**Case No. 509/1811/24 dated 12/17/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the defendant’s ownership of land plots and the recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership of these plots based on a commission agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they did not take into account important circumstances of the case. The courts did not verify whether the defendant’s admission of the claim violates the rights of a third party (the defendant’s wife), since the disputed land plots were acquired during the marriage and with her notarized consent, which makes them the joint common property of the spouses. The court of first instance decided to satisfy the claim in the preparatory session without proper verification of the existence of legal grounds for accepting the defendant’s admission of the claim. The appellate court did not pay attention to these violations of the norms of procedural law and did not assess the arguments of the appeal. The courts also did not take into account the principle of good faith of the defendant, who initiated the divorce and division of property, without including the disputed plots in the list of joint property.
3. The Supreme 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. 354/601/15-ц dated 12/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of a forest land plot from someone else’s illegal possession into state ownership.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed land plot left the state’s possession against its will, since a violation of the procedure for its transfer to private ownership was established, in particular, the absence of a decision to withdraw the plot from the permanent use of the state forestry enterprise and change its intended purpose; the court noted that in the context of the consideration of the case on the reclamation of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession, the plaintiff has the right to prove the illegality of the orders on granting ownership of the land plot to an individual, without claiming the requirement to declare them invalid, since such a decision, if it does not comply with the law, does not entail the legal consequences to which they are directed; the court also agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the limitation period, since until the closure of the criminal proceedings and leaving the civil claim without consideration, the prosecutor had no reason to believe that the interests of the state were not being properly protected; the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine is an improper plaintiff, since the prosecutor filed a claim in the interests of the state, as the material plaintiff in the case, and not in the interests of a specific state authority.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision
of the courts of previous instances regarding the reclamation of the land plot into state ownership – unchanged.
**Case No. 911/865/24 dated 12/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of decisions of the Bucha City Council regarding the division of a land plot, the right to use which the plaintiff (Pik Finance LLC) sought to acquire under lease, as well as the recognition of the right to use this plot and obliging the city council to transfer it under lease.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that the plaintiff had not proved the violation of its rights as a result of the city council’s decisions on the division of the land plot. The court noted that it cannot re-evaluate the circumstances of the case established by the courts of previous instances, and its powers are limited to verifying compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law. Also, the court pointed out that the cases compared by the plaintiff, which it referred to, are not similar to this case in terms of the content of legal relations, the object of appeal, and the subject matter of the claims. The court also rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding the city council’s failure to comply with the ruling on securing the claim, since the decision, which, according to the plaintiff, was made in violation of the court prohibition, was not the subject of the dispute in this case. The court of cassation emphasized that the obligation to substantiate the grounds for cassation appeal rests with the applicant of the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Pik Finance LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.
**Case No. 694/1507/23 dated 12/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, reasoning that the appellate court did not take into account the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability at the time of consideration of the appellate appeal, did not explain to the convicted person her right to be released from criminal liability due to the expiration of these terms, as provided for in Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and did not apply the provisions of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation noted that although the appellate court rightfully disregarded the amendments to the appellate appeal filed by the lawyer who was not the author of the original appeal, it should have taken into account the statute of limitations. The court also noted that the convicted person in the cassation court objected to the closure of the proceedings due to the statute of limitations, insisting on her innocence. Given this, the court of cassation decided to release PERSON_8 from punishment, applying the provisions of Article 49 and Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but refused to satisfy the request of the representative of the injured party for compensation for legal aid costs.
due to the absence of proper evidence of incurred expenses and the attorney’s authority to represent the victim’s interests in the cassation instance.
3. The court of cassation instance amended the decisions of previous instances, releasing PERSON_8 from the assigned punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but refused to compensate the victim for legal aid expenses.
Case №240/21028/25 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous court instances, which returned the plaintiff’s claim due to missing the deadline for appealing to the court, regarding the claims for the period from July 19, 2022, to October 30, 2023. The court noted that the previous court instances did not clarify important circumstances, in particular, whether the plaintiff received pay slips or other documents confirming familiarization with the amount of accrued and paid monetary allowance during the disputed period. The Supreme Court indicated that the start of the term for appealing to the court should be linked to the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of sums paid to him, and not to the moment of monthly receipt of monetary allowance. The court also took into account that the plaintiff appealed to the court after being removed from the personnel lists of the military unit, and for the correct resolution of the issue of compliance with the deadline, it is necessary to establish whether there was documentary confirmation of the plaintiff’s familiarization with the amount of monetary allowance before receiving a response to the attorney’s request.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous court instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.
Case №583/1976/24 dated 22/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to significant violations of the criminal procedural law. The court of appeal formally reviewed the appeal of the defense, without properly assessing the arguments regarding the possible necessary defense of the convicted person and without properly verifying the authority of the attorney who represented the interests of the accused in the appellate court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not convincingly refute the defense’s arguments, did not investigate the issue of the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt, and did not verify whether the requirements of Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the circumstances to be proven were met. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not verify whether the attorney had the authority to represent the interests of the accused specifically in the court of appeal, which is a violation of the right to defense.
Considering the severity of the crime, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for the convicted person.
Case No. 553/2101/22 dated 12/18/2025
The subject of the dispute is the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
In this ruling, the Supreme Court does not provide any arguments, but only states the fact of considering the defense attorney’s motion to change the jurisdiction of the criminal case. The judges refer to Articles 34, 376, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC), but do not disclose how these articles were applied to the circumstances of the case. The absence of a reasoning part makes it impossible to understand the logic of the court and the reasons for refusing to grant the motion. In fact, the court limited itself to a formal indication of refusal, without providing any justification for its decision. This complicates the analysis of the ruling and its significance for further judicial practice.
The Supreme Court ruled to deny the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal case materials from one court to another.
Case No. 757/18537/23-ц dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the arbitration agreement, loan agreement, and assignment of claim agreement as invalid, since the plaintiff claimed that the arbitration agreement was not properly concluded.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, noting that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the arbitration clause was not concluded due to its not being signed by the representative of “YU.F. “Etalon” LLC. The court also indicated that the claims for recognizing the loan agreements and assignment of claim as invalid are derived from the claim for recognizing the arbitration agreement as invalid. The court took into account that the Cherkasy Court of Appeal is hearing a case on the cancellation of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, and the suspension of proceedings in this case was left unchanged by the Supreme Court. The court of cassation emphasized that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which goes beyond its powers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 486/1735/23 dated 12/18/2025
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 a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery combined with infliction of grievous bodily harm).
damages).
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts, indicating the need for a new trial in the court of first instance. In making this decision, the court likely found significant violations of the norms of criminal procedure law that affected or could have affected the objectivity and completeness of the case’s consideration. Errors may have been made in the evaluation of evidence, the qualification of the defendant’s actions, or the right to defense may have been violated. Also, the court imposed a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention for a term of 60 days, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, such as hiding from the investigation and the court, committing other criminal offenses, or obstructing criminal proceedings. The final motives for this decision will be known after the full text of the ruling is announced.
The court decided to overturn the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7 and order a new trial in the court of first instance, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.
Case No. 755/13012/25 dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision to bring a person to administrative responsibility for violating the legislation on defense, mobilization training and mobilization.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances’ courts, which returned the statement of claim to the person due to missing the deadline for appealing the decision on the administrative offense, since the courts did not clarify important circumstances, namely the date the plaintiff received the appealed decision, which is key to determining the start of the term for appeal. The court of cassation pointed out the obligation of the court of first instance to take all necessary measures to clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular regarding proper notification of the person about the consideration of the case on the administrative offense and receiving a copy of the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the fact that a person is aware of violations of military registration rules is not the same as being aware of the issuance of a decision on bringing them to administrative responsibility. The court also took into account that the previous instances’ courts did not give proper assessment to the plaintiff’s arguments and evidence confirming that the copy of the decision was received later than established by the courts. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case and ensuring effective access to the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances’ courts and sent the case to the court of first instance to continue the proceedings.
Case No. 127/11112/15-к dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to renew the term for appealing the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the release of a person from criminal liability.
liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, reasoning that the person was present at the announcement of the decision of the court of first instance and received a copy of the decision, and therefore missed the deadline for appeal without valid reasons. The court noted that the renewal of the term after a significant period violates the principle of legal certainty. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the person’s reference to a previous stroke was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the right to access to justice is not absolute and may be limited if this restriction does not violate the essence of this right, pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate. The court also noted that the person did not appeal against the release from criminal liability as such, but only the issue regarding material evidence.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/16193/24 dated 22/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Progressive Oil and Gas Technologies” in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation.
The court of cassation, considering the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocate Activity,” taking into account the criteria of reality and reasonableness of such expenses. The court took into account the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, the act of acceptance and transfer of services provided, as well as the plaintiff’s objections regarding the disproportion of the claimed expenses to the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed. The court noted that the obligations between the lawyer and the client are not binding on the court when distributing court costs, and the court must assess the necessity and justification of such costs. The court also took into account the existence of an already formed position of the parties and the previous legal position of the Supreme Court in similar cases between the same parties. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to provide payment instructions, since the expenses are subject to distribution regardless of actual payment, but reduced the amount of compensation, based on the criteria of reasonableness, validity and proportionality to the subject of the dispute.
The court partially granted the application of LLC “Progressive Oil and Gas Technologies” and ordered LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine” to pay UAH 20,000.00 as reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 356/48/22 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of material damages, moral damages and the obligation to pay a single social contribution from the executive committee of the Berezan City Council in favor of the plaintiff in connection with the illegalregarding dismissal and non-execution of a court decision on reinstatement at work.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which partially satisfied the claims. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant violated the requirements of the Labor Code of Ukraine and the Constitution of Ukraine by failing to comply with the court decision on the plaintiff’s reinstatement, which is mandatory. Considering the delay in the execution of the court decision, the court recovered from the defendant the average earnings for the period of delay, calculated on the basis of the plaintiff’s average daily wage. Also, since the single social contribution was not paid from the paid average earnings for the period of forced absence, the court ordered the defendant to pay it. Regarding moral damages, the court, guided by the principles of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality, determined the amount of compensation, taking into account the moral suffering of the plaintiff as a result of illegal dismissal and non-execution of the court decision.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 288/332/24 dated 12/16/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of a criminal offense.
The operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments. It appears from the text that the defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged. This means that the Supreme Court did not find grounds to overturn or amend the judgment and ruling, agreeing with their legality and validity. The judges of the cassation court carefully reviewed the case materials, the arguments of the cassation appeal, but did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the reversal of the court decisions. The full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the decision, will be announced later.
Decision: The judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court remain unchanged, the defense counsel’s cassation appeal is dismissed.
Case No. 461/6666/24 dated 12/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State of Ukraine for compensation for moral damages caused by illegal criminal prosecution.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims of PERSON_1, based on the following:
* According to Article 56 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a person has the right to compensation for moral damages caused by illegal actions of state authorities.
* According to Articles 23, 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Exercising Operational Investigative Acactivities of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the court,” the state compensates for moral damage caused to an individual by unlawful actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the court.
* The amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the depth of physical and mental suffering, the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, but not less than one minimum wage for each month of being under investigation or trial.
* The court of appeal, when changing the amount of compensation, took into account the extent of the damage caused, the duration of moral suffering, the plaintiff’s stay under investigation and trial, restrictions on free movement, the need to appear for investigative actions and court hearings, and, based on the principles of reasonableness and fairness, came to a reasonable conclusion that there were legal grounds for the recovery of moral damage in the amount of UAH 399,554.99.
* The references in the cassation appeals to the courts’ failure to take into account the conclusions stated by the Supreme Court in the judgments indicated by the applicants in the cassation appeals are rejected, since the conclusions in these cases and in the case under review, as well as the factual circumstances established by the courts that form the content of the disputed legal relations, are different.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 243/2619/21 dated 12/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for kidnapping and extortion.
2. The court of cassation left the judgment unchanged, as it established that the courts of previous instances had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence provided by the prosecution, in particular, the testimony of the victims and witnesses, the conclusions of expert examinations, and reasonably recognized them as relevant and admissible. The court noted that the convicted person did not deny her involvement in the events described in the indictment, and her arguments about the lack of intent to extort someone else’s property were found unconvincing. The court also rejected the defense’s reference to the inconsistency of the victims’ testimony, since resolving the issue of the reliability of evidence is the task of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt and the correctness of the qualification of her actions under Part 2 of Art. 146 and Part 4 of Art. 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.
Case No. 499/127/19 dated 12/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules).
movement, which caused the death of the victim).
2. The cassation court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, pointing out that the appellate court did not conduct a proper analysis of the evidence, did not take into account important circumstances, such as the location of the collision of vehicles, the expert’s conclusion on the possibility of avoiding the traffic accident, and did not assess the contradictions in the versions of the accused and the witness. The appellate court did not properly assess the expert’s conclusion, which indicated that the collision occurred outside the roadway, and the victim’s bodily injuries indicated that he was stationary at the time of the collision. The cassation court emphasized that the appellate court should have thoroughly checked the arguments of the appeals, provided comprehensive answers to them, and properly assessed the evidence, which was not done. Thus, the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a legal and well-founded court decision.
3. The court decided to overturn the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 990/110/25 dated 12/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification exam of a candidate for the position of judge of the appellate administrative court and the refusal to admit her to the next stage of the competition.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HQCJ acted within the limits of its powers, defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” when conducting the qualification assessment and making the appealed decisions. The court noted that after the announcement of the competition, the legislation was changed, but all contestants were informed of the changes in advance, and the plaintiff agreed to these conditions by continuing to participate in the competition. The court emphasized that the assessment of practical tasks is a discretionary power of the HQCJ, and courts should not interfere in this area, replacing the body of judicial governance. The court also indicated that the Methodological Guidelines for Evaluating a Practical Task, approved by the HQCJ, are an instructional document for members of the examination commission and do not require the reflection of scores for each element of the task in the appealed decision. The court found that the appealed decisions of the HQCJ are reasoned, made on the basis of the law, and meet the criteria established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
3. The court decided to refuse to satisfy the administrative claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 160/3384/21 dated 12/23/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the decision of the Personnel Commission to bring the prosecutor to disciplinary responsibility and the order for his dismissal, as well as the requirements for reinstatement and recovery of
earnings for the time of forced absence from work.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the Personnel Commission and the Office of the Prosecutor General, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and upholding the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part, but apparently agreed with the decision of the court of first instance. Presumably, the court of first instance recognized the lawfulness of bringing the prosecutor to disciplinary responsibility and his dismissal. To fully understand the position of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the decision, which will be drawn up within five days.
The court decided to grant the cassation appeals of the Personnel Commission and the Office of the Prosecutor General, to overturn the decision of the appellate court, and to uphold the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 420/19301/21 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order on announcing a reprimand to the head of the Main Department of the Migration Service in the Odesa Region.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, which recognized as illegal the order on announcing a reprimand, since the disciplinary commission incorrectly established a violation of the deadline for making a decision on granting an immigration permit, did not take into account the late receipt of responses from authorized bodies, and also did not take into account the distribution of responsibilities between the management of the MDMS and bringing other employees responsible for these violations to justice. The court noted that for the application of a disciplinary sanction, it is necessary to establish the presence of all elements of the composition of a disciplinary offense, which the defendant did not do. The court also emphasized that the verification by the courts of the validity of the appealed decision does not go beyond the competence of the administrative court, since the examination of evidence and its evaluation is an integral part of the trial. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to the conclusions of the Supreme Court in another case, noting that they do not affect the legality of the conclusions of the courts in this case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 760/14761/18 dated 24/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for review of a court order in a case of administrative offense based on a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
2. A judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is considering a lawyer’s application for the review of court decisions in connection with the ECHR’s decision, which established a violation by Ukraine of international obligations. The application was submitted on the basis of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAP), which provides for the possibility of reviewing a decision in a case of administrative offense in the event of the establishment by an international judicial institution
concerning a violation by Ukraine of international obligations. The lawyer requests that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine provide an official translation of the full text of the ECHR decision. The judge notes that the application meets the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses and was submitted in compliance with the established procedure. Considering this, the judge decides to request a copy of the ECHR decision along with its authentic translation.
3. The court decided to request from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine a copy of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Sokolov and Others v. Ukraine” along with an authentic translation.
Case No. 279/1273/25 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of the plaintiff’s cohabitation with the testator as one family for at least five years before her death to obtain the right to inheritance.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of cohabitation with the testator as one family for the required period. The court noted that to establish such a fact, it is necessary to prove not only cohabitation but also the conduct of a joint household and the existence of mutual rights and obligations. The court took into account that witness testimony is not a sufficient basis for establishing the fact of cohabitation but should be assessed in conjunction with other evidence. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the continuity of cohabitation and joint living. The court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the power to interfere in this evaluation.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts – unchanged.
Case No. 686/8216/25 dated 23/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of the Main Department of the State Tax Service (MDS) to disclose banking secrecy of individual PERSON_1.
The court dismissed the application of the MDS because the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the impossibility of conducting an audit of the taxpayer in the usual manner. The court noted that the MDS did not prove that PERSON_1 is absent at the tax address and it is impossible to serve him a notice of audit. The court indicated that the tax authority did not confirm the implementation of all measures provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine to notify the individual about the documentary audit. The court also took into account that the MDS did not provide evidence of the impossibility of taking actions in accordance with the methods of response provided by law. The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court confirmed that for the disclosure of banking secrecy, it is necessary to prove the circumstances under which the audit is impossible or there is another objective need for discloof such secrecy.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 362/6891/19 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the local self-government body and the state act on the ownership of the land plot.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the previous court decision, which entered into legal force, established that the boundaries of the parties’ land plots do not correspond to those specified in the state acts, and the plaintiff actually uses a part of the land plot belonging to the defendant; the court of cassation noted that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims, but the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of violation of her rights, and also did not prove that the defendant’s land plot overlaps with her land plot or otherwise violates her rights; the court of cassation also took into account that the plaintiff did not make claims for the recovery of the land plot or the elimination of obstacles in its use.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/2253/23 dated 23/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of moral damages from the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office by a farm, which considered the actions of the prosecutor’s office illegal when considering a statement about a criminal offense.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, since the circumstance referred to by the plaintiff (the absence of economic agreements between the farm and the prosecutor’s office) is not a newly discovered circumstance, as it was known to the applicant during the initial consideration of the case. The court noted that the newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the case consideration, not be known to the applicant, and be significant for the case, and in this case these conditions were not met. The court also emphasized that the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances does not provide for a re-evaluation of evidence, but aims to take into account circumstances that were not known to the court at the time of the decision. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot go beyond the requirements that were the subject of consideration when making the court decision being reviewed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 903/418/25 dated 16/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of arrears in rent, termination of the lease agreement for state property, and return of this property due to the tenant’s failure to pay rent.
The court of cassation, canceling
upholding the appellate court’s ruling, supported the decision of the court of first instance, emphasizing that the lease agreement came into effect from the moment it was signed by the parties, and the act of acceptance and transfer of property, although signed by the parties at different times, is lawful and does not affect the validity of the agreement. The court also took into account the prejudicial circumstances established in another case regarding the signing of the act of acceptance and transfer. It is important that the court emphasized the lessee’s obligation to pay rent from the moment the act of acceptance and transfer is signed by the balance holder, as well as the legality of the claims for termination of the agreement and return of the property due to a material breach of the terms of the agreement, in particular, non-payment of rent. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court mistakenly refused to satisfy the claim, failing to take these circumstances into account and incorrectly applying the norms of substantive law.
The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 910/423/23 dated 12/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property (the Dormition Cathedral and the Refectory Church) of the Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra/Monastery/of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the National Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra Preserve.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to close the appellate proceedings on the complaint of an individual (monk) who did not participate in the case, since the decision of the court of first instance does not contain any conclusions regarding the rights, interests and/or obligations of this person in the disputed legal relations, in particular, does not restrict his freedom of choice of worldview and religion. The court of cassation emphasized that in order for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal a court decision, it is necessary to prove the existence of a direct legal connection between this person and the court decision, namely, that the court decided the issue of his right, interest or obligation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute concerns the rights and obligations of legal entities (monastery and preserve) under commercial contracts, and not the rights of individual monks. Also, the Supreme Court noted that a dispute regarding the right to freedom of thought and religion cannot be resolved by a commercial court, as this is not its jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 161/16835/24 dated 12/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, indicating that the appellate court did not fully analyze the arguments
