Case No. 671/132/25 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is a mother’s petition to declare her serviceman son deceased, who went missing in action while performing a combat mission near the village of Bilohorivka, Luhansk Oblast.
The court was guided by the fact that special time limits, in particular a six-month period, the commencement of which has a clearly defined starting point, have been established for declaring a person deceased in connection with hostilities. Drawing upon the binding legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the panel of judges noted that this six-month period must be calculated specifically from the date of cessation of active hostilities in the specific territory where the person presumably died. Such an approach serves as an important legal safeguard that allows minimizing the risk of prematurely declaring dead a person who may actually still be alive. Official data on the status of territories are determined by the List approved by the relevant ministry, according to which the village of Bilohorivka still belongs to the territories of active hostilities, which have not yet ceased. Since hostilities in the specified settlement are ongoing, the countdown of the statutory period for declaring the serviceman deceased has not even begun. Consequently, the court concluded that the mother’s application with such a petition at this stage is premature, although she will have the full right to apply to court again after the cessation of active combat in this area.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the applicant’s representative and left the decisions of the lower courts denying the petition to declare the person deceased unchanged.
Case No. 146/1220/23 dated 29/04/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lessee’s claims against the settlement council to recognize an additional agreement on the renewal of the lease agreement for municipally owned land plots for a new term as concluded.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the lessee’s preemptive right to extend the lease is not absolute and cannot dominate over the owner’s exclusive right to dispose of their land at their own discretion after the expiration of the lease term. Prolongation of lease relations requires the consent of both parties, meaning that the sole expression of the lessee’s will is insufficient. The Court clarified that the settlement council clearly expressed its unwillingness to continue the contractual relationship by adopting a decision to refuse at its session and sending corresponding notification letters. Even if the one-month period for responding to the lessee’s proposal was violated, the lessor sent an objection within one month after the expiration of the lease term, which is explicitly provided for by the relevant law. Such timely objection completely rules out the possibility of automatic lease renewal and terminates the lessee’s preemptive right to enter into an agreement. Since there was no consent between the parties regarding the ne… lease terms were not reached, there are no legal grounds for the compulsory recognition of the additional agreement as concluded through judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the settlement council, vacated the decision of the court of appeal, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the lessee’s claim.
Case No. 2018/19064/2012 dated 26/05/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery by a banking institution from a borrower of outstanding debt under a loan agreement, namely the remaining loan principal and interest accrued after the foreclosure on the mortgaged property.
2. The Supreme Court reasoned that upon the expiration of the loan term specified in the agreement, or in the event of a demand for early repayment of funds, the bank’s right to accrue the interest provided for by the agreement ceases. In this case, the financial institution modified the performance period of the primary obligation by applying to a notary for the execution of a notarial executory endorsement to recover the entire debt amount. Consequently, from the moment of the execution of this endorsement, it is lawful to accrue only those interest amounts that had accumulated up to that date, whereas the subsequent accrual of contractually agreed interest is unlawful. The court also took into account that the claims for recovery of the remaining loan principal are groundless, since the bank had already satisfied its claims by purchasing the mortgaged residential house at public auctions. Furthermore, the panel of judges rejected the borrower’s new arguments regarding an earlier presentation of the demand, since the court of cassation, by virtue of law, does not have the right to examine evidence that was not subject to evaluation in the courts of lower instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the borrower’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of appeal on the partial satisfaction of the claim (recovery of interest only up to the moment of the execution of the notarial executory endorsement and denial of recovery of the loan principal).
Case No. 953/8595/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the borrower’s claim to invalidate a notarially certified loan agreement and an additional agreement thereto on the grounds that they were allegedly entered into under the influence of deceit, on extremely unfavorable terms due to grave circumstances, and also contradicted the law in terms of determining the penalty and the currency of the obligation.
The Supreme Court noted that in order to invalidate a transaction due to deceit, the plaintiff had to prove the deliberate intent of the other party to mislead them regarding the essential circumstances of the contract, which was not done in this case. The court also emphasized that to invalidate an agreement due to a grave circumstance, a mandatory combination of two conditions is required—the existence of the grave circumstance itself and extremely unfavorable terms, as well as a causal link between them, which was also not proven. The judges drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff voluntar…arily signed the contract, the text of which was read to him, and later even agreed to an increase in the debt amount, which testifies to his free expression of will. In addition, challenging the contract after a long period of time — almost 15 years after its conclusion — casts reasonable doubt on the plaintiff’s claims that he was misled or forced to sign the agreement. Finally, the court rejected the arguments regarding the illegality of denominating the loan in foreign currency and the specific method of forfeit, as the parties exercised the principle of freedom of contract and voluntarily agreed on these terms.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim unchanged.
Case No. 442/940/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of debt under four loan agreements in the total amount of USD 74,300, which the defendant refused to repay, referring to the termination of his debt obligations.
The Supreme Court pointed out that for the termination of an obligation by transfer of a release fee in accordance with Article 600 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the clear consent of the parties is required, formalized by an agreement specifying the amount, terms, and procedure for such provision. The judges noted that the receipt of the plaintiff’s acceptance of USD 5,000 does not contain any references to specific prior loan agreements and cannot be considered an agreement on a release fee for the entire debt. An important argument was also that the originals of the debt receipts remained with the plaintiff, and under the law, the possession of the debt document by the creditor confirms the non-performance of the debtor’s obligation. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the alleged debt forgiveness, as his procedural conduct was contradictory: he simultaneously claimed full repayment of funds, a release fee, and debt forgiveness. At the same time, the panel of judges noted that although the appellate court erroneously assessed the proportionality of the release fee amount to the debt amount, this did not affect the correctness of the resolution of the dispute on its merits.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the appellate court’s decision to recover USD 74,300 from the debtor.
Case No. 161/17187/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the debtor’s demand to oblige the State Enforcement Service to remove information about her from the Unified Register of Debtors, as the enforcement documents had previously been returned to the recoverer, which, in her opinion, groundlessly restricts her right to dispose of her own property.
In its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the return of the enforcement document to the recoverer due to the debtor’s lack of property is not a legal ground for removing information about them from the Unified Register of Debtors. In addition, the judges estab…or that the creditor bank exercised its legal right and re-submitted the writs of execution for enforcement, resulting in the initiation of new enforcement proceedings, which are currently ongoing. The applicant failed to provide any evidence of full repayment of the loan debt or the absence of financial claims on the part of the bank. The court also emphasized that information about the debtor is excluded from the register only in cases clearly defined by law, in particular upon full execution of the court decision, which did not occur in this case. Finally, the panel of judges dismissed the appellant’s reference to previous legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the lifting of attachment on property, as those cases concerned entirely different legal relations and are not relevant to this dispute.
The Supreme Court dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts denying her appeal unchanged.
Case No. 344/19303/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of monetary compensation from the state for moral damage caused to a citizen as a result of a prolonged and unlawful stay under investigation and trial on charges of crimes in office, the criminal proceedings for which were ultimately closed due to the absence of the elements of a criminal offense.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff’s right to compensation for moral damage arose automatically by operation of law after the final closure of the criminal proceedings on rehabilitating grounds. The court confirmed that the total duration of the person’s stay under investigation and trial was 134 months and 10 days, reasonably excluding the period when the case was closed and no procedural or investigative actions were taken with respect to the plaintiff. In calculating the amount of compensation, the court applied a special provision of the law, which provides for the payment of not less than one minimum wage for each month of unlawful prosecution. The panel of judges emphasized that the amount of compensation determined by the lower courts, in the sum of over 1.07 million hryvnias, fully complies with the principles of reasonableness, justice, and proportionality. In addition, the court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeals of both the prosecutor (who requested a reduction in the amount) and the plaintiff himself (who demanded an increase) actually boil down to the reassessment of evidence, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the court of cassation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the plaintiff, and left the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of 1,074,666.67 hryvnias in moral damages from the state budget in favor of the citizen unchanged.
Case No. 568/1207/24 dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the recovery of a debt under a loan agreement in the amount of 10,000 US dollars under the initial claim of a mother-in-law against her former son-in-law, as well as cou…the counter-claim of the son-in-law to declare this debt receipt invalid due to non-receipt of funds and entering into a transaction under psychological pressure during the breakdown of the family.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that, by its legal nature, a written debt receipt is proper confirmation not only of the conclusion of a loan agreement, but also of the fact of actual receipt of funds by the debtor. The Court emphasized that the borrower’s objection to receiving the money (the so-called exception), in the presence of the original receipt held by the creditor, requires serious proof, and this burden of proof lies entirely on the debtor. To declare an agreement invalid due to psychological pressure (Article 231 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), the borrower had to prove the fact of actual violence or threats, the entry into the transaction against their will, and the causal link between this pressure and the signing of the receipt. The panel of judges emphasized that writing a receipt during family conflicts or divorce does not in itself indicate a defect of will or entering into a transaction under the influence of external psychological pressure. Consequently, the courts of lower instances reached an erroneous conclusion regarding the invalidity of the agreement and in fact failed to consider the initial claims for debt collection on the merits.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, vacated the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, dismissed in full the counter-claim to declare the loan agreement invalid, and remanded the case, in the part concerning debt collection, for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 278/3810/25 dated 26/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a mother’s application to declare her serviceman son dead, who went missing in action during hostilities in the city of Vovchansk and, as established by the materials of criminal proceedings, was shot dead in captivity by Russian servicemen.
The Court took into account irrefutable evidence of the defender’s death collected during the investigation of the war crime, in particular, the testimony and the investigative experiment involving the suspect Russian serviceman, who reconstructed the circumstances of the execution in detail and identified the deceased from a photograph. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statutory time limits for declaring a person dead are intended to prevent premature declaration of death only in cases where a person disappeared under circumstances of complete uncertainty. At the same time, in this case, the circumstances of the soldier’s death are obvious, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he could be alive or in captivity. The Court rejected the arguments of the Ministry of Defense that the six-month period should be calculated only after the end of hostilities in Vovchansk, calling such an approach excessively formalistic. The panel of judges explained that in the presence of compelling evidence of death, the reduced six-month period is calculated from the day of the probable death of the person, and not from the moment of cessation of hostilities in a specific…tory. Since more than a year had passed from the moment the serviceman was shot until his mother applied to the court, the statutory time requirements were fully complied with to ensure the social protection of the family of the fallen hero.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, upholding the legality of the decisions of the lower courts to declare the serviceman deceased.
Case No. 991/1947/25 dated 01/06/2026
**Subject matter of the dispute**
The subject matter of this dispute is a lawsuit by the state represented by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to declare a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 vehicle, valued at UAH 2 million, which was registered in the name of a close acquaintance of a former deputy of the Bobrovytsia City Council, as an unsubstantiated asset, and to forfeit it to the state.
**Key arguments of the court**
The court concluded that the deputy had a real opportunity to directly and indirectly control the disputed car, as she was designated as the authorized user on the day of purchase, personally insured the vehicle, and even executed a notarized power of attorney with the right to sell it. The systematic use of the car specifically by the official and her husband was confirmed by numerous witness testimonies, data from the “Safe City” video surveillance system, and the facts of administrative liability for traffic violations. In addition, the deputy was personally involved in the technical modification of the vehicle to run on gas fuel, which goes beyond ordinary use and demonstrates the behavior of a de facto owner. The court was critical of the defendants’ version that the car was allegedly purchased with the personal funds of a serviceman (a third party) due to a close relationship with the nominal owner, as this fact was not supported by financial documents, and mobile operator data completely disproved any telephone communication between them over a period of 15 months. By comparing the income and expenses of the parties to the case, the panel of judges established that the nominal owner did not have legitimate funds for such a purchase, and the difference between the value of the car and the lawful income of the deputy amounted to a full UAH 2 million. Since this amount significantly exceeds the statutory threshold for civil forfeiture in the amount of UAH 1,505,250, the court found the prosecutor’s evidence to be significantly more compelling than the arguments of the defense.
**Court decision**
The High Anti-Corruption Court fully satisfied the claims, declaring the Toyota Land Cruiser 200 vehicle an unsubstantiated asset and forfeiting it to the state.
Case No. 520/26626/24 dated 02/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a former serviceman against a military university to declare unlawful the calculation of the indexation of his monetary allowance for… period from March 2018 to December 2021 and the obligation to recalculate and pay the so-called “indexation-difference” in a fixed amount.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that Ukrainian procedural law contains a strict rule prohibiting the re-examination by courts of disputes that are identical in terms of their parties, subject matter, and grounds of the claim, if a legally binding court decision has already been rendered in respect thereof. The judges established that the plaintiff had previously filed a lawsuit against the same defendant, requesting a recalculation of the indexation for a broader period that fully encompassed the current claims, and those claims had been finally dismissed. The panel of judges emphasized that a different verbal formulation of legal arguments, a change in style, or an independent calculation of a different amount of the “indexation-difference” do not alter the legal nature of the dispute itself and do not make the lawsuit new. Since the lower courts had clearly established that the issue of the correctness of the indexation calculation for the disputed period had already been resolved on the merits in the previous case, they had every legal ground to terminate the proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff’s attempt to initiate a re-examination of an already resolved issue contradicts the principle of legal certainty.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to terminate the proceedings.
Case No. P/9991/1182/12 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the decisions of the High Council of Justice regarding the plaintiff, which he requests to be declared unlawful and set aside, and this case is currently being reviewed under exceptional circumstances.
Since we are dealing only with the introductory and operative parts of the ruling, the detailed reasoning of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is not reflected in this document, which is common practice until the full text of the decision is drafted. However, based on the procedural essence of the case, the court was guided by the fact that the exceptional circumstances cited by the plaintiff are sufficiently compelling to review a thirteen-year-old decision. The judges took into account the need to respect the principle of the rule of law and to ensure the individual’s right to a fair trial, which might have been violated during the initial proceedings. The Grand Chamber concluded that upholding the decision of the High Administrative Court of Ukraine of 2013 in the presence of such circumstances is impossible. For this reason, the court deemed it necessary to set aside this decision in the part of the plaintiff’s claims in order to provide an opportunity to examine all the facts anew. In view of this, it was decided to remand the case for a new trial to the relevant court of cassation, which has the authority to examine the merits of the dispute in detail.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s application, set aside the ruling of the High Administrative Court of Ukraine datedFebruary 28, 2013, in the part of its claims, and referred the case in this part for a new trial to the Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 128/4858/23 dated 29/04/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claims to invalidate the electronic auction for the sale of a land plot, which is the joint community property of the spouses, to cancel the certificate of acquisition of property, and to terminate the buyer’s ownership right, since the property was forcibly sold for the debts of his surety wife without allocating her share.
In this case, the Supreme Court did not review the dispute on the merits at all, but focused exclusively on the issue of jurisdiction, concluding that civil courts did not have the right to consider this case. The Court was guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly attribute to the jurisdiction of commercial courts disputes regarding transactions concluded to secure the performance of obligations, where the parties to the principal agreement are legal entities or individual entrepreneurs. Since the primary loan agreement was signed between the bank and a limited liability company, the nature of this dispute is commercial, even despite the fact that an individual acted as a surety. The judges emphasized that suretyship is an accessory obligation, which is fully dependent on the principal one, and therefore it is the composition of the parties to the loan agreement that determines the court jurisdiction. Thus, the courts of first and appellate instances committed a gross procedural error by considering the case under civil proceedings. At the same time, the panel of judges noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to judicial protection and may request the transfer of the case to the proper commercial court.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defendants, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and completely terminated the proceedings in the case due to a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, clarifying the plaintiff’s right to apply to a commercial court.
Case No. 521/11518/24 dated 19/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the termination of an agreement on associated membership in a consumer society due to a material breach of housing construction deadlines by the developer, as well as the refund of paid contributions to the share-member, adjusted for the exchange rate difference, and the recovery of a fine.
The Court was guided by the fact that the developer grossly breached the terms of the agreement by failing to construct and commission the building within the specified period (the fourth quarter of 2023), as a result of which the plaintiff was deprived of what she was entitled to expect upon entering into the agreement. Since the parties clearly defined the monetary equivalent of the share contribution in foreign currency in the contract — USD 34,480, it is the US dollar that is the currency of the obligation, while the hryvnia serves only as the currency of payment. Pursuant to Article 533 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and inestablished practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, if a currency equivalent is specified in an obligation, the amount to be returned in hryvnia must be calculated at the exchange rate on the date of actual payment. The Court emphasized that the return of only the nominal amount in hryvnia, without taking into account the change in the exchange rate, would contradict the essence of the contract and the law, as the share contributor must receive back the real value of their contribution. The court dismissed the defendant’s arguments that the payment of the exchange rate difference would harm other members of the cooperative, since the financial risks of non-performance of the contract are borne precisely by the breaching party. In addition, the courts lawfully assessed a contractual fine for each day of delay in construction, starting from the 181st day of delay.
The Supreme Court dismissed the developer’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts on the termination of the contract and the recovery of the share contribution, taking into account the exchange rate difference and the fine, unchanged.
Case No. 160/33593/24 of 02/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the unlawfulness of the actions of the Pension Fund in calculating the amount of the old-age pension after transitioning from a pension for years of service, in particular regarding the non-application of the average salary indicator for the three years preceding the application, and the refusal to pay a lump-sum financial assistance in the amount of ten monthly pensions.
The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the granting of an old-age pension to a person who had previously received a pension for years of service under another law is an initial granting of a new type of pension, rather than a mere technical transfer. Because of this, for the calculation of payments, the average salary indicator in Ukraine for the three calendar years preceding the application, i.e., for 2010–2012, and not only for 2010, should have been applied. At the same time, the court agreed that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive a lump-sum financial assistance in the amount of ten pensions, since this benefit is provided exclusively for those persons who had previously not received any type of pension at all. In addition, the judges emphasized that a pension is a monthly periodic payment, so the plaintiff should have become aware of its incorrect amount back in 2013, when she started receiving the payments. Accordingly, due to missing the six-month period for applying to court, the claims for pension recalculation for previous years (from 2013 to June 2024) were reasonably left without consideration.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, leaving the resolution of the court of appeal, which ordered the recalculation of the pension using the correct salary indicator only within the six-month period prior to applying to court (starting from June 18, 2024), unchanged.
Case No. 240/9490/24 of 02/06/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the tax assessment notice, by which additional tax was assessed on the enterprise… on non-resident income due to the tax authorities contesting the right to apply the preferential 2% tax rate on loan interest paid in favor of the Cypriot company.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that, in order to apply the reduced tax rate under an international convention, the non-resident must be the actual beneficial owner of the income, rather than merely a conduit intermediary. The Court pointed out that the tax authority had failed to provide proper evidence that the Cypriot company was obliged to transfer the received funds to third parties or acted as a nominee holder. An analysis of the financial statements and bank statements confirmed the absence of indications of a “conduit” nature or mirror transactions, as the amounts of interest paid and the funds directed towards the share redemption were not arithmetically identical. Furthermore, the Cypriot company held the loan portfolio as its own asset, independently bore all financial and operational risks, and determined the subsequent economic fate of the received income. The Court also emphasized that the foreign company’s use of specific tax regimes in its home country, in particular the Notional Interest Deduction (NID) regime in Cyprus, does not in itself refute its status as the beneficial owner.
The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the judgment of the court of appeal granting the enterprise’s claim and canceling the tax assessment-decision.
Case No. 990/72/26 dated 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a citizen’s attempt to judicially set aside the decision of the First Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice, which left her complaint against a judge’s actions without consideration and returned it, as well as to oblige this body to resume the consideration of her application.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that, pursuant to the relevant law, the decision to return a disciplinary complaint is reasoned and is not subject to appeal at all. The judges explained that the mere right of a person to file a complaint against a judge does not mean that they can judicially influence the course of the disciplinary proceedings or appeal interim decisions of the High Council of Justice. Any actions or decisions of this body at the stage of the preliminary review of a complaint do not create direct legal consequences for the complainant themselves and do not violate their personal rights or interests. Since the complainant is not a direct subject of relations concerning holding a judge liable, they simply have no right to judicial protection in such procedural matters. In addition, the court confirmed that the absence of judicial review at this stage does not prevent citizens from re-applying to the High Council of Justice with properly drafted complaints. The panel of judges also dismissed the plaintiff’s procedural objections, ruling that the respondent’s representative had filed the statement of defense on time and had all the necessary powers to do so in accordance with… state register.
У підсумку Велика Палата Верховного Суду залишила апеляційну скаргу позивачки без задоволення, підтвердивши законність відмови у відкритті судового провадження.
Case No. 914/1358/25 dated 02/06/2026
In this case, an individual entrepreneur is seeking to judicially set aside a decision and an order of the Western Interregional Territorial Branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
When considering this case, the Supreme Court proceeded from the limits of its powers, which are limited to reviewing the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of lower instances and do not permit the re-evaluation of evidence. The courts of first and appellate instances established that the decision of the antimonopoly authority had been adopted within the scope of its legal powers and upon sufficient legal grounds. The plaintiff, in turn, failed to provide the court with proper and admissible evidence that would refute the findings of the AMCU or prove a violation of the procedure for adopting the challenged acts. The panel of judges agreed that the courts of lower instances had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case and provided them with a proper legal assessment. Most arguments of the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal actually amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the circumstances already established by the courts, which is expressly prohibited by procedural law at the stage of cassation proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal grounds to declare the decisions of the lower courts unlawful or unfounded.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of Lviv Oblast and the resolution of the Western Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.
Case No. 922/4069/23 dated 22/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the challenging of the inaction of a private enforcement officer who suspended the enforcement of a court decision on the recovery and return of a lathe to its rightful owner due to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
The court primarily proceeded from the premise that the debtor’s obligation to return the property to its rightful owner is non-pecuniary in nature, as it is not related to the recovery of funds. Guided by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, the court noted that the moratorium on the satisfaction of creditors’ claims does not extend to the enforcement of court decisions in such non-pecuniary disputes. Accordingly, the private enforcement officer had no legal grounds to suspend the enforcement proceedings after the court had set aside his previous ruling on the suspension of actions. The Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” explicitly obliges the enforcement officer to resume enforcement no later than the next business day after the obstacles have been eliminated. Since the enforcement officer failed to do so, the courts quite justifiably…o qualified his conduct as unlawful omission. In addition, the panel of judges dismissed the debtor’s arguments regarding the alleged double recovery of funds and property, pointing out their groundlessness within the scope of these proceedings.
In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts declaring the enforcement officer’s omission unlawful and ordering him to resume enforcement unchanged.
Case No. 917/119/24(910/2521/24) dated 21/05/2026
**Subject matter of the dispute:**
The subject matter of this dispute is the recovery of a penalty of over UAH 4.7 million from PrJSC “Naftogazvydobuvannya” in favor of LLC “Service Oil” for late payment for the completed well drilling works.
**Key arguments of the court:**
The Court noted that reducing the amount of the penalty is a lawful discretionary right of the courts of first and appellate instances, which assess the exceptional nature of each specific case. In resolving this issue, the lower courts reasonably took into account the complete lack of evidence that the plaintiff had suffered any actual damages due to the delay in settlements. The court also took into consideration that the defendant is a strategic enterprise that ensures gas production in Ukraine and is forced to spend significant funds on restoring infrastructure after hostile missile attacks. In addition, the debtor demonstrated good faith conduct by fully paying the principal debt within the deferral granted by the court. The Supreme Court agreed that recovering the penalty in full would be an unfair and excessive burden on the enterprise, while its 90% reduction allowed maintaining a reasonable balance of interests of both parties. Finally, the panel of judges emphasized that the reassessment of the established circumstances of the case and the evidence falls outside the scope of powers of the court of cassation.
**Court decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Service Oil”, leaving the decisions of the lower courts on reducing the penalty by 90% (to UAH 472,013.61) and its recovery unchanged.
Case No. 909/1056/15 dated 21/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of closing the bankruptcy case of OJSC “Presmash” at the rehabilitation stage in connection with the satisfaction of the claims of competing creditors, without a proper examination of the implementation of the rehabilitation plan and consideration of motions to amend it.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of first instance had prematurely closed the proceedings, ignoring the mandatory instructions of the higher court regarding the need for a detailed examination of the actual implementation of the rehabilitation plan. In particular, the local commercial court did not ascertain whether the obligations to current creditors had been fully satisfied, which was expressly provided for by the approved measures to restore the debtor’s solvency. In addition, the court overlooked the motio…tion of the rehabilitation manager on the approval of the amendments to the rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors’ committee and the extension of the procedure by 12 months. The Panel of Judges emphasized that in the presence of unresolved amendments to the rehabilitation plan, the court is obliged to evaluate them on the merits, rather than simply formally closing the case. In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s references to other judicial precedents, explaining that those cases did not resolve issues regarding the fate of current claims and the extension of the rehabilitation procedure at the initiative of the creditors. Thus, closing the case without a full analysis of the financial and economic condition of the debtor and the fulfillment of all conditions of the rehabilitation plan is premature and unlawful.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Aurum Trans” LLC and left the ruling of the appellate court on vacating the closure of the case and returning it to the rehabilitation stage unchanged.
Case No. 320/18068/24 dated 02/06/2026
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the right of a former employee of the Judicial Security Service to receive an increased additional monetary reward in the amount of up to UAH 100,000 per month for direct participation in measures to ensure national security and defense during the state of martial law.
2. The Supreme Court noted that to terminate proceedings in a case due to the existence of another court decision, the simultaneous presence of three conditions is mandatory: the identity of the parties, the subject matter, and the grounds of the lawsuit. The judges pointed out that in the previous case, the plaintiff sought the payment of a general additional reward in the amount of UAH 30,000, which is granted for the mere fact of performing service during the period of martial law. In contrast, in this case, the ground of the lawsuit is a claim for the payment of an increased reward of up to UAH 100,000, which is directly related to his actual participation in combat operations or defensive measures. The Panel of Judges emphasized that the legal nature of these two payments is different, as the accrual of the increased amount requires the examination of completely different evidence, in particular, combat rosters and certificates of involvement in combat missions. Thus, although the parties and the regulatory framework in both cases coincide, the factual and legal grounds of the lawsuits are different, which indicates the emergence of new disputed legal relations. In view of this, the appellate court reached an erroneous conclusion regarding the identity of the disputes and groundlessly terminated the proceedings, depriving the plaintiff of the right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the appellate court on terminating the proceedings, and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance to continue the consideration.
Case No. 495/3611/20 dated 01/06/2026
The subject matter of this legal dispute is the division of the joint property of former spouses, in particular, shares in residential houses, a land plot, and vehicles, as well as the resolution of the cou…counterclaims of the husband for recognition of this property as his personal private property.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the statutory presumption of joint ownership of property acquired by spouses during marriage, which was to be rebutted with proper evidence by the husband himself. The Court rejected the husband’s arguments regarding the purchase of the property with funds gifted by his mother, as the gift agreements for significant amounts were not notarized, which by law renders them void. The submitted bank statements also did not specify the purpose of the payments, and the mere fact of financial assistance from relatives does not mean that the property automatically becomes the personal property of only one of the spouses. Regarding the automobiles, the court agreed with the exclusion from the joint property of the car purchased before the marriage, as well as those vehicles that had already been sold to third parties at the time of the proceedings. The courts reasonably divided the other two automobiles equally (a 1/2 share to each), as the parties had not provided their monetary valuation and had not reached an agreement on any other method of dividing indivisible things. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had correctly applied the rules of law and rendered decisions based on a comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case, whereas the re-evaluation of evidence lies beyond the jurisdiction of the court of cassation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s cassation appeal, upholding the legality of the decisions of the lower courts on the equal division of the real property and two automobiles between the former spouses.
Case No. 740/3221/25 of 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the granting of an additional period of time to an heir to file an application for acceptance of the inheritance by way of hereditary transmission.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to accept inheritance by way of transmission and the right to accept inheritance after the deceased heir himself are two separate civil rights requiring a person to perform separate legal actions. The Court stressed that lack of awareness of the existence of a will can be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline only if the heir was entirely unaware of their right of succession. However, if a person is aware of their status as an heir and participates in the inheritance case, their lack of knowledge about specific property or a will does not indicate the existence of objective and insurmountable obstacles to filing an application. In the case at hand, the plaintiff knew about his son’s death, applied in a timely manner to accept the inheritance after him, and was also aware of his son’s family relationship with the mother, who had died earlier. Consequently, the plaintiff had every opportunity to take timely actions to formalize the rights by way of hereditary transmission, but failed to do so in the absence of objectively valid reasons. The Supreme Court concluded that, under such circumstances, the mere lack of awareness of the will is not a ground for granting an additional period, since the law requires heirs to be active and prudent…… conduct.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the defendant, vacated the resolution of the court of appeal, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the plaintiff was denied the determination of an additional period for the acceptance of the inheritance.
Case No. 761/3887/25 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the deceased borrower’s former wife to declare the obligations under the loan and mortgage agreements terminated, as well as to cancel the records of the mortgage encumbrance on the apartment.
The court reasoned that the death of the debtor does not terminate loan obligations, as they are not inextricably linked to the person of the deceased and pass to his heirs as part of the inheritance. Since the mortgage is derivative from the principal obligation, it also remains valid, and the death of the mortgagor in itself is not defined by law as a ground for its termination. The courts established that despite the absence of an opened inheritance case, the deceased has first-priority heirs who lived with him at the time of death, and therefore are deemed to have accepted the inheritance. Since these heirs have not yet received a certificate of the right to inheritance, the statutory period for the presentation of claims by the bank as a creditor has not even commenced yet. The plaintiff is not an heir of her former husband; therefore, she has no right to raise the issue of termination of obligations due to the bank’s alleged missing of the deadlines for presenting claims to the heirs. Furthermore, within another judicial proceeding, the plaintiff was finally denied the recognition of her sole ownership right to this apartment, which refutes her allegations regarding the violation of her rights by the active mortgage.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts dismissing the claim.
Case No. 359/12739/21 dated 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the legal fact of the daughter’s permanent residence together with her mother at the time of her death for the subsequent receipt of an obligatory share in the inheritance contrary to the existing will in favor of another person.
The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff indeed had the right to an obligatory share in the inheritance as an incapacitated person of retirement age at the time of the opening of the inheritance. At the same time, the court pointed out that she had missed the statutory six-month period for applying to a notary with an application for acceptance of the inheritance. Previously, the plaintiff had already attempted to establish an additional period for filing such an application through the court; however, she was finally denied the satisfaction of that lawsuit. Since the plaintiff is deemed not to have accepted the inheritance in the manner prescribed by law, the establishment of the fact of joint residence with her mother will not create any legal consequences for her. The Supreme Court talso emphasized that a judicial decision cannot be set aside on purely formal grounds if it is correct on the merits. In addition, the panel of judges rejected the reference to the previous findings of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances of those cases were not similar to this case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the court of appeal dismissing the claim.
Case No. 592/4226/24 of 27/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a citizen against his former attorney to declare his actions unlawful and to recover material damages which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, were caused to him due to the improper provision of legal assistance.
The Court primarily drew attention to the fact that the benefits provided by law regarding exemption from payment of court fees for persons with mental disorders apply exclusively in disputes directly related to the protection of their rights during the provision of psychiatric care. In this case, the nature of the legal relationship is purely civil, since the claims boil down to the recovery of damages and the evaluation of the quality of performance of the attorney agreement. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of payment of the court fee and did not remedy the deficiencies identified by the court, the court of appeal had all legal grounds to return his appeal as unfiled. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized an important procedural rule: a ruling of a court of first instance cannot be the subject of a cassation review if it has not been previously reviewed on appeal. In view of this, the panel of judges established that the cassation proceedings in the part of appealing the decision of the district court were initiated in error and are subject to closure.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the ruling of the court of first instance, and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal returning the appeal to the plaintiff.
Case No. 905/2030/19 of 28/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the recognition of the monetary claims of a creditor bank against a debtor enterprise, which acted as a guarantor for the loan, within bankruptcy proceedings, where the debtor attempted to challenge the debt due to the failure to provide original primary documents, despite the existence of an already effective court decision on the recovery of this debt.
The Court was primarily guided by the principle of the binding nature and prejudicial effect of judicial decisions, since the debt of the debtor as a jointly and severally liable defendant had already been recovered by a previous court decision that had entered into legal force. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the principle of legal certainty (*res judicata*), the undisputed claims of a creditor confirmed by a final judicial decision can be questioned in bankruptcy proceedings only in exceptional cases, such as the abuse of rights or the artificial creation of debt. Since the debtor failed to provide any evidence and…the existence of such exceptional circumstances and did not dispute the very fact of concluding the suretyship agreement or the amount of the debt, the courts of previous instances had no grounds to re-examine the primary documents. The Court also noted that the debtor did not specify what exactly his doubt regarding the copies of the documents consisted of and why they allegedly did not correspond to the originals, although he was a party to the previous proceedings and had the opportunity to submit his own objections at that time. In addition, the panel of judges rejected the appellant’s reference to other resolutions of the Supreme Court, pointing out that the circumstances of those cases significantly differ from the present case, where the debt has already been confirmed by a final court verdict. Thus, the lower courts acted in a completely lawful manner in refusing to order the production of the original documents and reasonably recognized the bank’s claims on the basis of the available evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the “Hercules” enterprise, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recognition of the bank’s monetary claims in the amount of over 193 million hryvnias unchanged.
Case No. 761/22229/21 dated 01/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is a lawsuit filed by the former President of Ukraine for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, as well as for the recognition of information disseminated by the defendant during a live television broadcast and on the YouTube network regarding the alleged conclusion of a criminal agreement to surrender the city of Mariupol in 2014 as untrue.
First of all, the Court proceeded from the premise that the disputed statements of the defendant constitute value judgments rather than factual assertions; therefore, they cannot be verified for truthfulness and are not subject to refutation. Since the plaintiff is a prominent politician and a public figure, the limits of acceptable criticism against him are significantly wider than those concerning an ordinary individual, and he must be prepared for close scrutiny and robust public debate. The panel of judges emphasized the necessity of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, and an individual’s right to respect for reputation. The Court took into account that the disputed information concerned military-political events in Mariupol, which are of extremely high public interest, and therefore the public has an unconditional right to discuss these matters. In addition, the plaintiff failed to provide convincing evidence that the disseminated information caused real damage to his non-proprietary rights or that the defendant acted solely with the intent to defame his reputation. The Court also noted that although the defendant’s statements were provocative in nature, they did not contain allegations of a specific criminal offense, but merely expressed a subjective assessment of the actions of the state leadership at the time.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the plaintiff’s representative, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the lawsuit unchanged.Case No. 757/18348/23-ts dated 20/05/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the son of a deceased political figure to invalidate trademark certificates containing his father’s surname and caricature, due to the lack of proper consent for their registration.
The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances had reached a premature conclusion regarding the invalidity of the certificates without properly examining the circumstances of the deceased’s political activity and his disposal of his personal non-property rights during his lifetime. The Court pointed out that, during his lifetime, the prominent politician had provided a notarized consent to the use of his surname in the name of a political party, and also permitted the use of his name and images for its statutory activities and advertising. The panel of judges emphasized that the contested trademarks are derivative of the officially registered symbols and name of the party, of which the plaintiff’s father was the leader during his lifetime. The Supreme Court formulated a new legal conclusion, according to which, in similar disputes, courts must obligatorily examine the existence of a person’s consent to the use of their name and portrait in general party symbols. Since the courts of previous instances failed to evaluate these facts and did not ascertain the expression of will of the politician himself, the factual circumstances of the case remained undetermined. In addition, the reversal of the main decision automatically entailed the reversal of the ruling on the allocation of legal assistance costs, as this issue must be resolved based on the results of the final consideration of the case.
The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 620/4201/25 dated 01/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the unlawful failure to act of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine, which was manifested in its refusal to consider on the merits the application of the mother of a deceased paramilitary security guard to establish the fact of his direct participation in the defense of Ukraine in order to obtain the status of a family member of a deceased Defender.
The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances erred in classifying the deceased under the category of ordinary employees of enterprises or institutions, as he served in the Security Police Department and directly performed tasks to protect a strategic facility during hostile shelling. The judges emphasized that the interdepartmental commission of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs has the authority to consider applications from family members of such persons, and therefore the refusal to consider the documents was groundless. In addition, the panel of judges drew attention to the inconsistent behavior of the ministry itself, which initially considered the plaintiff’s first application on the merits, but returned the second identical application allegedly due to a lack of competence. The Supreme Court also emphasized that th
