[Case No. 495/2129/21 dated 12/17/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132828440)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions for the sale of real estate as invalid, the act of sale of the mortgage item, the cancellation of the certificate of ownership and the cancellation of the registration of the right of ownership of the real estate.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal that, for the effective protection of the plaintiff’s violated rights, it is necessary to involve all parties to the transaction in the case, in particular, the organizer of electronic auctions, SE “SETAM”, since in the event of the satisfaction of the claim, rights and obligations will arise regarding the return of everything that the parties received in fulfillment of the contract. The court noted that the plaintiff did not file a motion to involve SE “SETAM” as a co-defendant, and therefore the court of first instance had no grounds for conclusions on the merits of resolving the dispute, subject to the improper composition of the subject matter. The court also emphasized that each party determines the strategy of defense, the content of their claims, and the persons to whom the claims are made, and the court considers the case exclusively within the scope of the stated claims. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the excessive formalism of the court were rejected, taking into account the principle of disposition of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
[Case No. 459/2471/16-к dated 12/18/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132829319)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal regarding a person accused of receiving undue advantage by an official (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal, as the courts of previous instances committed significant violations of the criminal procedural law. In particular, the courts did not properly assess the evidence of the prosecution, recognizing the results of covert investigative (search) actions (CISAs) as inadmissible due to the untimely declassification of the rulings on their conduct. The court did not take into account that the prosecutor is not an independent subject of declassification, but must apply to the expert commission. The court did not clarify whether the prosecution had taken all necessary measures to declassify the documents, and whether the defense had a real opportunity to familiarize themselves with them and prepare their position. Also, the court of appeal did not properly verify the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
[Case No. 686/25931/22 dated 12/11/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132829248)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (infringement on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court found that the court of appeal committed a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedureof the law, namely Articles 135 and 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since, when conducting a special court proceeding (in absentia), it only took measures to send a notice of the date, time, and place of the appeal hearing to the last known place of stay of the accused and to publish an announcement in the “Uryadovyi Kurier” newspaper, but did not ensure that this information was published on the official website of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal, which is mandatory according to Part 3 of Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that the obligation to notify the accused during a special court proceeding also rests with the court of appeal, which is effectively the last instance for verifying the completeness of the judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that non-compliance with these requirements is a significant violation that could have prevented the appellate court from making a lawful and well-founded decision, referring to the practice of the ECHR and its own previous decisions.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, reversed the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 574/875/20 dated 22/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in criminal proceedings.
In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the convicted person’s cassation appeal against the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances, which concerned the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The court heard the arguments of the parties, including the prosecutor, defense counsel, and convicted persons, who participated via video conference. The Supreme Court, guided by the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, verified the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances. During the consideration of the cassation appeal, the panel of judges proceeded from the need to comply with the norms of procedural law and ensure the right to a fair trial. As a result of the analysis of the case materials, the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the decisions of the lower courts.
The court decided to uphold the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and to dismiss the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 991/6928/25 dated 22/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_8 of seizing funds from a state enterprise by abusing his official position and committing official forgery.
2. The court established that PERSON_8, while holding the position of Deputy Director of SE “DH “Elitne,” and later acting as Director, abused her official position by conspiring with other persons to seize funds from the enterprise. To this end, she entered into fictitious contracts with LLC “Zavod bioobryv “Tryvko” and LLC “Kaspiy Agro” for the supply and application of organic fertilizers, which were not actually carried out. PERSON_8 signed and approved deliberately falsereviewed the acts on the use of fertilizers, which allowed for the write-off of funds from the enterprise. The court also took into account the testimonies of witnesses, in particular, PERSON_11, PERSON_17, and PERSON_12, who confirmed the fictitious nature of the contracts and the absence of actual supply and use of fertilizers. An important piece of evidence was the materials from PERSON_8’s mobile phone, which indicated her attempts to conceal the crime and coordinate actions with other individuals. The court also took into account that PERSON_8 violated the charter of the enterprise by not obtaining the consent of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine to enter into economic obligations for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the value of the enterprise’s assets.
3. The court found PERSON_8 guilty of committing criminal offenses under Part 5 of Article 191, Part 4 of Article 191, Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced her to imprisonment for a term of 9 years with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
Case No. 569/16033/24 dated 22/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of a residential premises by evicting the son from an apartment owned by the mother by right of ownership, without providing other housing.
2. The court dismissed the claim for eviction, based on the fact that the disputed apartment is the only housing of the defendant, with whom he has a long and permanent connection since birth, which makes it his “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court took into account that the defendant lived in the apartment even during the life of the previous owner (grandfather), being a family member and having consent to reside. The court also emphasized that eviction is an extreme measure, and in this case, the interests of the plaintiff as the owner do not outweigh the interests of the defendant, who may become homeless. The court noted that the plaintiff’s right of ownership is limited by the defendant’s legitimate right of residence, and the demand to deprive the defendant of the right to housing is a disproportionate interference. The court also took into account that the plaintiff knew about the encumbrance of the apartment with the defendant’s right of use when she inherited it.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 451/1783/18 dated 19/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right of ownership to 1/2 part of a residential building, the recognition of certificates of ownership and certificates of inheritance as invalid.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the repair work was carried out in relation to the existing real estate object, which does not indicate the creation of a new thing. The court took into account that each real estate object is assigned a unique registration number, which does not change. The plaintiff did not prove the creation of a new thing, therefore the reference to Article 332 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is unfounded. The court noted that the plaintiff has the right to compensation for the costs of improving the property.
, but chose an improper method of protection by demanding recognition of ownership. Regarding the invalidation of ownership certificates, the court found that the notary acted within the law by issuing them to the heirs who accepted the inheritance within the established period.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову (resolution/ruling) of the appellate court.
**Case No. 520/6976/24 dated 12/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service regarding the failure to accrue and pay monetary allowance to the plaintiff upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim in part regarding the claims for the period from July 19 to November 9, 2022, since the plaintiff missed the three-month period for appealing to the court established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the version of Law No. 2352-IX, which came into force on July 19, 2022. The court noted that the period for appealing to the court should be calculated from the moment the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of monetary allowance paid, namely from the date of receiving the monetary certificate upon dismissal. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that he learned about the violation of his rights only after receiving a response to a lawyer’s request, as this does not change the initial moment of the commencement of the period for appealing to the court. The court also took into account that the plaintiff appealed to the court after the deadline, without stating valid reasons for its reinstatement.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
**Case No. 420/11879/25 dated 12/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the pension authority to refuse the recalculation of the pension and actions regarding the application of the individual salary coefficient when recalculating the pension.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to return the appeal to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the difficult financial situation for exemption from paying court fees, namely, did not provide a certificate of the pension amount for the previous year or a certificate of the absence of other income. The court noted that the obligation to prove financial difficulties rests with the applicant, and the appellate court rightfully exercised its authority by not exempting the plaintiff from paying court fees. The court also emphasized that exemption from paying court fees in the court of first instance does not mean automatic exemption from paying in the appellate instance. The court indicated that the return of the appeal does not restrict access to justice, as the plaintiff may re-apply to the court after eliminating the deficiencies.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
//reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132828453″>Case No. 456/5472/21 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses, namely an apartment acquired during the marriage, a portion of the funds for which were received as state aid to a participant in the ATO [Anti-Terrorist Operation].
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, ruled that the apartment is jointly owned property, as it was acquired during the marriage partly with the joint funds of the spouses and partly with funds from subsidies allocated to the family, including the wife and children. The courts found that the Comprehensive Program of Social Support for ATO Participants and the Procedure for Acquiring Housing are aimed at providing housing not only to ATO participants but also to their families. The wife gave written consent to the purchase of the apartment. The courts refused to deviate from the equality of shares, as it was not proven that the husband did not care for the family’s material support, and the alimony debt was paid off. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that children are not subjects of the right of joint ownership of spouses, and the assistance program provides for housing for the entire family. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the courts of previous instances refused to reimburse them, as no evidence of payment for the services of a lawyer was provided.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to reimburse legal assistance costs and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new trial, and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged in the remaining part.
Case No. 303/4829/21 dated 12/17/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition as invalid of a gift agreement for an apartment, concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff, when concluding the gift agreement, was mistaken about the legal nature of the transaction, as she believed that she was concluding a life-long maintenance agreement, considering her advanced age, health condition, and need for outside care. The court also took into account that the disputed apartment was the plaintiff’s only home, and she continued to live in it after the conclusion of the agreement, which indicates the absence of an actual transfer of property. An important factor was also that the agreement contained a clause on the plaintiff’s right to lifelong residence in the apartment, which, in the court’s opinion, confirms the existence of an obligation of the donee to perform an action of a non-property nature in favor of the donor, which does not correspond to the essence of the gift agreement. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the notary explained to the plaintiff the consequences of concluding the gift agreement, as the mere fact of explanation is not an unconditional basis for rejecting the claim for recognition of the agreement as invalid.
The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 334/11049/13-k dated 12/16/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the acquittal of PERSON_7, who was accused of abuse of power and official forgery (Part 2 of Article 364, Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. It is only evident from the text that the prosecutor appealed the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the acquittal. The reasons why the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s decision are unknown, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. The absence of reasoning in the operative part makes it impossible to analyze the court’s motives.
The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal and dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 676/5536/23 dated 12/23/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s motion to change the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person committing crimes under Part 5 of Article 191 and Part 1 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, by transferring the case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments of the court. From the text, it can only be understood that the court considered the prosecutor’s motion to change jurisdiction but did not grant it. The full reasons for making such a decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. Currently, it is impossible to determine whether the court deviates from any previous legal position of the Supreme Court, as there are no arguments of the court.
The court ruled to deny the prosecutor’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from one court to another.
Case No. 285/1375/22 dated 12/22/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by persons driving vehicles while intoxicated).
The operative part of the decision does not state the arguments of the court.
The Supreme Court ruled: to dismiss the defender’s cassation appeal, and to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted person.
Case No. 463/7365/20 dated 12/22/2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_5 for the correction of a clerical error in the Supreme Court’s ruling of December 03, 2025.
The Supreme Court refused to grant the application, guided by Articles 379, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court did not
without citing specific arguments for denying the motion to correct the clerical error but noted that the ruling takes legal effect from the moment it is announced, is final, and not subject to appeal. The court also noted that the full text of the ruling will be announced to the participants in the proceedings on December 24, 2025. The lack of detailed reasoning in the operative part of the ruling makes it difficult to understand the court’s motives.
The court ruled to deny the motion of PERSON_5 to correct the clerical error in the Supreme Court’s ruling of December 03, 2025.
Case No. 739/2476/23 of 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU) in favor of the victim of a traffic accident of expenses for treatment and compensation for the period of temporary disability.
2. The court of cassation instance, partially granting the cassation appeal of the MTIBU representative, was guided by the fact that the courts of previous instances significantly violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented them from making a lawful and well-reasoned decision in the part of the civil claim. In particular, the court of first instance groundlessly applied the procedure of simplified trial, provided for in Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the MTIBU did not agree with the amount of the claimed damage. In addition, the courts did not properly substantiate the amount of compensation for treatment expenses and for the period of temporary disability, did not specify the specific expenses, the period of treatment, and did not provide calculations with reference to relevant evidence. The court of cassation instance noted that it does not have the right to independently eliminate these violations, as this goes beyond its powers defined by Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in the part of recovery from the MTIBU in favor of the victim of expenses for treatment and compensation for the period of temporary disability, ordering a new trial of this part of the claim in the court of first instance under the procedure of civil proceedings, and left the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 930/172/22 of 12/18/2025
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 violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the judgment, as it established that the court of first instance reasonably found the person guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of all the circumstances of the case. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, the conclusions of expert examinations, the protocols of investigative actions, and other evidence confirming that the convicted person drove a motor-tractor while intoxicated, violated traffic rules, which led to a traffic accident and the death of the passenger.
The court of cassation also noted that the motor-block, which was used for the transportation of people, is a vehicle within the meaning of the Traffic Regulations and the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The defense counsel’s arguments about the absence of the elements of a crime, violations of procedural rules, and the illegality of the refusal to order expert examinations were deemed unfounded. The appellate court, reviewing the case, also carefully examined all the arguments of the defense and concluded that the judgment of the court of first instance was lawful and justified.
3. The court of cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 619/4837/21 dated 18/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of land plots, the recognition of gift and sale agreements as invalid, as well as the obligation to return the land plots, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, are illegally in private ownership because they are located within the coastal protection zone.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling because the defendant was not properly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing in the appellate court, which is a violation of his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 128-130, 372 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that sending a subpoena to an address where the defendant does not live cannot be considered proper notification, especially considering that the court was aware of the defendant’s other registered address. Also, the appellate court did not notify the defendant’s representative of the hearing. Given these violations, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be sent for a new hearing to the appellate court. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to overturn the decision of the local court, as the defendant did not appeal it in the appellate procedure.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal.
Case No. 337/6651/23 dated 17/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense, recognition of ownership of a car, and obligation to take actions to restore the state registration of a vehicle.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not disprove the legality of the sale and purchase agreement, on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership of the car, and did not provide evidence that the car was disposed of from her ownership against her will. The court also took into account that the criminal proceedings regarding the illegal seizure of the car have not yet been completed, therefore the issue of returning the car is premature. In addition, the court noted
that the plaintiff did not exercise her right to file a motion for the appointment of an expert examination in the court of first instance, and the appellate court reasonably refused to grant such a motion. The court also dismissed the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the appellate court’s violation of procedural law, as the plaintiff and her representative were duly notified of the case’s consideration, and their failure to appear did not prevent the case from being heard. The court of cassation is not authorized to interfere in the evaluation of evidence conducted by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 724/305/23 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a will, drawn up by the plaintiff’s father in favor of another person, as invalid due to doubts about the voluntariness and awareness of the testator’s expression of will.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances because they did not ensure a full investigation of the evidence and circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not consider the plaintiff’s motion to appoint a handwriting examination, although the statement of claim indicated the possibility of conducting it. The court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the will was certified 45 minutes before the testator’s death, when he was in serious condition, and also to the contradictory testimonies of witnesses regarding the circumstances of signing the will. According to the Supreme Court, the courts of previous instances did not comply with the requirements of the procedural law regarding ensuring the adversarial nature of the parties and evaded establishing circumstances important for the case. The court of cassation emphasized that the medical documentation did not contain sufficient data for an objective assessment of the testator’s health at the time of drawing up the will, which also indicates the need for additional expertise.
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.
Case No. 686/140/21 dated 12/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the guilt of PERSON_14, PERSON_10, and PERSON_12 in committing a number of crimes, including theft, illegal possession of drugs, and ammunition.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court had committed significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, in particular, it did not re-examine the entire body of evidence in the criminal proceedings, groundlessly gave it a different assessment, and established circumstances of the criminal proceedings that differed from those established by the local court, which contradicts Articles 23 and 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the appellate court, giving a different assessment to the evidence, should have created a procedural basis for re-examining the circumstances that the defense disputed, which was not done. Also, the appellate
the court groundlessly stated that it had re-examined the testimonies of the victims and witnesses, as it had not directly questioned them. In addition, the Supreme Court took into account that PERSON_10 is accused of committing particularly serious crimes, and in order to prevent the risk of absconding from the court, it imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention on him.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and also imposed a preventive measure on the accused PERSON_10 in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
Case No. 752/9925/22 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the first instance court’s judgment regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 2 of Article 125 (minor bodily harm) and Part 4 of Article 185 (theft committed in large amounts or under martial law) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, insisting on reclassification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed in large amounts or under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court, in considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, noted that the courts of previous instances had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, substantiated their conclusions regarding the proof of PERSON_8’s guilt in committing the crimes incriminated to him, and also ensured a fair trial. The appellate court verified the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, provided a reasoned response to them, and noted that the local court rightly changed the legal classification of the criminal offense to improve the situation of PERSON_8, since the case file does not contain sufficient evidence that the convicted person attacked the victim for the purpose of illegally seizing his property. The Supreme Court emphasized that the intent to cause bodily harm arose in connection with personal animosity, and the intent to steal arose after the fight. The Supreme Court also took into account that the witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the theft of the bicycle, and the record of the video recording does not confirm the commission of an attack for the purpose of seizing property.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 123/5334/13-k dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the classification of the actions of the convicted PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the imposition of punishment on the convicted PERSON_7 and PERSON_9 without applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving a sentence with probation).
2. The appellate court reasonably reclassified the actions of PERSON_7 from Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, taking into account the large amount of the seized narcotic drug, the method of its packaging, the lack of evidence of drug use by the convicted person, and other circumstances indicating the existence of intent to sell. The court of cassation instance
emphasized that the intent to sell can be confirmed by a combination of circumstances, not only by direct agreement. Also, the appellate court reasonably did not apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to PERSON_7, considering the severity of the crime, recidivism, and the absence of mitigating circumstances, and also to PERSON_9, considering the public danger of the crime, the absence of remorse and awareness of the severity of the committed act. The court of cassation noted that the punishment must be fair and proportionate to the severity of the crime and the identity of the guilty person, and release from serving the sentence on probation will not be sufficient for the correction of the convicts. The arguments of the defenders regarding mitigating circumstances, such as sincere remorse and the presence of minor children, were признані необґрунтованими, оскільки не знайшли підтвердження у матеріалах справи.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Appellate Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defenders.
Case No. 707/1509/24 dated 16/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case was the prosecutor’s appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment imposed on a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of minor bodily harm).
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the decision of the appellate court regarding the imposed punishment. The court likely agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the punishment imposed by the appellate court with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convict. The Supreme Court took into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of the offense, the consequences that occurred, information about the identity of the perpetrator, as well as other circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the issue of the measure of punishment. Considering this, the Supreme Court decided that the more lenient punishment imposed by the appellate court is unfounded and does not meet the requirements of the law. Instead, the Supreme Court признав обґрунтованим the imposition of a fine in the amount of 30 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.
The court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the verdict of the appellate court regarding the punishment, imposing on PERSON_7 a punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of UAH 510.
Case No. 442/9294/24 dated 15/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the court of appeal regarding the destruction of a piece of evidence – a forged tractor driver’s license, which was used by the convicted person.
The court of cassation established that the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to destroy the forged tractor driver’s license, did not take into account the provisions of paragraph 7 of Part 9 of Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC), according to which documents that are material evidence must remain in the materials of the criminal proceedings throughout their storage time. The court did not agree with the arguments of the appellate court that this norm applies only to originals.
since such interpretation is not based on the current criminal procedure law. The court also noted that the destruction of the document may complicate the investigation of another criminal offense related to the forgery of this document. The court took into account that the prosecutor is challenging only the decision regarding the material evidence; therefore, according to Part 2 of Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, changes are also made to the judgment of the court of first instance in this part.
The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the resolution of the issue of the fate of the material evidence, namely, ordered to leave the forged tractor driver’s license in the materials of the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 153/134/22 dated 22/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding a person accused of violating traffic safety rules while intoxicated, resulting in bodily injury, and leaving in danger.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, indicating the need for a new appellate review. The judges took into account the arguments of the cassation appeals of the defense attorney, prosecutor, and victim. During the cassation review, the case materials were examined, the arguments of the parties were heard, and, taking into account the circumstances revealed, the court concluded that the cassation appeals should be partially granted. The decision was based on Articles 433, 434, 436, 438, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the powers of the Supreme Court in the cassation review of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 904/4632/24 dated 10/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot by demolishing illegally constructed multi-functional buildings.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, which had refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, indicating that the courts had not properly investigated the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unauthorized construction of the real estate object without the necessary permits and in violation of construction standards, and had not assessed the evidence that casts doubt on the legality of acquiring ownership of the real estate object. The court noted that in order to acquire ownership of newly created property, it is necessary to complete construction, put it into operation, and register it with the state, and in the absence of these conditions, a person is only the owner of the materials. The court also emphasized that unauthorized construction violates the rights of the owner of the land plot, limiting his/her ability to use and dispose of it. The court pointed out the need to take into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the proper way to protect the rights of the owner of a land plot in the case of unauthorized construction.
3. The Supreme Court screversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 201/5080/24 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as having lost the right to use a dwelling.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as previous court decisions established the defendant’s right to use the disputed apartment, which was restored after the illegal deprivation of his registration of place of residence. The court took into account that the minor son of the plaintiff is not a member of the defendant’s family and there is no agreement between them regarding the use of the dwelling. Also, the court noted that the circumstances regarding the defendant’s loss of the right to use the dwelling due to moving to another place of residence had already been investigated in another case, where a violation of the defendant’s right to housing was established. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances, and that the conclusions of the Supreme Court in previous cases, which the plaintiff referred to, relate to other legal relations. The court also partially satisfied the defendant’s claim for reimbursement of legal aid costs.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 401/1232/24 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code (theft committed in large quantities or under martial law or a state of emergency).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the appellate court, pointing out significant violations of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court groundlessly excluded the circumstance mitigating the punishment – sincere remorse, since the criminal proceedings were considered in accordance with Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the participants in the proceedings agreed with the circumstances of the case, as stated in the indictment, including the sincere remorse of the accused. The SC emphasized that, according to Part 2 of Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a court decision cannot be appealed on the grounds of denying circumstances that were not disputed by anyone during the trial. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that the trial of the criminal proceedings was conducted in accordance with Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore groundlessly excluded the circumstance mitigating the punishment – sincere remorse. The SC emphasized that the reference of the representative of the injured party in the appeal to the absence of sincere remorse in PERSON_8 contradicts his position during the consideration of the criminal proceedings in the court of first instance, as well as the requirements of the procedural law, which limit the possibility of appealing those circumstances that were indisputably established during the trial, due to the fact that all participants in the trial agreed with such circumstances.
ся.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 234/17724/17 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeals of the convicted PERSON_7 and the prosecutor against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the accusation of PERSON_7 of committing criminal offenses under Part 2 of Article 185 (theft) and Part 2 of Article 186 (robbery) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, releasing PERSON_7 from criminal liability under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the basis of Clause 3, Part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (due to the expiration of the statute of limitations) and closed the criminal proceedings in this part. The court also excluded references to the application of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of punishment based on the aggregate of offenses) from court decisions. The decision is motivated by the fact that the statute of limitations for bringing to justice for the crime under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has expired. The court also redistributed procedural costs, assigning them to the state. In other respects, the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court were left unchanged, which concerns the accusation under Part 2 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the prosecutor, releasing PERSON_7 from criminal liability under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, closing the proceedings in this part, and amending court decisions regarding the reference to Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and left them unchanged in other respects.
Case No. 522/5129/22 dated 12/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the convicted person’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, dismissing the convicted person’s cassation appeal. The operative part of the decision does not provide specific arguments on which the court of cassation relied. However, given that the cassation appeal was dismissed, it can be assumed that the court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the existence of grounds for returning the appeal, provided for by the criminal procedural law. It is possible that the appeal was filed in violation of the time limits or did not meet other requirements of the procedural law. For a more accurate analysis, the full text of the resolution is needed, which will state the reasons for the decision.
The court ruled: The ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal of February 19, 2025, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 shall be dismissed.
Case No. 911/2558/20 dated 11/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of state acts of ownership of land plots as invalid, the elimination of obstacles in exercising the right of use
