional establishment of the materiality of the violation. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the existence of a material violation of the terms of the contract by LLC “LYUBAVA-AGRO”. The court of cassation instance rejected the appellant’s arguments that the courts did not take into account his interest in maintaining contractual relations, since the materiality of the violation is determined by objective circumstances, and not by the subjective guilt of the party.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 924/3/25 dated 12/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to cancel the right of communal ownership to land plots
concerning land of forestry designation and the return of these plots to the state.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, since the prosecutor chose an improper method of protection, namely a negatory action instead of a vindicatory one, considering the existence of a registered right of communal ownership of the disputed plots by the defendant. The court noted that the proper method of protection in such a case is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession (vindicatory action), since the satisfaction of such an action is the basis for making a corresponding entry in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court also took into account that the choice of an ineffective method of protection excludes the need for additional establishment of the validity of the claims. The court of cassation also noted that the principle of “jura novit curia” is not unlimited and its application should not violate the right to a fair trial.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/5508/23 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the lease agreement for state-owned real estate and the eviction of the tenant from non-residential premises.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for termination of the lease agreement and eviction, since the courts, taking into account the previous position of the Supreme Court in this case, found that systematic non-payment of rent and lack of property insurance are not grounds for termination of the agreement in this case, and the transfer of property for use by other persons is not a violation of the terms of the agreement due to its contradictory content. The court of cassation noted that it has no authority to re-evaluate its own conclusions expressed in the previous ruling in this case, and also cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances, which would be a violation of procedural law. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the termination of land lease agreements are not relevant to the disputed legal relations that arose from the lease of state property. Also, the Supreme Court supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, since they were justified and proportionate, and the courts took into account all the circumstances of the case and the objections of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of the State Property Fund of Ukraine and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 640/23856/21 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Kyiv City Council to grant the status of a square to a land plot that was in the permanent use of the Office of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Ukraine.
3. The cassation court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that according to Article 152 of the Land Code of Ukraine, a land user has the right to demand the elimination of any violations of their rights to land, even if they are not related to the deprivation of the right of possession. The court emphasized that state authorities and local self-government bodies must act only on the basis, within the limits of authority, and in the manner prescribed by law. Since the courts of previous instances established that the city council violated the plaintiff’s rights by the disputed decision, terminating his right of permanent use of the land plot without legal grounds, the Supreme Court concluded that to protect the interest in legal certainty for the future, the land user has the right to appeal such a decision as long as the violation continues, and the application of the statute of limitations in this case is incorrect. The Court departed from the previous position regarding the application of the statute of limitations to appeals against illegal decisions of authorities, indicating that such decisions can be appealed throughout the duration of the violation of the interest in legal certainty.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and rendered a new decision, which satisfied the claim of the Office of Affairs of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, recognizing as illegal and canceling the decision of the Kyiv City Council to grant the status of a square to the disputed land plot.
Case No. 914/980/24 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the former general director of damages caused to the company as a result of improper performance of his duties.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all elements of a tort, namely: unlawful conduct of the defendant, his fault, as well as a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the company’s losses; the courts established that the defendant, being a crisis manager, acted in conditions of reorganization of the enterprise and lack of instructions from the owner regarding appealing tax notices-decisions; the courts referred to the fact that payment of taxes is the responsibility of the taxpayer, and not losses subject to compensation by an official; the courts also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of intent or negligence in the defendant’s actions, and also did not substantiate the defendant’s violation of the property right and interest of UBT LLC; regarding reimbursement of legal aid expenses, the court of appeal reduced their amount, based on the criteria of validity, reasonableness and proportionality of the services provided.
3. The cassation court left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeals of both parties – without satisfaction.
Case No. 370/922/23 dated 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional term for acceptance of inheritance.
2. The court granted the claim, based on
that the plaintiffs missed the six-month period for accepting the inheritance after the death of their mother, but the reason for this was a valid excuse, namely the full-scale invasion of Russia into Ukraine. The court took into account that the plaintiffs were forced to leave their place of residence and evacuate, and also that during the period for accepting the inheritance, there were conflicting provisions of the law regarding its course. The court also noted that the assessment of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline should relate to the period from the moment of the opening of the inheritance to the expiration of the six-month period, and it is during this period that there must be objective and significant obstacles to accepting the inheritance. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they provided a proper legal assessment of the arguments of the parties and correctly applied the norms of substantive law. The court of cassation also indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to the need to re-evaluate the evidence and establish the actual circumstances of the case, which is beyond its powers.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 914/2231/24 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the state property lease agreement as invalid and the obligation to vacate the leased property, since the prosecutor’s office believes that the property was leased in violation of the requirements of the legislation on education.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not take into account important aspects of the case. In particular, the courts did not give proper assessment to the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the non-compliance of the lease agreement with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Education,” which stipulates that the purpose of using the property related to the educational process must be clearly defined in the agreement. The courts also did not take into account that the provision of educational services by the lessee does not in itself indicate the use of the premises exclusively for educational purposes. In addition, the courts did not check whether the content of the agreement complies with the requirements of the law, and whether the economic competence of the parties was violated during its conclusion. Considering these shortcomings, the Supreme Court decided that the case requires a new hearing for a comprehensive and objective clarification of all the circumstances.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/82/20 dated 15/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Consult-Bud 2011” in connection with the consideration of cassation appeals in case No. 922/82/20.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application of LLC “Consult-Bud 2011” for the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments:
* According to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the party in whose favor the decision was made is entitled to reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
assistance.
* The amount of expenses for professional legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent, the scope of services provided, and the price of the claim.
* The court has the right to reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance if they are excessive or disproportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
* Expenses for professional legal assistance cannot be a way of excessive enrichment of a party.
* The court took into account that the legal position of defendant-3 was consistent, the same lawyer represented the interests of defendant-3 during the consideration of this case in all three instances, that is, the lawyer was aware of the subject matter, circumstances of this case, as well as the legal regulation of the disputed legal relations.
3. The court partially satisfied the application of “Consult-Bud 2011” LLC and ordered the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Community Development, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine (each) to pay “Consult-Bud 2011” LLC UAH 50,000.00 each for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 914/2450/22(914/2348/24) dated December 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 10,259,620.00 of the value of unjustifiably retained property (diesel fuel) from the defendant, who readdressed the cargo without the owner’s consent.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the defendant, being the consignee, without proper authority readdressed the cargo with diesel fuel belonging to the plaintiff to another station and handed it over to unidentified persons. The courts found that the defendant did not provide evidence of the existence of legal grounds for such actions or the return of the fuel to the owner. The court of cassation noted that for a condictio obligation, it does not matter whether the property left the possession of the owner with or against his will, or whether the acquirer is bona fide or mala fide. Since the return of the property in kind is impossible, the courts reasonably recovered the value of the unjustifiably retained property from the defendant. The court of cassation also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in this assessment.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/5679/25 dated December 18, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Budshlyakhmash Trading House” LLC in favor of “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” JSC of penalty and fine for improper performance of the supply contract.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court, reducing the amount of the claimed penalty, violated the norms of procedural law, in particular Article 269 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since it took into account circumstances that were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance. The court of cassation p
He emphasized that the appellate court, having discretionary powers in the matter of reducing the amount of penalty, should have assessed the arguments and objections of the parties and the evidence provided in their support in accordance with Articles 86, 210 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, taking into account the scope and limits of the case review in the court of appeal established by Article 269 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the third part of Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Article 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine in the context of the possibility, under certain circumstances, of reducing the penalty by 99% by the court are general for legal relations regarding the recovery of penalty, however, the result of their application may be different (the presence or absence of grounds for reducing the penalty) depending on the factual circumstances that will be established by the court in each specific case.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to partially satisfy the cassation appeals, to cancel the decision of the appellate court and to refer the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 990/320/25 of 12/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to dismiss the judge’s application for resignation without consideration.
The court based its decision on the fact that at the time of consideration of the judge’s application for resignation, the HCJ had already made a decision to dismiss him on the basis of another article of the Constitution, namely for committing a significant disciplinary offense. The court emphasized that the right to resign is not absolute and may be limited if the judge has committed actions that lead to his dismissal on other grounds. Also, the court noted that the law does not provide for the possibility of simultaneous dismissal of a judge on several grounds. The court took into account that the HCJ acted within its powers and in accordance with the Regulations, and also properly notified the judge about the consideration of his application.
The court refused to satisfy the judge’s claim, recognizing the HCJ’s decision to dismiss the application for resignation without consideration as lawful.
Case No. 200/2577/23 of 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the conclusion of the Eastern Office of the State Audit Service on the violation of legislation on public procurement by the State Enterprise “Dobropillyavuhillya-Vydobutok”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the customer (SE “Dobropillyavuhillya-Vydobutok”) unlawfully determined FOP OSOBA_1 as the winner of the tender, since his tender offer did not meet the requirements of the tender documentation. In particular, FOP OSOBA_1 planned to involve a subcontractor, but did not declare the absence of grounds for refusing this subcontractor to participate in the procurement, as required by the tender documentation. The court noted that the requirement to declare the absence of grounds for the subcontractor was established in the tender documentation lawfully, and its non-fulfillment is a ground for rejecting the offer. The court also rejected the argument about the absence
technical possibility for declaration, stating that this does not relieve the customer of responsibility for checking the subcontractor for grounds for refusal. Thus, the court emphasized the importance of complying with all the requirements of the tender documentation and the obligation of the customer to verify the compliance of the participants’ proposals with these requirements.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the claim of SE “Dobropillyavuhillya-Vydobutok.”
Case No. 760/1708/21 dated 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the defendant’s actions regarding the registration of his minor child in the apartment, which is the subject of a mortgage, as unlawful, and the deprivation of the child’s right to use this apartment.
2. The court dismissed the bank’s claim, reasoning that the registration of a child in an apartment that is mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagee, although it does not comply with the terms of the mortgage agreement, is not a basis for depriving the child of the right to use this apartment, since at the time of the child’s registration, the apartment belonged to her father. The court also noted that the bank did not prove that the child’s registration violates its rights as a mortgagee and hinders the realization of these rights. The court took into account the provisions of the legislation on the protection of the rights of the child, in particular the child’s right to live with parents and the obligation of parents to register the child’s place of residence. The court also referred to the fact that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims, and that proof cannot be based on assumptions. The court noted that the existence of a mortgage is not an unconditional basis for depriving the mortgagor’s family members of the right to use the dwelling.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 990/186/24 dated 12/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) to refuse to recommend a person for appointment to the position of a local court judge.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the candidate’s claim, as the HQCJU reasonably expressed doubts about the candidate’s compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics. The court noted that the Commission had the right to doubt the absence of a conflict of interest when the candidate, being a prosecutor, received permission to reconstruct the building, as well as in connection with discrepancies in his testimony regarding the residence of his ex-wife in an official apartment. The court emphasized that integrity is a key criterion for a judge, and the presence of reasonable doubts about it makes it impossible to recommend an appointment, even with high professional competence. The court also noted that the Commission acted within its powers, and its conclusions were not arbitrary or unreasonable. It is important that the court emphasized the discretionary powers of the HQCJU whenin assessing candidates, but emphasized that these powers must be exercised objectively and impartially.
3. The court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim of the candidate for the position of judge.
Case No. 908/2351/23 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the commercial court of appeal regarding the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of SE “Zaporizhzhia Oblavtodor” as bankrupt and the opening of liquidation proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that in order to recognize a debtor as bankrupt, it is necessary to establish its inability to restore solvency and satisfy the creditors’ claims otherwise than through liquidation proceedings, which requires the court to analyze the debtor’s assets and liabilities. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably pointed out the incomplete analysis of the debtor’s financial condition, in particular, the lack of proper assessment of non-current assets and the examination of the issue of tax debt. The court also emphasized that the existence of a decision of the creditors’ meeting on liquidation is not an unconditional basis for such a court decision, which must independently assess the existence of signs of bankruptcy. It is important that the court of first instance did not fully take into account the specifics of bankruptcy of state-owned enterprises, as provided for by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming the need for a thorough analysis of the debtor’s financial condition before making a decision on bankruptcy.
Case No. 910/507/24 dated 11/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of operational and economic sanctions and the obligation to return funds withheld as operational and economic sanctions for untimely performance of work under the contract agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, emphasized that the courts did not take into account that the contract agreement was concluded already during the martial law, and the plaintiff should have been aware of the risks associated with hostilities when concluding the contract. The court also noted that the courts did not examine the issue of the plaintiff notifying the defendant about force majeure circumstances in the manner prescribed by the contract, and did not take into account the condition of the contract, according to which failure to notify about force majeure deprives the party of the right to invoke these circumstances as a basis for exemption from liability. In addition, the court pointed out that the courts of previous instances mistakenly took into account the occurrence of force majeure circumstances in the plaintiff’s counterparty. The court also drew attention to the fact that the courts did not ascertain whether the mobilized employees of the plaintiff directly participated in the performance of work under the contract agreement and whether their participation was significant.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132692224](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132692224)>**Case No. 161/21299/23 dated 02/12/2025**
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 for treason in the form of defection to the enemy.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found proven the fact of the convicted person’s voluntary transfer to the service of law enforcement agencies of the so-called “DPR,” which qualifies as treason. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of witness testimony, as it was based on personal observations, not just rumors. Also, the court noted that the conclusions of the courts are supported by a combination of other evidence, in particular, photographs from campaign events. The Supreme Court emphasized that joining the service of law enforcement agencies in entities artificially created by the Russian Federation constitutes treason. The court also recognized the imposed punishment as justified, considering the gravity of the crime and the absence of mitigating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the judgment and ruling of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132692225](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132692225)>**Case No. 752/9925/22 dated 17/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the convicted person under Part 2 of Article 125 (minor bodily injury) and Part 4 of Article 185 (theft committed in large amounts) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments of the court that it was guided by in making the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. The court only noted that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged. Accordingly, it is currently impossible to analyze the motives of the court of cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132744671](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132744671)>**Case No. 924/214/25 dated 17/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for termination of a contract for equity participation in construction, concluded between the parties in 2005.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of non-implementation of the contract and damage caused by the defendants’ actions, and the courts established that the parties took actions to implement the contract, in particular, regarding the construction and commissioning of a power substation, and jointly resolved issues regarding the customer of technical specifications. The court also took into account that the consequence of termination of the contract is the termination of obligations, and the plaintiff did not prove the fact of causing damage and did not provide evidence of appeals regarding the return of paid funds. In addition, the courts took into account the decision in another case, which established the ownership of shares of the energy facility by the defendants. The court of cassation instance noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to no
necessity of re-evaluating evidence, which is beyond its authority.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 905/263/25 dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of additional creditor claims of “Financial Company “Ricard” LLC against “Sunset-Carlisle Trade Group” LLC in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that “FC “Ricard” LLC re-submitted claims that had already been the subject of court review when opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, namely claims regarding the outstanding debt under the loan agreement. The court noted that “FC “Ricard” LLC did not provide evidence confirming the transfer to it of the right to claim the court fee awarded to the previous creditor. The court also emphasized that the obligation to prove the validity of the claims rests with the creditor, and the courts of previous instances rightfully assessed the submitted evidence. The court of cassation instance rejected the arguments of “FC “Ricard” LLC regarding the failure of the courts of previous instances to consider the provisions of Article 45 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, since in this case it is not about restricting the creditor’s right to file additional claims, but about the repeated presentation of already considered claims. The court of cassation instance also rejected the appellant’s reference to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the appellant singled out the conclusions of the Supreme Court from the context of court decisions, without taking into account the subject and grounds of the dispute, the evidence examined by the courts in these cases, and the established factual circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Financial Company “Ricard” LLC and upheld the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/3312/24 dated 04/11/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the registration action.
The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, not satisfying the cassation appeal of the “Studenok” Gardening Society. The decision does not provide detailed arguments that the court was guided by, as it only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed and the decisions of previous instances remained unchanged. Usually, this means that the court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the circumstances of the case and the application of legal norms. The absence of representatives of the parties in the court session could also affect the consideration of the case, as the court considered the case based on the available materials. The court does not indicate that it deviates from any previous legal position of the Supreme Court.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the “Studenok” Gardening Society, and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast and the постанову of the Eastern Commercial Appeal
of the court to remain unchanged.
Case No. 910/10187/15 dated 12/15/2025
The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PrJSC “Azot” against the actions of the state executor regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory execution of a court decision on the restoration of gas accounting in an underground storage facility.
The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of PrJSC “Azot,” stating that the state executor had taken all the necessary actions provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” namely: sent requests for the execution of the decision, imposed fines for non-compliance, and notified law enforcement agencies about the commission of a criminal offense. The court noted that since the court decision could not be executed without the participation of the debtor, the executor’s actions complied with the legally established algorithm. Also, the Supreme Court rejected the complainant’s reference to Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Enforcement of Court Decisions,” as it concerns cases of obligating certain actions regarding property, which was not the subject of the dispute in this case. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the Complainant did not exercise its right, provided for in Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” to appeal to the court with a request for a deferral or change in the method of execution of the decision.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Azot” and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 922/3849/24 dated 12/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the modernization of heating chambers.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the corporation “Energoresurs-Invest” did not fulfill all the terms of the contract with the municipal enterprise “Kharkiv Heating Networks,” in particular, completion certificates and commissioning certificates were not obtained for 14 objects, the cost of which the plaintiff tried to recover; the contract was financed by an IBRD loan, and the World Bank did not approve payments for unfinished objects; the parties, changing the terms of the contract, did not make changes to the appendix on payment terms, which contradicts the requirements for prior review of changes by the bank; an effective way to protect the violated right of the plaintiff is to oblige the defendant to take actions, namely, to amend the contract. The court also noted that the lack of budget financing is not a basis for exemption from liability for violation of the obligation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 178/1278/20 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the application of PERSON_1 on the basis of exceptional circumstances, namely, the establishment by the European Court of Human Rights
ini (ECHR) of Ukraine’s violation of international obligations in resolving this case. In the case “Voroshilo v. Ukraine,” the ECHR found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as the national court failed to properly notify the applicant of the appellate review, depriving him of the opportunity to comment on the appeal. The Grand Chamber noted that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Execution of Decisions and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights,” ECHR decisions are binding on Ukraine. Considering the violations established by the ECHR, the Grand Chamber concluded that it is necessary to ensure the restoration of the applicant’s rights through a repeated appellate review of the case. The court also emphasized that, for the effective restoration of the applicant’s rights, it is necessary to overturn not only the decision of the appellate court but also the ruling of the cassation court refusing to open cassation proceedings.
3. The court partially granted the application: it overturned the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the cassation court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 903/534/23 (903/89/25) dated 12/11/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the supply agreement and the additional agreement to it as invalid within the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s cassation appeal. The court noted that although the initiating creditor is an interested party in relation to the debtor, the agreement was concluded before the law regulating the restriction of the rights of interested creditors came into force. The court also indicated that the plaintiff did not prove the fraudulent nature of the agreement, namely, that the agreement caused damage specifically to him as a creditor, and did not prove the set of circumstances that is part of the subject of proof when recognizing a transaction as fraudulent. Importantly, the court emphasized the ineffectiveness of the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff, since the recognition of the agreement as invalid under the circumstances of this case would not lead to an increase in the liquidation estate of the debtor and the satisfaction of the creditors’ claims. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the bias of the appellate court judge, as no evidence was provided to confirm the existence of trusting relationships between the judge and the law firm representing the interests of the initiating creditor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/83/25 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of costs for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Alfa Labservice” in the Supreme Court in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal of PE “DIQ”.
2. The court partially granted the application of LLC “Alfa Labservice”, reducing the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance from UAH 20,000 to UAH 10,000, as it considered the claimed amount to be inflated and disproportionate to
and the complexity of the case, considering the consistency of the defendant’s legal position, the immutability of the regulatory legal framework, the representation of the defendant’s interests by the same attorney in all instances, and also the fact that the preparation of a response to the cassation appeal, which amounts to supporting the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, did not require a large amount of analytical and technical work. The court took into account the criteria of reality of attorney’s fees (their validity and necessity) and the reasonableness of their amount, as well as proportionality with the services provided in the Supreme Court. The court referred to the ECHR’s practice regarding the reimbursement of only necessary and reasonable expenses, as well as to the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the proportionality of expenses for professional legal assistance with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the significance of the case for the party.
3. The court ordered the recovery from Private Enterprise “DIQ” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Alfa Labservice” of UAH 10,000.00 of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance, and denied the rest of the application.
Case No. 551/1292/23 dated 12/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family and changing the order of obtaining the right to inheritance.
2. The court established the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased lived as one family without registering a marriage, which gives her the right to inherit as an heir of the fourth очереди. However, the court refused to satisfy the claims to change the order of obtaining the right to inheritance, since the plaintiff did not prove that the deceased was in a helpless state due to old age, serious illness, or disability, and also did not prove the fact of guardianship, material support, and providing other assistance to the deceased due to his helpless state. The court noted that to satisfy the claim to change the order of inheritance, the presence of a combination of circumstances is necessary, including the helpless state of the testator and the provision of assistance to him by the heir. The court also took into account that the deceased had not reached retirement age, had a disability, but independently performed hygienic procedures, drove a car, and also had a permanent income in the form of a pension, which indicates the absence of a difficult financial situation.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of the plaintiff.
Case No. 924/36/24 dated 12/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim in the interests of the Letichivka settlement council for the return to LLC “Development Business Systems” of a land plot of the water fund and the Novokostyantynivsky reservoir located on it, which the defendant used for fish farming without proper title documents.
2. The court satisfied the claim, based on the fact that LLC “Development Business Systems” used a land plot of the water fund and a reservoir
for conducting fish farming, without having proper title documents for the land. The court noted that the Fishery Exploitation Regime and the Permit for Special Use of Aquatic Bioresources are not such documents. The court also took into account that, according to paragraph 24 of section X “Transitional Provisions” of the Land Code of Ukraine, the authorized body in the disputed legal relations is the Letychiv Settlement Council, since the disputed land plot is located on its territory. The court of appeal rejected the appellant’s arguments about the need to apply paragraph 24-1 of section X “Transitional Provisions” of the Land Code of Ukraine, since it came into force after the decision of the court of first instance and has no retroactive effect. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly assessed the circumstances of the case at the time of its consideration, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the fact that the defendant used the land plot without proper legal grounds. The Supreme Court also noted that in case of questions regarding legal succession in enforcement proceedings, they are resolved in accordance with the procedure established by law.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the cassation appeal of “Business Development Systems” LLC.
**Case No. 910/15255/24 dated 12/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties from “Talanlegprom” LLC in favor of the Main Center for Capital Construction, Reconstruction and Procurement of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine for violation of the terms of delivery of goods under the contract.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which reduced the amount of penalties, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular, the defendant’s fulfillment of a significant part of the obligations, the short period of delay, the lack of evidence of losses to the plaintiff, as well as the provisions on the possibility of reducing the amount of penalties provided by law. The court of cassation emphasized that the issue of reducing the amount of penalties is the discretionary right of the court, which is decided on the basis of an analysis of the specific circumstances of the case, and that it, as a court of cassation, only checks the correct application of legal norms, and does not re-evaluate the factual circumstances. The court also noted that the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine are general, and the result of their application depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The court of cassation emphasized that the reduction of the amount of penalty is the right of the court and depends exclusively on the specific circumstances of each case established by the court as a result of the legal assessment of the disputed legal relations and the evidence submitted by the parties, which they refer to as the basis of their claims or objections.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
**S
rights No. 910/1823/25 of 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of legal professional assistance costs in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court granted the application of LLC “Intellectual Transport Service” for the distribution of court costs, as the LLC complied with the deadlines for applying for an additional decision and provided evidence of incurring legal assistance costs. The court noted that the amount of expenses for the services of a lawyer should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time, the scope of services provided, and the importance of the case for the party. The Supreme Court took into account that the plaintiff did not challenge the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance and did not prove their disproportionality. The court also refers to the established practice of the ECHR regarding the reimbursement of only justified expenses.
3. The court decided to recover from the State Enterprise “Forestry Innovation and Analytical Center” in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Intellectual Transport Service” UAH 16,000.00 of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 340/2809/24 of 12/18/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal and compensation for the loss of part of income for the period of delay in payment of indexation.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not establish the total amount of payments due to the plaintiff upon dismissal, the amount of average earnings for the entire period of delay, and also did not determine the share of unpaid funds in comparison with the total amount of payments due, which is important for determining a fair amount of compensation. The court emphasized the need to apply the principle of proportionality in determining the amount of compensation, taking into account the commensurability of the amount claimed for recovery with the specific circumstances of the case, such as the amount of overdue debt, its ratio to average earnings, and the behavior of the parties. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances made mistakes in calculating the amount of average earnings, without taking into account the formula defined in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court of November 30, 2020, in case No. 480/3105/19. Regarding compensation for the loss of part of income, the court noted that the cassation appeal does not contain justifications for violations by the courts of substantive and procedural law, which makes it impossible to verify court decisions in this part. The court noted that it departs from the conclusions of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, set out in the постанові (resolution) of December 06, 2024, in case No. 440/6856/22, and formulated a legal conclusion regarding the limitation of the period for calculating compensation for delay in settlement upon dismissal to six months, introduced to Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine by Law No. 2352-IX.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent
returned the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all the necessary circumstances and make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Case No. 200/2362/23 dated 18/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the military unit’s refusal to pay monetary allowance to the sister of a missing serviceman after she reached the age of majority, but on the condition that she is enrolled in full-time education.
2. The court of cassation found that, according to the law, a missing serviceman retains his monetary allowance, which is paid to the wife, adult children, legal representatives of minor children, persons dependent on the servicemen, or parents. The court noted that although the guardianship of the plaintiff terminated after she reached the age of majority, it is important whether she was dependent on her brother as a full-time student. The court indicated that the plaintiff applied to the military unit for payment of monetary allowance, but did not receive a response, and the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the evidence confirming the fact of filing the application. Also, the courts did not establish whether the application was actually sent to the defendant, and if it was received, whether he fulfilled the obligation to check the completeness of the submitted documents and make a decision on payment or refusal to pay.
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. 380/10913/24 dated 18/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Mobizhuk” against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Lviv region regarding the accrual of penalties for violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of Registration of Settlement Operations in Trade, Public Catering and Services”.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the tax authorities, noting that the courts of previous instances had wrongly concluded that one of the tax assessment notices should be canceled in full. The court emphasized that the use of data from the System of Accounting for Data of Registrars of Settlement Operations (SAD RRO) is not in itself sufficient evidence of a tax offense, but may only be a basis for verification. At the same time, if, during the verification, the fact of non-issuance of a settlement document of the established form is established, this is a violation for which liability is provided. The court also took into account that each fact of issuing a check with violations is a separate offense, and the amount of penalties should be determined taking into account the number of such violations. As a result, the Supreme Court changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, reducing the amount of penalties to be canceled.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the tax authorities, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
in terms of canceling one of the tax assessment notices in full and rendered a new decision to cancel it in a smaller amount.
**Case No. 460/20762/23 dated December 18, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the untimely settlement upon dismissal and the recovery of average earnings for the period of delay.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they incorrectly applied Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU) regarding the payment of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal. The appellate court erroneously applied the version of Article 117 of the LCU, which limits the payment of average earnings to six months, without taking into account that the delay in settlement began before this version came into force. The Supreme Court indicated that it is necessary to take into account the period of delay before and after July 19, 2022 (the date of entry into force of amendments to Article 117 of the LCU), as well as to apply the principle of proportionality in determining the amount of compensation, taking into account the amount of debt and other circumstances of the case. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the compensatory nature of the payment of average earnings and the need to ensure a fair balance of interests of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to reverse the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remand the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 480/1650/23 dated December 18, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the non-accrual and non-payment to a serviceman of additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 70,000 in proportion to the period of participation in hostilities during martial law.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, what tasks the plaintiff performed during the disputed period while holding the position of border service inspector in the area of hostilities, and whether this is confirmed by relevant documents. The courts did not examine the reports of the head of the border outpost regarding the payment of additional remuneration to the plaintiff and did not properly assess this evidence. Also, the courts did not take into account that the list of supporting documents on participation in hostilities is not exhaustive, and the obligation to prove the legality of their actions rests with the defendant. The court emphasized that the mere fact of the plaintiff’s service deployment in the Sumy region does not exclude the possibility of the plaintiff performing the relevant tasks that are the basis for receiving additional remuneration.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 620/7369/24 dated December 17, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the tax assessment notice, which increased the amount of the monetary obligation of NOSIVKA AGRO LLC regarding p
Regarding corporate income tax of foreign legal entities, as the tax authority considered that the non-resident company AGROPROSPERIS 2 LIMITED was not the beneficial owner of the income in the form of interest.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that in order to apply the reduced tax rate provided for by an international treaty, it is necessary that the non-resident is a resident of the country with which the treaty has been concluded, provides the relevant certificate, and is the beneficial owner of the income, i.e., has the right not only to receive the income, but also to determine its further economic fate. The Court emphasized that the benefits of international agreements cannot be applied if the non-resident is only an intermediary. It is important that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and did not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the financial statements of AGROPROSPERIS 2 LIMITED, constituent documents and confirmation of beneficial ownership. The court of cassation pointed to the violation by the appellate court of the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 466/2128/23 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of a share in an apartment that is jointly owned, by paying monetary compensation.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that when deciding on the termination of the right to a share in jointly owned property (apartment) by paying compensation, it is necessary to take into account the financial situation of the defendant and the ability to pay compensation without losing the only housing. The Court emphasized that the forced recovery of compensation that exceeds the defendant’s financial capabilities and leads to the loss of the only housing violates the principle of proportionality and imposes an excessive burden. The Court also took into account that the plaintiff acquired ownership of a share of the apartment, knowing about its indivisibility and the residence of other co-owners in it. The Court noted that the legitimate purpose of protecting the plaintiff’s property interests cannot justify interference with the right to housing of the defendants, especially when there are alternative ways to exercise property rights. The Court emphasized that the right to housing has a high social value, and its protection is a priority, especially when it comes to the only housing.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim for the allocation of a share in the apartment by paying compensation.
Case No. 990/337/25 dated 08/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of qualification.
of the qualification exam and non-admission to the next stage of the competition for the position of a judge of the court of appeal.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to return the statement of claim to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the court and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The court noted that the appealed decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) were published on the Commission’s website, which presumes awareness of interested parties about their content. The court did not accept the plaintiff’s arguments that she learned about the violation of her rights only after the publication of the Supreme Court’s decision in another case, as this does not change the moment when she should have learned about the violation in her own case. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not take active steps to obtain copies of the HQCJU’s decisions within the period established for appeal. The court took into account that the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without motion was delivered to the plaintiff’s electronic account, and she did not eliminate the deficiencies within the established period.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 920/929/23 dated 18/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Yermak” LLC in favor of “Boiler House of the Northern Industrial Hub” LLC of debt for the supply of thermal energy services, 3% per annum and inflation losses.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal did not take into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Housing and Communal Services” regarding the conclusion of an individual agreement on the provision of a communal service, which is a public accession agreement, if the co-owners have not chosen another model of contractual relations. The court also indicated that the court of appeal unlawfully stated the absence of contractual relations between the parties and did not properly assess the circumstances of the case, in particular, the plaintiff’s request to the defendant to conclude an agreement. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that the fact of not receiving an invoice does not release the consumer from the obligation to pay for the actually provided services, and unauthorized disconnection from centralized heating networks is not a basis for exemption from payment for heat supply services. The court also noted that the disconnection from the centralized heating network must take place on the basis of a decision of the permanent interdepartmental commission.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 160/695/24 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions by which the amount of monetary obligations for income tax, value added tax was increased for “Incotradebud” Limited Liability Company, and a fine was applied for the lack of registration of excise warehouses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts
The courts of previous instances found that the tax authority did not have the right to order and conduct a documentary scheduled on-site audit of “Incotradebud” LLC during the moratorium established by paragraph 52-2 of subsection 10 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine, since the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 89, which shortened the period of restrictions on inspections, is not applicable in matters related to taxation, since it is possible to change the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine only by making changes to this Code. The court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine” as a temporary act of legislation exhausts its effect with the end of the calendar period for which it was adopted. The Supreme Court emphasized that conducting an audit in the absence of legal grounds is a sufficient basis for recognizing tax notices-decisions adopted based on the results of such an audit as illegal. The court also noted that its position regarding the consequences of illegal documentary audits is established and consistent.
2. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 914/2709/24 dated 10/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of “Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine” LLC to fulfill the terms of the agreement on connecting the object of “Levgalbud” LLC to the gas distribution system.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because “Levgalbud” LLC did not fulfill its obligations under the contract, namely, it did not provide documents confirming the commissioning of internal gas networks and their presence at the point of connection, which is a mandatory condition for connecting to the gas distribution network according to the Gas Distribution Systems Code. The court also noted that the project of the commercial gas metering unit (GMU) was subject to re-approval, as it was not put into operation within a year after approval. The court of cassation emphasized that the obligation to prove the circumstances rests on each party, and “Levgalbud” LLC did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm its readiness for connection. In addition, the court of cassation rejected the arguments of “Levgalbud” LLC regarding the need to appoint an expert examination, as the need for special knowledge to resolve the dispute was not proven, and also rejected references to the practice of the Supreme Court in other cases, as they were not relevant to the circumstances of this case.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
**Case No. 910/3776/25 dated 12/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unreasonably acquired funds in the amount of UAH 932,767.92, which “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” LLC received under a bank guarantee issued to ensure the fulfillment of the contract
of a procurement agreement concluded with Consult System LLC.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account the terms of the procurement agreement, which provided for the customer’s right to satisfy its claims under the guarantee not only in case of non-performance, but also improper performance of the agreement by the contractor, in particular, violation of the terms of performance of work. The court indicated that the parties to the agreement clearly defined that the performance guarantee is returned only if the contractor fully and properly performs the terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that in this case, unlike previous decisions, the terms of the performance guarantee were specifically defined by the parties in the procurement agreement, and not by reference to the general provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement.” The court also noted that improper performance of the obligation (violation of deadlines) is a sufficient basis for withholding the guarantee amount, as this was stipulated by the terms of the agreement. In addition, the court indicated that in the absence of a violation (non-performance or improper performance) of the principal obligation by the principal, the beneficiary does not have grounds to apply to the guarantor for payment of the amount of the bank guarantee, in which case the beneficiary returns funds under the bank guarantee to the principal in accordance with Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as unjust enrichment.
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 of Consult System LLC.
Case No. 373/1030/23 dated December 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use and dispose of a land plot of forestry designation, which the prosecutor’s office considers illegally alienated.
2. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim, as it believes that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right, namely: instead of a vindication claim, which provides for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, the prosecutor filed claims to invalidate decisions and cancel state registration, which will not lead to the restoration of the state’s possession of the land plot. The court noted that for the recovery of immovable property, challenging the decisions of authorities is not an effective way of protection. The court also indicated that the prosecutor did not prove that the disputed land plot has the designated purpose of forestry land and is used by the State Enterprise “Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky Agroforestry” or the Kyiv Regional State Administration. The appellate court agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the ineffective method of protection, but changed the reasoning part of the decision, noting that the court of first instance did not properly assess the status of the land plot and did not apply the norms of substantive law that were subject to application.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances without changes, confirming that the prosecutor had chosen an inappropriate method of protecting the right, since to protect the ownership of a forest land plot, it is necessary to file a vindication claim.
**Case No. 756/9777/23 dated 18/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an agreement for the provision of legal services.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which refused to satisfy the claims, based on the fact that the freedom of contract is not absolute and is limited by law and the essence of contractual legal relations, and the condition of the agreement on payment of the second part of the fee in case of early termination of the agreement is essentially a penalty for unilateral refusal of the agreement, which contradicts the essence of the penalty. The court noted that a penalty can only be provided to ensure the fulfillment of an obligation, and not for a lawful waiver of it. Also, the court closed the cassation proceedings regarding part of the claims of the original plaintiff, since the plaintiff who filed the cassation appeal acquired the right of claim only for part of the debt, and did not provide evidence of representing the interests of the original plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 545/1147/24 dated 10/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of paternity and the amendment of the birth record.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case. In particular, the defendant claimed that he could not appear for the examination due to participation in hostilities, providing relevant evidence. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, did not take these circumstances into account and prematurely applied the consequences of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, recognizing the fact of paternity due to evasion of the examination. The appellate court, in turn, did not contribute to a comprehensive and complete clarification of the circumstances of the case, did not consider the possibility of conducting the examination in the appellate instance, which is a violation of procedural law. As a result, the courts did not establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.
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. 676/5900/24 dated 17/12/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact that three minor children are dependent on their father in order to obtain a deferral from mobilization.
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of a dispute over law, since the disputed legal relations arose in connection with the refusal of the territorial center
in the registration of deferment from military service during mobilization by the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCC SP). The Supreme Court noted that such disputes are public law disputes and are subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings, not civil proceedings. The court took into account that the applicant applied to the court after the TCC SP refused to grant a deferment, which indicates the existence of a dispute with a subject of power. The court also took into account that disputes regarding participation in the upbringing and maintenance of children have already been resolved between the former spouses, and the purpose of applying to the court is to exercise the right to deferment from mobilization. Considering that the disputed legal relations arose in connection with the decision of the TCC SP, the court concluded that the case is not subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case.
**Case No. 904/4870/24 dated 12/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the petition of the Private Enterprise “Sarmat” to recover from the Limited Liability Company “Logistiklakiflow” the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
2. The Supreme Court, partially granting the petition, proceeded from the following:
* Court costs for professional legal assistance are subject to distribution between the parties, but their amount must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer.
* The court is not necessarily bound by the terms of the legal assistance agreement when deciding on the distribution of court costs, but must assess their reality, necessity, and justification.
* Considering the stability of the defendant’s legal position, the absence of changes in the regulatory framework, and the prior awareness of the law firm with the circumstances of the case, preparation for the cassation review did not require a significant amount of legal work.
* The court takes into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the criteria for reimbursement of court costs, in particular, their factuality, inevitability, and justification of the amount.
* A reduction in the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be distributed is possible exclusively on the basis of a petition from the other party if, in its opinion, the requirements regarding the proportionality of expenses with the complexity of the relevant work, its scope, and the time spent on performing the work are not met.
3. The court ruled to recover from the Limited Liability Company “Logistiklakiflow” in favor of the Private Enterprise “Sarmat” UAH 15,000.00 in expenses for professional legal assistance, refusing to satisfy the rest of the claims.
**Case No. 646/6704/23 dated 12/17/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the accusation of PERSON_7 of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely, collaborative activity.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied
The cassation court upheld the defender’s cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. The judges of the Cassation Criminal Court likely found certain violations of procedural law or incompleteness in the appellate court’s examination of the case’s circumstances, which became the basis for overturning the verdict. Errors may have been made in the evaluation of evidence, important circumstances may have been ignored, or the defendant’s right to defense may have been violated. To clarify the specific reasons, it is necessary to read the full text of the ruling, which will detail the reasons for the decision. It is important to note that the decision of the cassation court is not final in the case, as it will be reviewed by the appellate court.
The court ruled: to partially grant the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6, to overturn the verdict of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of January 15, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 and to order a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 911/1245/21 (911/591/23) dated 09/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from another’s illegal possession, the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid, and the cancellation of the state registrar’s decisions.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not examine the circumstances that are relevant for the correct application of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, namely, they did not establish the good faith of the acquisition of property by “Safe Invest” LLC, did not investigate the corporate relationships between “Safe Invest” LLC and “Prombudservice 2012” LLC, did not clarify the circumstances of the onerous/gratuitous disposal of property from “Prombudservice 2012” LLC in favor of “Safe Invest” LLC, did not investigate the circumstances of the transfer of property to the mortgage and reached a premature conclusion regarding the possibility of applying the statute of limitations. The court noted that for the application of paragraph 3 of the first part of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the issue of the good faith/bad faith of the acquirer, the onerous or gratuitous nature of the acquisition by a bona fide acquirer of such property, as well as the circumstances under which the disputed property left the possession of the original owner, are decisive. The court also emphasized the need to maintain a balance of interests of the debtor, creditors, and other interested parties in the bankruptcy procedure, which provides for a fair distribution of the debtor’s property among the creditors.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/3041/25 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the return of the appeal of the tax authority against the ruling of the court of first instance on the approval of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance sheet in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court mistakenly returned the complaint to the tax authority, which is not a party to the bankruptcy case.
but claims that the ruling on the approval of the liquidator’s report violates his rights and interests. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court should have opened appellate proceedings and verified whether the ruling of the court of first instance actually concerned the rights and obligations of the tax authority, in particular, whether it made it impossible to conduct a documentary audit. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tax authority has the right to appeal the ruling on the approval of the liquidator’s report if it directly concerns its rights and obligations, and the appellate court should have investigated these circumstances, and not return the complaint formally. The court also pointed out that the appellate court did not properly assess the tax authority’s arguments about the impossibility of conducting an audit due to the absence of the enterprise at the tax address and the liquidator’s failure to provide documents.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 603/215/24 dated December 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damages caused to a person as a result of illegal prosecution.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, partially satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff proved the fact that he suffered moral damage due to illegal criminal prosecution and restriction of his rights for a long time. The courts took into account the length of time spent under investigation and trial, the application of preventive measures that restricted the plaintiff’s rights, and the mental suffering associated with the disruption of normal life connections. When determining the amount of compensation, the courts were guided by the principles of reasonableness, balance, and fairness, as well as internal conviction. The Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, noting that the plaintiff proved both the fact of causing moral damage and partially the amount of compensation, and the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to a reassessment of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 921/412/24 dated December 9, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of land plots, the cancellation of state registration of land plots, and the return of property, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, in particular, the provisions on the grounds for leaving the claim without consideration, since no violations of the requirements regarding the form and content of the statement of claim were established by the plaintiff, and the discretionary powers of the court of first instance regarding the consolidation or separation of claims were not taken into account. The court of cassation emphasized that the violation by the court of first instance of the rules
