Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 28/06/2026

Case No. 0610/1-81/2011 of 22/06/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the review of a criminal case following a cassation appeal filed by the convicted person after an international judicial body established that Ukraine had violated international obligations during the previous proceedings.

2. The Court proceeded from the fact that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court had already set aside the previous ruling of the cassation instance, issued back in 2013, due to established international violations. As the case was remanded for a new trial to the Criminal Cassation Court, a procedural necessity arose to re-examine the cassation appeal on its merits. The judge reviewed the available materials and determined that the case is subject to being scheduled for hearing in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation in force at the time the legal relations arose. The provisions of the transitional norms of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for reviewing cases initiated under the rules of the 1960 CPC, were also taken into account. Thus, the court ensures the execution of the Grand Chamber’s decision and the exercise of the convicted person’s right to a proper cassation review.

3. The court ordered that the criminal case be scheduled for cassation hearing on October 29, 2026.

Case No. 752/15110/22 of 18/06/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of returning an appeal filed by a defense attorney due to his alleged failure to rectify deficiencies identified by the appellate court.

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a fundamental guarantee of access to justice, enshrined both in the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The Court established that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the issue of rectifying deficiencies by requiring the submission of a new appeal instead of evaluating the content of the statement submitted by the defense attorney. The Supreme Court stressed that the sole criterion for accepting an appeal is its compliance with the requirements of Article 396 of the CPC of Ukraine, rather than the formal title of the document used to rectify deficiencies. The appellate court did not analyze the content of the defense attorney’s statement for its compliance with procedural requirements, thereby committing a significant violation of the criminal procedural law. Thus, the denial of access to justice due to excessive formalism was deemed unlawful, as it hindered the exercise of the right to have the judgment reviewed.

The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.

Case No. 750/4388/22 of 18/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis of the case:

1. The subject matter of the dispute is criminal proceedings concerning the intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm and the associated civil claim of the victim for compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage and lost earnings.

2. The cassation court[the court of] second instance upheld the legality of the verdict regarding the qualification of the crime and the imposed sentence, acknowledging that the lower courts had the right to grant the convicted person a suspended sentence. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out significant deficiencies in the resolution of the civil claim regarding lost earnings. The courts of first and appellate instances approached the assessment of evidence formally, failing to provide proper justification for the refusal to recover funds, which the victim substantiated as lost income of a sole proprietor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court is obliged to examine the arguments of the parties and provide comprehensive answers to them, which was not done. Since the cassation instance does not have the authority to examine evidence on its own, the case regarding the civil claim for lost earnings was remanded for a new trial. In doing so, the court emphasized that the victim’s position regarding the sentence is not decisive for the court, and the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was justified given the personality of the convicted person and the gravity of the crime.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, upholding the verdict in the part concerning the criminal sentence, but set aside the judicial decisions in the part concerning the refusal to recover lost earnings and remanded the case for a new trial in this part under civil procedure.

Case No. 520/23186/24 of 06/23/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in an interview format:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The case concerns the legality of additional tax liabilities and penalties for value-added tax, corporate income tax, single tax, and other payments applied by the tax authority following an audit of an agricultural enterprise.

2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court confirmed that operations involving the transfer of assets during the reorganization (spin-off) of a legal entity are not subject to VAT, as they do not involve the transfer of ownership of goods but are a redistribution of property.
– Regarding the write-off of feed, fertilizers, and fuel, the court found the tax authority’s position groundless, as the enterprise provided sufficient evidence of actual business activity (reports on sown areas, livestock headcount, technological charts).
– The court emphasized that minor defects in primary documents cannot be a ground for denying the reality of business operations if the operations themselves actually took place.
– Regarding the status of a single tax payer, the court supported the enterprise, acknowledging that income from the sale of organic matter fermentation products is rightfully included in the income from own agricultural products.
– At the same time, the court agreed with the tax authority regarding the legality of charging fines for late registration of tax invoices and late payment of taxes, since after May 27, 2022, the “COVID” moratorium on fines was terminated by the provisions of Law No. 2260-IX.- It is important that the court emphasized: if a tax authority considers a reorganization to be fictitious, it is obligated to file a lawsuit with the court to declare such spin-off invalid, rather than simply ignoring its consequences during an audit.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the enterprise’s cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the refusal of the claim regarding the additional accrual of VAT in the amount of over 91 million UAH, and rendered a new decision to cancel this tax advice notice, leaving the other parts of the appellate court’s decision unchanged.

Case No. 902/68/25 dated 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the accrual by a distribution system operator (oblenergo) of the cost of unmetered electrical energy due to detected damage to seals and metering devices at a consumer’s facility.

2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the consumer, under the contract and the acts of delimitation of balance sheet ownership, assumed full responsibility for the preservation of seals and the integrity of the metering unit.
– The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, emphasized that the fact of damage to seals covering access to live parts is sufficient grounds for applying sanctions in accordance with the Retail Electricity Market Rules (PRREE), regardless of whether the fact of intentional energy theft is proven.
– The court rejected the consumer’s arguments regarding “minor defects” in the report on the violation, noting that they do not refute the very fact of the detected violation, documented in conjunction with other evidence.
– Regarding the calculation of the amount of damages, the court recognized the application of a 24-hour equipment operating mode as lawful, as it corresponded to the terms of the contract and its annexes.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of clause 8.4.2 of the PRREE does not require a mandatory expert examination if the fact of damage to the seals covering access to live parts is obvious and documented in a proper manner.
– The court also noted that the appellant’s reference to the previous practice of the Supreme Court is groundless, as those cases concerned other types of violations or different factual circumstances.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the enterprise’s claim to cancel the decision of the oblenergo commission and satisfied the counterclaim of the oblenergo to collect 1,068,928.31 UAH as the cost of unmetered electricity.

Case No. 910/22/24 dated 06/19/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual of a penalty for a violation of goods delivery deadlines for a period exceeding six months, taking into account the effect of quarantine restrictions.

2. The court proceeded from the fact that clause 7 of section IX “P”Final Provisions” of the Commercial Code of Ukraine (CC of Ukraine) is a mandatory rule that expressly provides for the extension of the time limits defined by Article 232 of the CC of Ukraine for the duration of the quarantine. The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision is absolutely certain and does not require broad or narrow interpretation; therefore, the limitation regarding the six-month period for the accrual of penalties was not in effect during the quarantine. The Court rejected the arguments of the appellate instance that these legislative changes applied only to the time limits for filing claims with the court, indicating that the legislator consciously extended the effect of the provision to the period of accrual of penalty sanctions. It was also emphasized that the conclusions of the Supreme Court are mandatory for consideration regardless of whether the case on the merits has been completed or the case has been remanded for a new trial. The Joint Chamber concluded that there are no grounds for departing from the previously formed legal position, as it is stable and consistent. In summary, the court recognized that the appellate instance erroneously limited the amount of the penalty by incorrectly applying the norms of substantive law.

3. The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the appellate commercial court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims for the collection of penalties were satisfied in full.

Case No. 914/2400/25 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the appellate commercial court’s refusal to reinstate the procedural time limit for submitting evidence of expenses for professional legal assistance and, as a consequence, leaving the application for an additional decision without consideration.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court emphasized that the right to reimbursement of legal costs is not unconditional and requires compliance with clear procedural time limits established by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
* A key point was that the attorney’s (who is also the head of the law firm) leave of absence is not an objective insurmountable circumstance that justifies missing the deadline.
* The court noted that a law firm has internal mechanisms for substitution, in particular, the possibility of engaging other attorneys to fulfill contracts; therefore, the absence of one specialist does not paralyze the activities of the entire law firm.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the reinstatement of a time limit is an exceptional “privilege,” which is applied only in the presence of objective, rather than subjective, reasons, which the applicant must prove.
* In this case, evidence of expenses was prepared even before the start of the attorney’s leave, which indicates the absence of objective obstacles to their timely submission to the court.
* The court also pointed out that the issue of the validity of the reasons for missing a deadline is decided exclusively based on the court’s internal conviction, and in this situation, the applicant’s arguments about the court’s “excessive formalism” were found to be groundless.

3.**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling to leave the application without consideration.

Case No. 520/7710/25 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging tax notification-decisions by which the controlling authority reduced the negative VAT balance and additionally charged tax liabilities due to the alleged absence of inventories discovered during an audit.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that conducting an inventory at the request of the tax authority is the only legal method for proving a shortage of goods that would indicate their use in non-business activities.
– The Court established that the plaintiff had actually provided access to the warehouses, and the tax officers did not exercise their right to be present during the inventory initiated by the enterprise itself.
– The appellate court made an error by applying an overly formalistic approach to the assessment of inventory documents (specifically regarding the commission structure and the grouping of goods), which does not refute the fact of the assets’ existence.
– It was also taken into account that the plaintiff did not evade providing documents, and the delay was caused by the objective impossibility of preparing a large volume of information within the extremely tight deadlines set by the tax officers.
– The Court stressed that the controlling authority’s arguments regarding the shortage of goods were based solely on assumptions, whereas the plaintiff provided proper evidence of the existence of the inventories.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the absence of a separate grouping of goods by warehouse addresses within a single warehouse accounting system is not a ground for disregarding the results of the inventory.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the Company’s claims were satisfied.

Case No. 320/43936/23 dated 06/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A taxpayer’s challenge of a tax notification-decision denying a VAT budget reimbursement due to the alleged failure to provide documents during a tax audit.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Court established that the order to conduct the audit contained significant flaws: it incorrectly specified the periods of activity subject to audit, including those that had not yet occurred at the time the order was issued.
– The tax authority did not prove the fact of proper delivery of the audit act to the taxpayer, as the postal item was sent with incorrect address information, which deprived the plaintiff of the right to file objections.
– The Court emphasized that the act on the failure to provide documents, which is mandatory…in accordance with the norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine, was not drawn up by the tax authorities, which calls into question the claim regarding the taxpayer’s refusal to cooperate.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that even if documents were not provided during the inspection, the taxpayer has the right to submit them prior to the issuance of a tax notification-decision, and the controlling authority is obliged to consider them.
– The Court concluded that procedural violations during the organization of the inspection (incorrect order, improper service of the act, absence of an act regarding the non-submission of documents) are material and violate the principle of legal certainty.
– Considering that the tax authority did not provide proper evidence of the lawfulness of the refusal to refund VAT, but merely relied on formal grounds, the court recognized the actions of the tax authorities as unlawful.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was satisfied.

Case No. 420/35560/23 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by a municipal enterprise (BTI) to provide copies of the technical passport and title documents for a real estate object upon the request of an individual.

2. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, considering that information about municipal property is socially necessary, and the BTI, as its holder, is obliged to provide access to the documents. Conversely, the appellate court overturned this decision, pointing out that the BTI is not a disposer of public information within the meaning of the law, and the requested information is of private, rather than public, interest. The Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of either instance, noting that the courts did not properly examine the status of the BTI as a “custodian” of inventory files at the time the dispute arose. The Supreme Court also emphasized the need to apply a “three-part test” to verify the lawfulness of restricting access to information. The lower courts did not perform a balancing act between the plaintiff’s private interest and the public interest, which is mandatory. As a result, due to the incompleteness of the examination of evidence and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found the decisions of the lower courts to be premature.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 8/471-23/1(917/2049/25) dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the recovery of professional legal assistance expenses incurred by the plaintiff in a case regarding the obligation to perform certain actions (transfer of a housing stock object to municipal ownership).

2. **ArgumeCourt arguments:
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the main criterion for the reimbursement of expenses is their reality and documentary confirmation of the fact that services were provided, rather than merely the existence of a formal “detailed description of work.”
– The Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which excessive formalism in evaluating a description of work, in the absence of clear legislative criteria, is inadmissible and violates the rule of law.
– In the case of a fixed fee, where hourly payment is not calculated, the requirement for detailed reporting on every minute of an attorney’s work loses its primary significance.
– The Court noted that the courts of lower instances rightfully took into account the complexity of the case and its consideration in simplified proceedings, which served as the basis for reducing the fee amount from 40,000 UAH to 15,000 UAH (7,500 UAH from each defendant).
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the disproportionateness of expenses lies with the party filing the motion for their reduction, and courts do not have the right to do so on their own initiative without corresponding arguments.
– The appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of a detailed description of work were rejected, as the case materials confirmed the fact of the actual provision of legal aid (filing of the claim, explanations, etc.).
– The Court confirmed that the challenged decisions were adopted in compliance with procedural law, and the appellant’s attempts to re-evaluate evidence exceed the powers of the cassation instance.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Poltava City Council unsatisfied, and the additional decision of the local court and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.

Case No. 175/17998/24 dated 06/11/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s application of provisions on release from serving a sentence with probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to a person who had previously been convicted of similar crimes in the field of drug trafficking.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of criminal procedural law and incorrectly applied substantive law. The Court emphasized that the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine cannot be formal and requires detailed justification, taking into account the personality of the offender and the severity of the committed act. In this case, the appellate court ignored the fact that the convicted person had previously been released from punishment, but failed to draw proper conclusions and continued to consume psychotropic substances while under the supervision of a medical institution. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not evaluate the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the social danger of the committed act and did not motivate why the rehabilitation of the person without actual service of the sentence was possible in this specific situation. Thus, the appellate court’s decision was deemed unmotivated, as it does not meet the requirements of legality and reasonableness provided for by Art. 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the appellatethe court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 153/1184/25 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of imposing an actual sentence of imprisonment for the illegal smuggling of persons across the state border of Ukraine under martial law.

2. The court of cassation instance upheld the position of the appellate court, noting that all circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the crime and the personality of the convicted person, were taken into account when sentencing. The panel of judges emphasized that the absence of a pre-sentence report does not constitute a violation, as the defense did not file a corresponding motion in the court of first instance. The court also rejected the arguments regarding exceeding the scope of the indictment, pointing out that the illegal smuggling of persons across the border during martial law by its nature utilizes the conditions created by this legal regime, which was reasonably recognized as an aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, the court stressed that the presence of a minor child was taken into account as a characteristic of the individual, rather than as a formal circumstance that automatically exempts one from serving an actual sentence. Procedural arguments of the defense regarding the violation of the principle of immediacy of evidence examination were rejected, as the appellate court did not re-evaluate evidence, but merely reviewed the verdict regarding the imposed sentence. In summary, the cassation instance found no grounds for applying Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving a sentence with probation) in these criminal proceedings.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, and the cassation appeal of the defense attorney was dismissed.

Case No. 132/1925/23 dated 06/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the criminal prosecution of an individual for failure to provide assistance to a person in danger and violation of traffic safety rules by a person operating a vehicle while in a state of intoxication, which caused the death of the victim.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that during the appellate review, significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law were committed, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision. The panel of judges established that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the defense’s arguments set forth in the appeal and did not fully verify the circumstances referred to by the defense attorney when challenging the verdict. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of adversarial proceedings and the appellate court’s duty to provide reasons for its conclusions regarding each argument presented in the appellate appeal. Since these requirements were not met, the decision of the appellate instance was deemed premature and subject to cancellation. Consequently, to ensure the right to a fair trial and proper review of casesand, the case files must be returned for a new review to the court of appellate instance. Additionally, the court took into account the gravity of the incriminated crimes and the risks that necessitated the selection of a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody.

3. The court partially granted the cassation appeal, cancelled the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new review in the court of appellate instance, while selecting a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody for the accused.

Case No. 740/3165/24 dated 06/19/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living together as one family without marriage registration for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary allowance in connection with the death of a serviceman.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the Ministry of Defense and the village council are not proper defendants in cases concerning the establishment of the fact of living together as one family, as they are not subjects of receiving monetary allowance, and a dispute regarding it can arise only between potential recipients (family members).
– The court pointed out a procedural error by the appellate instance, which accepted new evidence (an extract from an order) but did not provide a proper legal assessment thereof, nor did it motivate its acceptance or rejection in its decision.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is mandatorily required to respond to every argument raised in the appellate complaint, which was not done in this case, constituting a violation of procedural norms.
– Regarding the substance of the dispute, the court reminded that the fact of cohabitation must be confirmed by a totality of evidence: a joint household, a joint budget, mutual rights and obligations, rather than solely by witness testimony or the existence of joint photographs.
– The court noted that the lower instances did not take into account the defendants’ arguments that after the dissolution of the marriage, the parties did not actually maintain a joint household, and the plaintiff collected alimony, which casts doubt on the existence of family relations.
– The Supreme Court indicated the necessity for a thorough review of the evidence indicating the absence of cohabitation (in particular, data on the serviceman’s registration at the address of his parents).

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower instances regarding the claims against the Ministry of Defense and the village council, rendering a new decision to deny the claims against them, and regarding the claims against the relatives of the deceased — it cancelled the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new review to the appellate instance.

Case No. 274/2998/24 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:

1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a kinship relationship between the applicant and her father, a citizen of Ukraine, for the subsequent processing of her citizenship of Ukraine by territorial origin.

2. The court proceeded from the fact thatThe establishment of the fact of kinship in special proceedings is a lawful mechanism for protecting a person’s rights when other methods of obtaining or restoring documents are impossible. It was established that the applicant was born abroad, but her father was born on the territory of Ukraine, which entitles her to acquire citizenship by territorial origin in accordance with Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine.” The court emphasized that the existence of a court decision establishing such a fact is expressly provided for by the current Procedure for Processing Applications Concerning Citizenship as a necessary condition for submitting documents to the migration service authorities. The arguments of the migration service regarding the alleged impossibility of hearing such cases in court proceedings were dismissed as contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the practice of the Supreme Court. The court also applied the “balance of probabilities” principle, deeming the evidence provided (copies of the birth certificate, certificates from the place of study and residence) sufficient to confirm the kinship. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant’s lack of an original birth certificate due to objective circumstances (hostilities) cannot be an obstacle to the realization of her right to acquire citizenship.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Migration Service Office and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

**Case No. 910/7390/25 dated 06/18/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the recognition of the actions of the plaintiff and another bidder as anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of procurement results, and the imposition of fines.

2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the bidders acted not as competitors, but as coordinated entities, which is confirmed by a number of proofs: the use of a single IP address for submitting proposals and managing bank accounts, as well as the use of a single telephone number.
– The court noted that the state registration of one of the participants was carried out by an employee of the other participant immediately before the announcement of the bidding, which indicates a close connection between them.
– Additional evidence of coordination included identical errors in the tender documentation, common print defects in documents, and the uploading of documents with similar formatting, which rules out a coincidental match.
– Regarding the time limits for case review, the court noted that the statute of limitations for bringing to justice is suspended during the time the case is being considered by the AMC bodies; therefore, no violations were found in the Committee’s actions regarding time limits.
– The court emphasized that in order to qualify actions as anti-competitive, it is not necessary to prove the infliction of actual damages; the mere fact of information exchange and the absence of independent behavior by the participants is sufficient.
– The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeareference to the appellant’s reliance on other Supreme Court rulings, noting that they concerned different factual circumstances or did not contain the conclusions the plaintiff referred to.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 910/423/23 dated 17/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of proceedings initiated by a complaint from an individual (a monk) who did not participate in the case regarding the removal of obstacles in the use of property (religious buildings), but believed that the decision of the court of first instance violated his rights.

2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal for a person who did not participate in the case is not absolute and requires proof of an obvious and unconditional legal connection to the subject of the dispute. The Court established that the challenged decision concerned exclusively commercial relations between legal entities (a Monastery and a Preserve) regarding property use agreements, rather than the personal rights of the monk. The reasoning and operative parts of the court of first instance’s decision did not contain any conclusions regarding the rights, obligations, or interests of the complainant. The Court emphasized that the mere fact of an individual residing on the territory of a monastery does not automatically create a legal connection to a commercial dispute regarding the right to use real estate. It was also noted that issues of religious rights and freedom of worship are not the subject of proof within the framework of commercial proceedings. Therefore, the appellate court lawfully closed the proceedings, as the complainant failed to prove that the court decision directly concerned his rights.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the closure of appellate proceedings and dismissed the cassation appeal.

Case No. 916/4248/23 dated 18/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of a state enforcement officer during the forced execution of a court decision on the foreclosure of mortgaged property and the collection of court fees under martial law.

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the existence of a moratorium on the sale of mortgaged property is an independent ground for canceling enforcement actions; therefore, the courts of lower instances correctly canceled the resolutions on opening proceedings regarding the mortgage. At the same time, the Court emphasized the importance of observing jurisdictional rules: appealing resolutions on the collection of enforcement costs must take place exclusively within the procedure of administrative proceedings, rather than commercial ones. Regarding the collection of court fees, the Supreme Court pointed to the need for a detailed examination of whether it violates thatrecovery of the property guarantor’s rights, as the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper assessment of this. It was also emphasized that the court cannot go beyond the arguments that were the subject of appellate review, adhering to the principle of prohibition of *reformatio in peius*. As a result, due to a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, the proceedings regarding the challenge of enforcement costs were closed, and the issue concerning the recovery of court fees was sent for a new consideration.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, cancelled the previous decisions in the part concerning the refusal to cancel the rulings on opening proceedings regarding court fees (sending the case for a new consideration), and closed the proceedings in the part concerning the challenge of rulings on the recovery of enforcement costs due to a violation of jurisdiction rules.

Case No. 990/484/25 dated 06/11/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding setting the passing score for the third stage of the qualification exam (testing of cognitive abilities) at a level higher than the minimum permissible, which led to the plaintiff’s non-admission to the next stage of the selection process.

2. The court proceeded from the premise that the HQCJ is vested with discretionary powers to determine the passing score taking into account the number of vacant positions, which is an inherent feature of a competitive selection procedure. The Grand Chamber distinguished between the concepts of “minimum permissible score” (minimum competence threshold) and “passing score” (competitive threshold), noting that achieving the former is merely a condition for recognizing the stage as passed, but does not guarantee automatic admission to the next stage. The Court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not restrict the Commission in setting a passing score for the testing of cognitive abilities, unlike other stages of the exam. It was also established that the algorithm for determining the passing score was published in advance, which ensured the transparency of the procedure. The Court emphasized that participation in the selection for several specializations justifies the formation of separate ratings, and therefore, the actions of the HQCJ were consistent and equal for all candidates. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s absence from the list of persons admitted to the next stage was the result of his low ranking, and not a violation of his rights.

3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appellate appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance on the refusal of the claim unchanged.

Case No. 916/2186/24 dated 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided resolution of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recognition of the absence of the right to lease a land plot, cancellation of the state registration of this right, and the obligation to return the land plot to the state due todue to the absence of state registration of the lease agreement.

2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the lease agreement, concluded in 2006, did not undergo mandatory state registration, which, according to the legislation in force at that time, was a condition for it to enter into force.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the subsequent registration of the real right of lease in 2017 does not replace the registration of the agreement itself and does not create legal consequences if the agreement was not duly registered earlier.
– Regarding the prosecutor’s participation, the court recognized the legitimacy of his appeal, as the state authority (Odesa Regional State Administration) was aware of the violation but did not take any measures to protect the interests of the state for a long period of time, which confirms the fact of inaction.
– The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of the rights of third parties (LLC “Institute of Marine Aquaculture”), noting that the operative part of the decision does not contain any obligations regarding this company, and therefore, its rights were not violated.
– The court also emphasized the impossibility of appropriating water fund lands contrary to the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the conclusions of the lower courts are fully consistent with the current practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the moment of entry into force of land lease agreements concluded before 2013.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, while reinstating the enforcement of the court of first instance’s decision.

Case No. 910/19775/23 dated 06/23/2026
The following is an analysis of the provided court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of intellectual property rights to a work, accompanied by counterclaims for invalidation of the copyright registration certificate and recognition of the absence of proprietary rights.

2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the need for a clear distinction regarding the scope of legal protection of copyright objects and compliance with procedural norms during the registration of such rights. The court analyzed the case materials and concluded that the lower courts erroneously assessed the legality of the registration of certificate No. 102874, which became the basis for overturning the decision in the part concerning the satisfaction of the counterclaim. The panel of judges emphasized that the evidence provided by SE “Ukraina” is sufficient to confirm the existence of copyrights, whereas the arguments of SE “Zorya” regarding their absence were not duly confirmed during the judicial process. Special attention was paid to the issue of the allocation of legal costs, where the court adjusted the amount of reimbursement for professional legal assistance based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. Thus, the Supreme Court ensured the protection of the original plaintiff’s rights, while simultaneously optimizing the financial consequences of the dispute for both parties.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of SE “Ukraina” and overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the satisfaction of the counterclregarding the claim and denied it, and also partially reviewed the issue of the distribution of court costs.

Case No. 10/11 (910/6100/25) dated 06/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff (a creditor of a bankrupt) attempted to invalidate a 2005 agreement on the transfer of an art collection from OJSC “Gradobank” to state ownership, claiming that it violates the rights of creditors and was concluded in violation of legal requirements.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that the disputed agreement was aimed at executing a court decision on the recovery of the bank’s debt to the NBU, and not solely at fulfilling provisions of the law that were later declared unconstitutional.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the declaration of certain provisions of Law No. 1881-IV as unconstitutional does not cancel the civil-law nature of the agreement, which was concluded by the parties voluntarily to settle mortgage relations.
* The court emphasized that the state has a preemptive right to acquire objects of national cultural heritage, and the collection itself was the subject of a pledge, so its transfer is a logical consequence of the bank’s failure to fulfill its credit obligations.
* An important aspect was the application of the *res judicata* principle: the court noted that the issue of the legality of this agreement has already been considered repeatedly in other cases, and the attempts of creditors to review these decisions are merely an attempt to re-hear the case.
* The court critically evaluated the arguments regarding the undervalued cost of the collection, pointing out that a review of the valuation after 20 years is not a ground for invalidating the agreement, especially when the creditor has not proven the violation of their rights at the time of the transaction.
* The court also drew attention to the priority of public interests in the sphere of cultural heritage protection, which places an obligation on the state to preserve such objects.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged, denying the satisfaction of the cassation appeal.

Case No. 911/539/25 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The State Enterprise “Boryspil International Airport” filed a lawsuit against LLC “Aero Restaurants” to have a notary’s enforcement endorsement declared non-executable and to recover funds.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that the lease agreement, on the basis of which the enforcement endorsement was made, provided for the duty of the balance holder (the airport) to return the deposit amount to the lessee upon the expiration of the agreement term.
* The court concluded that the airport, although not a direct party to the lease agreement, is a participant in the lease legal relations and a recipient of a portion of the rent; therefore, the agreement created corresponding obligations for it.
* Regarding the arguments about the termination of the obligobligations by way of set-off of mutual claims, the court noted that the application for set-off was received by the defendant only after the enforcement endorsement had been issued and the funds had already been debited accordingly.
* The court emphasized that the current legislation does not require a notary to notify a debtor of the initiation of the enforcement endorsement procedure (except in cases of mortgage), therefore no procedural violations on the part of the notary were established.
* A reconciliation statement signed by the parties was recognized by the court as proper evidence of the indisputability of the debt, as it confirmed the existence of a debt that had not been repaid at the time of the issuance of the endorsement.
* The Supreme Court also noted that the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the findings of previous Supreme Court rulings are groundless, as the actual circumstances in those cases differ significantly, and the reference to them is an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had dismissed the airport’s lawsuit.

Case No. 274/1838/25 dated 10/06/2026

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recognition as unlawful of an order to terminate the payment of average earnings to a mobilized employee (coach-instructor) and an obligation for the employer to make the corresponding accruals for the period from July 19, 2022, to December 23, 2023.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts made a mistake by applying a purely formal approach to determining the plaintiff’s status.
– The court established that a coach-instructor of a children’s and youth sports school is a pedagogical worker, as they perform educational and pedagogical functions, and their activity is credited towards the length of pedagogical service.
– A key legal aspect was the application of the principle that “a special provision prevails over a general one”: the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Education” regarding the preservation of earnings for educators are special and take priority over the general amendments to the Labor Code of Ukraine introduced by Law No. 2352-IX.
– The court emphasized that the amendments to Article 119 of the Labor Code did not cancel the guarantees provided by special educational legislation for pedagogical workers until the moment the corresponding amendments were made to the Law “On Education” (December 24, 2023).
– Thus, during the disputed period (from July 2022 to December 2023), the plaintiff retained the right to receive average earnings as a pedagogical worker.
– The Supreme Court also referred to its own established practice, in particular the ruling of November 27, 2024, which confirms a similar approach to protecting the rights of educators in similar legal relations.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new decision, by which it fully satisfied the claims of PERSON_1, recognizing…and an order to declare the termination of payments illegal and obliging the defendant to pay the average earnings for the specified period.

Case No. 577/3757/23 of 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis in a format understandable to you:

1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot by obliging neighbors to dismantle a fence and a gazebo, which were erected in violation of the boundaries of the adjacent land plot.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiffs are the legal owners of the land plot, the boundaries of which are clearly defined, formed, and entered into the State Land Cadastre.
* The key evidence of the violation of the plaintiffs’ rights was the conclusion of the forensic land-technical examination, which confirmed the fact of the fence and gazebo encroaching (overlapping) onto the territory of the plaintiffs’ plot.
* The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the fence was built with consent, as the defendants did not provide proper evidence of such consent, and the case materials indicate the opposite — the plaintiffs’ appeal to the conciliation commission due to the boundary violation.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of ownership is inviolable, and an owner has the legal right to demand the removal of any obstacles to the use of their property, even if these violations do not deprive them of the right of possession.
* The court recognized the demand for dismantling as proportionate and in compliance with the principle of a “fair balance,” as it is aimed at restoring the state of the land plot that existed prior to the violation of rights.
* The court also noted that the defendants did not provide alternative expert conclusions or evidence that would refute the results of the conducted examination; therefore, the assessment of evidence by the lower courts was recognized as correct.

3. **Court decision:**
The Supreme Court left the defendants’ cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was granted, remained unchanged.

Case No. 922/2891/25 of 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of an additional agreement to a contract for the organization of passenger transportation regarding the change of a route name and the exclusion of a bus station from it, as well as recognizing as illegal the actions of the carrier regarding the approval of the route passport without specifying the bus station as the place of departure/arrival.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that in accordance with the current legislation (in particular, the Law “On Automobile Transport” and the Rules for Providing Passenger Automobile Transport Services), the places of departure and arrival for suburban routes must be bus stations.
* The appellate court concluded that the exclusion of the bus station’s name from the passportof the route and the name of the route itself effectively creates a new route without holding a mandatory tender, which violates the rights of the plaintiff as the bus station owner.
* The Court emphasized that the schedule is an integral part of the route passport, and it must comply with legislative requirements that prioritize the bus station as a mandatory stop.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that this dispute is subject to review specifically under commercial legal proceedings, as the parties to the agreement are equal business entities, and the relations between them are of a civil (commercial) nature, rather than administrative.
* The cassation instance rejected the carrier’s arguments that changing the route name is a formality, as the actual change of the departure/arrival point without proper approval violates imperative norms of the law.
* The Court also noted that the plaintiff, as an interested party, has the right to challenge a transaction that directly affects their property interests and their ability to perform their functions as a bus station owner.

3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding references to the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with previous decisions of the Supreme Court due to the dissimilarity of legal relations, and in all other respects, upheld the resolution of the Eastern Commercial Appellate Court and the additional resolution on the recovery of legal assistance costs.

Case No. 520/23186/24 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a taxpayer (PSP “NOVE ZHYTTIA”) of tax notification-decisions, by which the controlling authority additionally assessed tax liabilities and penalties due to the alleged lack of underlying commercial substance of transactions, non-confirmation of expenses, and violation of tax invoice registration deadlines.

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court established that operations involving the transfer of assets during the reorganization (spin-off) of a legal entity are not supply-of-goods operations and, therefore, are not subject to VAT, as this constitutes a redistribution of assets rather than a civil law contract.
* Regarding the write-off of fodder, fertilizers, and fuel, the Court concluded that the primary documents provided by the taxpayer (invoices, write-off certificates, technological maps) are sufficient to confirm the reality of business operations, and the tax authorities’ arguments regarding their “lack of commercial substance” are based on assumptions.
* The Court confirmed the legitimacy of classifying income from the sale of fermentation products as income from the sale of own agricultural products, which allows the taxpayer to remain on the simplified taxation system (Group 4).
* Regarding the late registration of tax invoices, the Court applied a legal position according to which, from May 27, 2022 (after Law No. 2260-IX entered into force), the effect of the “COVID” moratorium on penalties ceased; therefore, the assessment of penalties for late registration after this date is legal.
* The Court also recognized the rightproportional to the accrual of penalties for the late payment of rent and real estate tax, since the fact of late payment was proven and not disputed by the taxpayer.
* The court in its decision directly refers to the legal positions of the Supreme Court (in particular, in cases No. 160/32652/24, No. 160/29715/23, No. 160/29144/24), emphasizing that reorganization by means of spin-off is not a civil law contract, and departs from previous approaches that could interpret such operations as a supply if they lack a reasonable economic purpose; however, it emphasizes that the tax authority must prove the fictitiousness of the spin-off through the court, and not through tax surcharges.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, having overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the refusal to cancel the tax notice-decision on VAT in the amount of UAH 91.5 million, and left unchanged the appellate court’s decision in the other part, where the lawfulness of penalties for late registration of tax invoices and payment of taxes was confirmed.

Case No. 924/1095/25 dated 06/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** FOP (Sole Proprietorship) Denysenko O. M. filed a lawsuit to invalidate and cancel the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, by which he was found guilty of committing anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of the results of public procurement and was fined.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court established that the AMC provided a sufficient set of evidence which, in their interconnection, indicates coordination of conduct between the bidders, which excludes a coincidence of circumstances.
* Key evidence included the use of a shared phone number, access to banking systems from a single IP address, the existence of business relations between the participants, and identical properties of electronic tender proposal files.
* The court critically evaluated the plaintiff’s arguments about a “technical error” when uploading documents, noting that the electronic procurement system requires personalized authorization, and no evidence of a technical failure (e.g., official conclusions from the system administrator) was provided.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that to qualify actions as anti-competitive, it is not necessary to have a written agreement on collusion — it is sufficient to prove the fact of concerted conduct that restricts competition.
* The court noted that the motives of the participants (whether they had a real goal to win) do not affect the qualification of the violation if their actions actually distorted the results of the bidding.
* The courts of previous instances duly examined the evidence in accordance with the requirements of Article 86 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, and the appellant’s arguments amount to an attempt to re-evaluate the established facts, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances — without cmin.

Case No. 907/1044/25 dated 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A participant of a limited liability company filed a lawsuit to compel the company to provide access to and copies of documents relating to its business and financial activities.

2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court proceeded from the fact that a participant’s right to receive information about the company’s activities is a fundamental corporate right, enshrined both in the Civil Code of Ukraine and in the special Law “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies.”
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the list of documents that a company is obliged to provide to a participant is not exhaustive, as the law provides for the duty to disclose any information relating to the company’s activities.
* The courts established the fact that the plaintiff had repeatedly submitted requests and that there was no response from the company, which indicates a violation of the participant’s corporate rights.
* At the same time, the court denied the request for access to the accounting database in view-only mode, as such a method is not provided for by law and may be considered an interference with the ongoing activities of the executive body.
* The court emphasized that to satisfy the claim, it is sufficient to confirm that the requested documents relate to business activities and fall under the category of documents that the company is obliged to retain.
* The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account previous practice, noting that the difference in decisions was due to different factual circumstances of the cases, and not an incorrect application of legal norms.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the lawsuit was partially satisfied (the defendant was obliged to provide copies of documents, but the request for access to the electronic database was denied).

Case No. 554/96/23 dated 06/23/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 554/96/23:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A consumer filed a lawsuit against a fitness club and related business entities to compel performance of the terms of a service agreement, removal of obstacles in accessing the club’s premises, and compensation for moral damages due to the unjustified termination of service.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that a service agreement had been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in a simplified manner (by payment), and since no evidence of the plaintiff’s violation of club rules was provided, the unilateral refusal to perform the contract is unlawful.
– The appellate court reasonably recognized the fact of the substitution of a party in the obligation, as Private Entrepreneur [Individual Name 3] publicly confirmed the provision of services to clients who had previously paid for them to Private Entrepreneur [Individual Name 2], which makes her the proper defendant.
– The court rejected the defendant’s argumentsrespondents regarding the absence of intent to substitute a party, noting that internal financial relations between entrepreneurs cannot limit the rights of a consumer who has duly fulfilled their payment obligation.
– Regarding Aurita-Poltava LLC, the court established that the company, as the owner of the premises and the party with whom the club rules are agreed upon, bears responsibility for obstructing access to the premises, as it failed to take measures to restore the consumer’s rights.
– The court emphasized that the right to compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage arises from the very fact of the violation of consumer rights, and the amount thereof is determined taking into account the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence fall within the competence of the courts of lower instances, and the cassation appeal actually amounts to an attempt to re-evaluate this evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the court of cassation.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, by which the consumer’s claims for compelling the performance of the contract, removal of obstacles, and recovery of compensation for non-pecuniary damage were satisfied.

Case No. 920/214/23(920/1185/25) dated 06/18/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:

1. The subject of the dispute in this part is the lawfulness of the refusal of the courts of lower instances to satisfy the claim for cancellation of the state registration of a vehicle in the name of the defendant within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the established practice of the Grand Chamber, according to which vindication (reclamation of property from another’s unlawful possession) is an independent and most effective way of protecting property rights. The Court emphasized that when a claim for reclamation of property is satisfied, there is no need to separately challenge intermediate transactions or registration actions, since the court decision on reclamation itself is a sufficient basis for making the relevant changes to state registers. The claim for cancellation of state registration in such a context was deemed ineffective, as it has no independent significance if the property is already subject to return to the owner. The Court noted that the satisfaction of a vindicatory claim automatically restores the rights of creditors and the owner, and therefore, additional claims for cancellation of registration are not subject to satisfaction. Thus, the courts of the first and appellate instances, albeit for different reasons, reached the correct conclusion regarding the absence of grounds for satisfying this specific claim.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances in the part concerning the refusal to cancel the state registration of the vehicle, finding such a method of protection ineffective.

Case No. 910/1509/24 dated 06/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your publication:

1. **Subj1. **Subject of the dispute:** The contractor attempted, through judicial proceedings, to amend the performance deadlines of a procurement contract and to cancel an operational-economic sanction, citing force majeure circumstances (hostilities, mobilization of employees, and air raid alerts).

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that since the contract was concluded while martial law was already in effect, the contractor should have been aware of the risks and objectively assessed its capabilities regarding adherence to the work schedule. The court critically evaluated the provided Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) certificates, noting that they do not constitute an automatic exemption from liability, but are merely one piece of evidence that must be supported by a causal link. Evidence regarding the mobilization of employees and air raid alerts was not deemed sufficient, as the plaintiff failed to prove that these circumstances made the performance of work under this specific contract impossible. Furthermore, the court emphasized that force majeure and a material change in circumstances (Article 652 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) are different legal categories, and in this case, there were no grounds for judicial interference in the terms of the contract. The court also indicated that the amendment of essential terms of a procurement contract through judicial proceedings is possible only in exceptional cases, which were not proven here.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claims of “Norma Plus” LLC.

[Case No. 920/1170/23(920/23/25) dated 06/18/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137648774)

Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court ruling. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the claim of JSC “Poltava-bank” to invalidate the results of the second repeat auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property (LLC “BAKS”) and to apply the consequences of restitution due to alleged violations of the auction procedure.

2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that for the results of an auction to be declared invalid, it is not enough to merely show formal violations; it is necessary to prove that these violations actually prevented the sale of the property at the highest price and violated the plaintiff’s rights.
* The court found the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the “lack of authority” of the creditors’ committee to be erroneous, since participation in voting is a right, not an obligation of the creditor, and the absence of one of them does not invalidate the results of a poll conducted in compliance with the procedure.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of granting consent for the sale of property is effectively covered by the approval of the terms of such a sale; therefore, demanding a separate “grant consent” clause is excessive formalism.
* Regarding the auction timeline, the court indicated that the 10-day period following the publication of the announcement is strictly established by Procedure No. 865; therefore, the appellate court’s reference to the “unjustified brevity” of the term is groundless.
* The court also noted that the plaintiff (the bank) was aware of the terms of the sale, had approved them, and did not provide evidence that it had a real intention to purchase the property under different terms.
* The Supreme Court noted that the appellate instancethe instance groundlessly applied a practice that concerned obsolete legislation (prior to the enactment of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures), which led to a misinterpretation of the current legal norms.

3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied the claim.

Case No. 588/1279/21 dated 06/18/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of qualifying the convicted person’s actions under the article on fraud (Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) instead of the article on abuse of influence (Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the completeness of the appellate court’s review of the parties’ arguments regarding entrapment and the admissibility of evidence.

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the case review, failing to provide exhaustive answers to the key arguments of the parties. Firstly, the court mistakenly agreed that, for qualification under Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is mandatory to identify the specific person being influenced, which contradicts the established practice of the Supreme Court. Secondly, the appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the signs of extortion, as the convicted person himself created the conditions under which the victim was compelled to provide funds. Thirdly, the court ignored serious statements by the defense regarding the possible falsification of evidence (in particular, the circumstances of a witness interrogation) and entrapment by law enforcement officials. It was also emphasized that the verdict lacked a clear articulation of the method of committing fraud, which constitutes a significant violation of procedural law. The Court stressed that the appellate instance was obliged to verify these arguments rather than limiting itself to a formal reference to the findings of the local court.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.

Case No. 607/1286/21 dated 06/11/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Reclassification of the defendants’ actions from extortion (Art. 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to coercion to perform civil law obligations (Art. 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and challenging the imposed sentence.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the key difference between extortion and coercion is the focus of intent: in extortion, a person has a mercenary motive for illegal enrichment, whereas in coercion, there is an intention to achieve the fulfillment of a real or perceived obligation.
– Based on materials from covert investigative actions and testimony, the appellate court established that the defendants did not act for the purpose of personal enrichment, but due to the belief that the victim owed a debt to the enterprise.
– The existence of a real shortage of tangible assets at the enterprise was confirmed by an audit report andwitness testimonies, which refutes the version regarding the fictitious nature of the debt.
– The Court emphasized that for the purposes of qualification under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is immaterial whether the victim actually committed an offense that led to the debt; the defining factor is the defendants’ subjective perception of their actions as a lawful recovery of funds.
– Regarding the amount of damage, the Court upheld the qualification under the “large scale” criterion, as it is determined by the amount demanded by the perpetrators, regardless of whether these funds were the victim’s personal money or provided by law enforcement officers to document the crime.
– When sentencing, the Court took into account the positive character references of the defendants, the absence of prior convictions, and their admission of the factual circumstances of the case, which provided grounds for the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving a sentence with probation).

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, finding the reclassification of the defendants’ actions and the sentence imposed on them to be lawful.

Case No. 466/4414/15-k of 06/11/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation review of the appellate court ruling regarding the legality of the judgment in terms of the qualification of crimes, sentencing, and the resolution of civil claims in criminal proceedings concerning kidnapping and robbery.

2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court pointed to the inadmissibility of a situation where the appellate court ignores the prosecutor’s appellate complaint without providing any assessment of its arguments, which constitutes a gross violation of procedural guarantees.
– The Court emphasized that after the cancellation of a previous decision by the cassation instance, the appellate court is obliged to consider all submitted appellate complaints on the merits, rather than evading this under the pretext that the prosecutor supposedly “agreed” with the judgment.
– Separately, the Supreme Court criticized the appellate decision to refer a civil claim to civil proceedings, since the amount of damage directly affects the qualification of robbery (especially large amounts), which is the exclusive competence of the criminal court.
– Regarding the secrecy of the deliberation room, the Court reaffirmed its position that the participation of judges in other cases during deliberation constitutes a violation only when it reasonably calls into question their impartiality, which the defense failed to prove in this case.
– It was also clarified that the current Criminal Procedure Code does not require the mandatory presence of a lawyer in the courtroom to record the defendant’s waiver of such counsel, provided the procedure was duly followed.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which prevented the adoption of a lawful decision.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new consideration in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 718/263/25 dated 16/06/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:

1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of the correct legal qualification of the defendants’ actions: whether their actions constitute a completed crime of illegal transportation of persons across the state border (Part 3 of Art. 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) or, as the defense insisted, an attempted fraud (Part 2 of Art. 15, Part 3 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. The court of cassation upheld the position of the appellate court, noting that to prove intent under Art. 332 of the Criminal Code, it is not necessary to have a detailed plan for crossing the border, as such activity is by its nature highly conspiratorial. The Court established that the defendants did not act chaotically, but coordinated their actions with other participants in the scheme, which is confirmed by data from covert investigative (search) actions and the testimony of the driver witness. In particular, the fact of “booking” a spot for illegal crossing and coordinating a specific time and route was proven, which refutes the defense’s version regarding the intent to merely misappropriate money. The Court emphasized that the defendants did not simply simulate a service but performed real organizational actions aimed at moving the person to the border. The absence of information in the case files regarding the exact methods of crossing the border does not disprove the existence of intent, as the defendants acted within a criminal chain. Thus, the cassation arguments of the defense regarding incorrect qualification were recognized as groundless, and the judgment of the appellate court as lawful.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Chernivtsithe appellate court unchanged, and the defense attorneys’ cassation appeals dismissed.

Case No. 908/3082/21 of 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of a cassation appeal regarding the legality of recognizing a court order as non-enforceable due to the liquidator’s actual performance of the obligation to transfer claims and relevant documentation to the buyer following an auction within bankruptcy proceedings.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the liquidator had taken all necessary actions to execute the previous court decision, specifically, signed the certificate of acquisition of property at the auction and transferred the available package of documents to the buyer.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the binding nature of a court decision does not mean it must be executed indefinitely if the debtor (liquidator) has already fulfilled its obligation in full.
– The court noted that the absence of specific wording in the text of the certificate, as insisted upon by the appellant, is not a ground for failing to recognize the fact of performance, as the essence of the transaction was clear and realized.
– The appellant, by participating in the auction, agreed to the terms of the lot and the list of documentation; therefore, his subsequent demands for the receipt of additional documents, the existence of which was not proven, were deemed groundless by the court.
– The court emphasized that the state enforcement officer lawfully terminated the enforcement proceedings, as at the time of the adoption of the relevant resolution, the court decision had been effectively executed.
– The Supreme Court indicated that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellant’s arguments amount to an attempt to review the factual circumstances of the case established by lower courts.
– Given that the liquidator signed the certificate in the wording proposed by the appellant himself, any claims regarding a violation of the property registration procedure were rejected as unfounded.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the challenged court decisions of the lower instances unchanged.

Case No. 908/1802/25 of 06/24/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:

**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of appellate proceedings regarding an appeal by the tax authority against a court of first instance ruling on the approval of the liquidator’s report and the liquidation of the debtor in bankruptcy proceedings.

**2. Main arguments of the court**
The Supreme Court emphasized that although the tax authority did not have the status of a participant in the case at the time of the decision on liquidation, this does not deprive it of the right to appeal if the court decision directly affects its rights and interests. The court stressed that the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings is a legal basis for conducting a tax audit, the results of which are necessary for the formation of justified monetaryof new claims against the debtor. The appellate court erroneously ignored the arguments of the tax authorities that the liquidator and the court of first instance hindered the conduct of such an audit by ignoring requests for the provision of documents. The Supreme Court noted that without examining the circumstances of the impossibility of conducting the audit, the conclusion that the rights of the tax authority were not violated is premature. Thus, the appellate court was required to provide a legal assessment of the appellant’s arguments regarding the limitation of its ability to exercise its right to formulate creditor claims. : The Court departed from its previous position, confirming the right of the controlling authority to appeal a liquidation ruling even in the absence of the status of a participant in the case, if such a ruling hinders the performance of its functions.

**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of the proceedings, and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for further consideration on the merits.

Case No. 910/10256/25 dated 06/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of an application for an additional decision regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the court of cassation instance.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the defendant complied with procedural deadlines and requirements regarding the submission of evidence of legal expenses as provided for by Articles 124, 126, and 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that although the parties are free to determine the amount of the fee, the court is not obliged to automatically reimburse the full amount if it is disproportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed.
– The court critically evaluated the detailed description of the work, noting that individual services (meetings with the client, technical uploading of documents to the “Electronic Court” system) are effectively absorbed by the primary service of preparing a statement of defense.
– It was taken into account that the defendant’s legal position remained unchanged throughout all instances, and the response to the cassation appeal largely duplicated previous procedural documents, which indicates an overstatement of the cost of services.
– The court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to request evidence of actual payment of the fee, confirming established practice that for the allocation of expenses, it is sufficient to have evidence that the party “is liable to pay” these funds.
– Consequently, guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court found expenses justified only in the amount of UAH 13,000 instead of the claimed UAH 32,662.40.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the application in part, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant UAH 13,000 for professional legal assistance.

Case No. 910/9916/24 dated 06/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 910/9916/24:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the developer in favor of