Case No. 179/1099/23 of 06/24/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of court costs, namely the recovery of the court fee and expert examination expenses from the Prosecutor’s Office in favor of the defendant following the Supreme Court’s decision on the merits of the case.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly regulate the procedure for the reimbursement of court costs. The Supreme Court noted that since it had amended the decision of the lower instance in favor of the defendant, the latter is entitled to reimbursement of the paid court fee. At the same time, regarding the expert examination expenses, the Court applied a strict procedural approach provided for by Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that evidence of incurring such expenses must be submitted within five days after the rendering of the main decision, and failure to meet this deadline without valid reasons constitutes grounds for leaving the application without consideration. Since the defendant’s representative filed the application for the recovery of expert examination expenses after the expiration of this five-day period and did not request its extension, the Court denied this part of the claims. Thus, the Court demonstrated the priority of adhering to procedural deadlines over the actual right to reimbursement of costs if the procedure for their confirmation was violated.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, recovering only the amount of the paid court fee from the Prosecutor’s Office, and left the application without consideration regarding the recovery of the expert examination expenses.
Case No. 751/5281/24 of 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A dispute between natural persons regarding the recovery of funds paid under a contract for the sale and purchase of a share in the authorized capital of a limited liability company.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court focused on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., whether general civil courts have the authority to hear such disputes. The Court emphasized that the key criterion for distinguishing jurisdiction is the nature of the legal relations, not merely the composition of the parties. Since the dispute concerns a transaction involving corporate rights (a share in the authorized capital), it is by its nature subject to commercial jurisdiction as defined by Article 20 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The courts of previous instances erroneously heard the case under civil procedure, failing to take into account the special competence of commercial courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction is an unconditional ground for overturning decisions. Therefore, the hearing of the case in a civil court was unlawful, which requires the termination of the proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and terminated the proceedings in the case, clarifying to the plaintiff the right to applyTo the Commercial Court.
Case No. 359/13270/24 dated 06/26/2026
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 legality of closing the proceedings in the case regarding a portion of the claims and the exclusion of one of the defendants (LLC “7-Bud”) in connection with the plaintiff’s (OSBB/Condominium Association) voluntary waiver of part of its claims.
2. The court was guided by a fundamental principle of civil procedure — dispositivity, which grants the plaintiff the right to independently dispose of their claims at any stage of the process. The Supreme Court emphasized that the waiver of a claim is a free expression of the plaintiff’s will, provided that the court has explained the consequences of such an action and verified the absence of violations of other persons’ rights. Since the plaintiff decided to waive its claims against LLC “7-Bud,” the court had no grounds to compel it to continue the dispute with this defendant. The appellant’s arguments that the exclusion of the defendant would make it impossible to hear the case were rejected, as it is the plaintiff who determines the range of defendants. The court noted that the issues of the appropriateness of a defendant and the feasibility of enforcing a decision are assessed during the merits hearing of the case, not at the stage of exercising disposal of claims. Thus, the lower courts acted within the scope of their powers, adhering to procedural norms.
3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, finding them lawful and well-founded.
Case No. 917/920/25 dated 06/24/2026
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:** Recovery from a municipal enterprise of debt for consumed natural gas supplied by the “supplier of last resort,” and the lawfulness of the courts’ reduction of the penalty amount by 80%.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the reduction of a penalty is a discretionary right of the court, which is exercised based on internal conviction and an assessment of the circumstances of each case. The lower courts reasonably took into account exceptional circumstances: the defendant’s performance of socially important functions of heat supply to the population, the difficult situation regarding the transfer to it of destroyed property from another enterprise, and significant accounts receivable from consumers. The court emphasized that under conditions of martial law and tariff regulation, the full collection of the penalty could lead to negative consequences for public interests. It was also stressed that current judicial practice already contains conclusions regarding the application of Article 551 of the Civil Code and Article 233 of the Commercial Code, therefore the individual assessment of evidence by the courts in this case is entirely lawful. The Supreme Court found no grounds to consider that the courts violated the balance of interests of the parties or used inadmissible evidence. Ultimately, the court noted that the reductionand penalty does not release the debtor from liability, but merely brings it to a reasonable amount, which corresponds to the principles of justice and good faith.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part concerning the reference to the absence of a conclusion on the application of legal norms and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the legitimacy of the penalty reduction.
Case No. 914/1251/25 dated 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The tax authority filed a lawsuit to invalidate an act of acceptance and transfer of inventory items between two companies, claiming that this transaction was sham and aimed at tax evasion.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts approached the case too formally, limiting themselves only to verifying the existence of primary documents without investigating the reality of the business operation. The Court emphasized that the existence of paper documents is not automatic proof of actual asset movement, especially when the transaction is concluded between related parties controlled by the same manager. The Court also critically assessed the conclusion regarding the “ineffectiveness” of the method of protection (the absence of a restitution claim), noting that it is first necessary to establish whether the transaction was aimed at real legal consequences at all. The courts did not investigate the economic substance of the operation, in particular, whether it was possible to use products with a limited shelf life that were transferred under the act. Thus, the decision was overturned due to incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case and improper assessment of evidence that could have confirmed or refuted the tax evasion scheme.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax authority, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Lviv Region.
Case No. 367/9713/21 dated 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (a state institution) attempted through the court to evict the defendants from an apartment it owns and to dismantle a fence on the adjacent territory, claiming their move-in was illegal.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Court established that the plaintiff did not prove the status of the apartment as official housing; therefore, the legal relations are governed by the norms of the Civil Code, not by housing legislation regarding official premises.
* The defendants moved into the dwelling on the basis of documents issued by the owner itself (the plaintiff) back in 2009, and since that time, they have been openly living in the apartment for a long period, paying utilityservices.
* The Court emphasized that since the plaintiff himself granted permission for the moving in, and the occupancy permits (orders) were not invalidated through judicial proceedings, the claim of “arbitrary seizure” of the housing is groundless.
* Regarding the request for the dismantling of the fence, the Court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide any proper evidence that the defendants were the ones who installed this fence and that it objectively prevents him from using the property.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, as this is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, which have already provided a proper assessment of the circumstances of the case.
* It was also noted that eviction of persons without the provision of other housing must be a proportionate interference with the right to respect for one’s home, which the plaintiff in this case failed to justify.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the plaintiff was denied satisfaction of the claims for the eviction of the defendants and the dismantling of the fence.
Case No. 596/1694/23 of 03/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of real estate donation agreements concluded between a debtor and a third party as fraudulent (those committed to the detriment of a creditor), and the cancellation of the corresponding registration actions.
**2. Arguments of the court:**
* The Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated February 4, 2026, departed from previous conclusions and confirmed that a creditor has the right to challenge the debtor’s fraudulent transactions based on the general principles of good faith (Art. 3 of the Civil Code) and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Art. 13 of the Civil Code).
* The Court established that the debtor concluded the property donation agreements during a period when he already had outstanding monetary obligations to the plaintiff and when the latter had already filed a lawsuit for the collection of the debt.
* The gratuitous nature of the donation agreements in favor of an acquaintance, in the absence of other property of the debtor to repay the debt, indicates a conscious evasion of the execution of a court decision.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that for a transaction to be classified as fraudulent, the existence of property seizures is not necessary; the main factor is the bad-faith purpose of the participants — the withdrawal of assets from collection.
* At the same time, the Court noted that the plaintiff did not make a claim for the return of property (restitution); therefore, the appellate court, by obliging the defendant to return the property, went beyond the scope of the claims, violating the principle of dispositivity.
* Regarding legal costs, the Court supported the right of the appellate instance to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees if they are disproportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided, even if the agreement provided for a higher amount.
**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part regarding the obligation to return the property; in the rest of the papart (regarding the invalidation of agreements and the allocation of legal assistance costs) — left the decision unchanged.
Case No. 479/684/23 dated 06/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Vindication of a land plot from another’s illegal possession and cancellation of the entry on the state registration of the lease right concluded between other persons.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that at the time of concluding the new lease agreement with FH “Magnat 2021”, the previous lease agreement with the plaintiff (LLC “Agrofirma Kornatskykh”) had already been effectively terminated, and its state registration had been cancelled by a court decision that had entered into legal force.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of lease arises from the moment of its state registration, and since the registration of the plaintiff’s right was cancelled, they lost the legal grounds for using the plot.
– The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that recognizing a lease right as “absent” is the only effective method of protection, citing the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which allows for different methods of protection depending on the circumstances of the case.
– It was emphasized that the conclusion of a new lease agreement by the owner after the cancellation of the registration of the previous lease right does not violate the rights of the previous lessee, as their right to use had already been terminated by that time.
– The court noted that the reassessment of evidence referred to by the plaintiff is beyond the powers of the cassation instance, and the appellate court had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case.
– The Supreme Court in this case referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2026 (case No. 456/252/22), which details the application of a negatory claim and methods of protecting the rights of an owner of real estate regarding which an entry about another person’s right of use was illegally made.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Agrofirma Kornatskykh” unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 757/7027/19-k dated 06/29/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the first-instance court’s verdict regarding the acquittal of a person accused of abuse of power or official position, which caused grave consequences (Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The appellate court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that the first-instance court made errors in the legal assessment of the collected evidence and the factual circumstances of the case. The panel of judges established that the actions of the accused, PERSON_8, indeed contain all the mandatory elements of the crime provided for by Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, the presence of intent to use official position contrary to the interests of the service. The court emphasized that the evidence collected by the prosecution is relevant, admissible, and, in aggregate, sufficient to prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.reasonable doubt. The appellate court critically assessed the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the absence of the elements of a criminal offense, pointing to the misapplication of the norms of criminal law. As a result, it was determined that the official’s actions caused significant harm to state interests protected by law, which necessitates the application of criminal law measures. Thus, the court of appellate instance independently re-evaluated the evidence and corrected the error made by rendering a guilty verdict.
3. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court overturned the acquittal of the court of first instance and rendered a new judgment, finding PERSON_8 guilty of committing the crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment with additional restrictions.
Case No. 907/1038/25 dated 24/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. 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 duly certified copies of a wide range of documents regarding its business activities.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the premise that a participant’s right to receive information about the company’s activities is a fundamental corporate right necessary for effective management and control.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the list of documents defined in Article 43 of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” is not exhaustive, as business activity requires flexible regulation.
* The court applied the principle of “broad interpretation” of the right to information, according to which a participant has the right to review any documents relating to the company’s activities, provided they are not classified as trade secrets or confidential information.
* Regarding personal data, the court noted that their presence in documents is not grounds for refusing to provide information, as the company can take measures to anonymize them (masking full names or passport data) while maintaining the essence of the information.
* The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the participant could obtain part of the information from public registers, since the right to receive documents directly from the company is a separate corporate right.
* Ultimately, the court indicated that the absence of a direct obligation in the statute or law to store certain specific documents does not deprive the participant of the right to access them, provided such documents exist and relate to the company’s activities.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the participant’s right to receive the requested documents.
Case No. 902/521/24 dated 24/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience[Message omitted], I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the thermal energy supplier (Bioalternativa LLC) of over UAH 2 million as unjustifiably retained funds, which, in the plaintiff’s view, arose due to the defendant’s refusal to revise tariffs downward in accordance with fluctuations in weighted average tariffs.
**2. Court’s Arguments**
The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of lower instances, during the retrial of the case, failed to follow the instructions of the cassation instance provided in the previous ruling. Specifically, the courts did not examine or provide a proper legal assessment of the defendant’s actions regarding its refusal to revise thermal energy tariffs in instances where weighted average tariffs had decreased. The Court emphasized that the principle of good faith in civil relations requires parties to act honestly and respect the interests of the other party, especially in budgetary legal relations. The courts of first and appellate instances limited themselves solely to stating the right of a business entity to appeal to local self-government bodies, but failed to analyze whether such inaction by the defendant constituted an abuse of rights. It was also pointed out that there were violations of standards of proof, as the courts did not provide a reasoned assessment of all arguments of the parties regarding the presence or absence of grounds for the recovery of funds under Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. As a result, due to the incomplete clarification of circumstances and the ignoring of mandatory instructions from the cassation instance, the previous decisions were deemed unfounded.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region.
[Case No. 916/2658/25 of 06/24/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/137764263)
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:** Declaring unlawful and canceling the order of the Chairman of the Board of an Association of Co-owners of a Multiapartment Building (OSBB) regarding their own re-appointment to a position on a part-time basis, issued without a decision of the general meeting of co-owners.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the termination of the powers of the Chairman of the Board of an OSBB is a corporate, not a labor, issue; therefore, it is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law “On OSBB,” and the Statute, rather than solely by the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that the Chairman of the Board does not have the authority to unilaterally decide on their own appointment or dismissal, as this is the exclusive competence of the general meeting or the board. The appellate court erroneously believed that the order did not create legal consequences, whereas changing the working conditions and status of the Chairman without the consent of the co-owners directly violates the corporate rights of the OSBB members. The Court noted that such actions by the Chairman of the Board exceed the powers granted to her, as she effectively arbitrarily changed the terms of her tenure.I am in the position. Thus, the absence of a general meeting resolution renders such an order illegal, and the violation of the plaintiff’s corporate rights constitutes sufficient grounds to satisfy the claim.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the order of the head of the Condominium board (OSBB) was declared unlawful and revoked.
Case No. 916/726/25 dated 06/17/2026
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 subject of the dispute is the claim of the Odesa City Council regarding the vacation of a communal land plot by means of demolishing a real estate object (a fishing lodge), which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, constitutes unauthorized construction.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the land plot was transferred to a third party (a non-governmental organization) exclusively for the construction of a water-motor pier and landscaping, and not for the erection of capital residential or commercial structures.
* The defendant failed to provide any evidence of obtaining construction or reconstruction permits for the disputed object, which is a mandatory condition for legal construction.
* The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the object was built before August 5, 1992, as the case files do not contain proper evidence confirming such a construction date.
* It was confirmed that the defendant uses the property for commercial activity (an apart-hotel), which confirms the commercial nature of the dispute and the appropriateness of the case being heard by a commercial court.
* The court emphasized that since the owner of the land plot (the city council) did not grant consent for the construction, and permits are absent, the object falls under the definition of unauthorized construction pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the absence of legal grounds for preserving the object are lawful and well-founded.
3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the commercial appellate court, ordering the defendant to vacate the land plot by demolishing the object of unauthorized construction.
Case No. 916/662/25 dated 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a specialist 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 foreclosure on a mortgaged object (an apartment), which passed into the ownership of the territorial community as escheated inheritance following the debtor’s death.
2. The court concluded that the bank missed the three-year statute of limitations, as the right to foreclose on the mortgaged object arose during the borrower’s lifetime after the bank exercised its right to early loan repayment. The court emphasized that the substitution of a party in an obligation (transfer of property to the community) does notalters the procedure for calculating the limitation period that commenced earlier. A claim for foreclosure on mortgaged property is ancillary to the principal obligation; therefore, it is subject to the general rules of the limitation period, including the consequences of its expiry. The bank’s arguments regarding the suspension of time limits due to quarantine restrictions or martial law were rejected, as the bank failed to prove the existence of objective obstacles to filing a lawsuit within the time established by law. The court also emphasized that the legal position cited by the bank concerned different legal relations, and therefore there are no grounds for departing from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim and left the bank’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 297/862/24 dated 06/10/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of paternity regarding a minor child and the entry of corresponding amendments to the child’s birth record.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts took a formalistic approach by focusing exclusively on the fact that a valid adoption decision by other persons existed, while ignoring the need for a comprehensive analysis of the case.
– The Court stressed that the right to establish one’s biological origin is a component of the right to respect for private life; therefore, courts are obliged to verify whether state authorities have taken appropriate measures to preserve the child’s family ties with their presumed biological father.
– The Supreme Court paid particular attention to the fact that the defendants avoided participating in the court-ordered genetic examination, which is key evidence in such cases; however, the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of this fact nor apply the procedural consequences provided for in Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
– The Court noted that the plaintiff’s untimely filing of the lawsuit is not an unconditional ground for refusing to establish paternity if actual family relations existed between the person and the child.
– The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of clarifying whether the guardianship and care authorities had taken all reasonable measures to assist the plaintiff in formalizing a legal bond with the child, considering that the guardianship authority was aware of his intentions.
– Ultimately, the Court concluded that to ensure the best interests of the child and adhere to the principle of proportionality, the courts should have conducted an in-depth examination of all circumstances rather than limiting themselves to the formal status of adoption.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside 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. P/800/605/13dated 25/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of an application for review based on exceptional circumstances of a judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, which had previously resolved the issue concerning the legality of a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
2. In rendering this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was guided by the need to ensure effective access to justice and to rectify errors identified due to the emergence of exceptional circumstances in the case. The Court analyzed compliance with the procedural norms governing the procedure for reviewing judicial decisions that have entered into legal force, in light of current practice and the requirements of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine. Given the specifics of the case, which concerns the challenging of acts of Parliament, the Court concluded that the previous decision requires reassessment within the framework of a new proceeding. This will allow for the elimination of legal uncertainty that arose as a result of applying outdated procedural approaches to the assessment of the powers of public authorities. Thus, the Court recognized that, in order to establish the truth in the case, it is necessary to involve the Administrative Cassation Court as the proper instance for a re-examination on the merits.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the application, set aside the judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, and remanded the case for a new proceeding to the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.
Case No. 990/109/23 dated 23/06/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is a challenge by a citizen against decrees of the President of Ukraine regarding the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) in the part concerning the plaintiff.
2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the powers of the President of Ukraine to enact decisions of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine on the application of sanctions are discretionary and aimed at ensuring the national security of the State. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the limits of judicial review over acts of individual action by the Head of State, emphasizing that the court cannot substitute itself for the authority in matters of assessing threats to national interests. At the same time, the Court drew attention to the need for compliance with procedural requirements when adopting such decisions and for the justification of restrictions on an individual’s rights. In this case, the Court concluded that the decision of the court of first instance is correct on the merits, but requires clarification of the reasoning part for a clearer distinction of the grounds for dismissing the claims. Thus, the Court adjusted the legal reasoning without changing the final outcome of the dispute resolution.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance and leaving its operative part unchanged.
Case No. 947/31089/23 dated 03/06/2026As I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of funds paid under contracts for the sale of property rights to real estate, following their unilateral termination due to the buyer’s failure to fulfill payment obligations.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the premise that a contract is a universal regulator of relations, and the parties had the right to determine the monetary equivalent of an obligation in a foreign currency, which is directly provided for by Articles 524 and 533 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– Since the value of the property rights in the contracts was fixed in US dollars, and periodic payments were calculated pegged to the exchange rate, the court recognized the legitimacy of refunding the money specifically in the US dollar equivalent, rather than in the nominal hryvnia amount received at the time of the payments.
– The court emphasized that Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (restitution of property acquired without sufficient legal basis) applies to claims for the return of what was performed under a terminated contract, and in such cases, the currency clause retains its validity to protect the parties from the depreciation of funds.
– Regarding the penalty, the court agreed with the appellate instance that the 20% fine must be calculated based on the full value of the property rights defined by the contract, and not on the amount of funds actually paid by the buyer.
– The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the need to depart from previous legal positions, noting that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of law, and the appellant is effectively attempting to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
– The court also took into account that the defendant did not provide objections regarding the amount of legal aid expenses, therefore these costs were imposed on the defendant in full.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying the developer’s cassation appeal and the motion to transfer the case for consideration by the Grand Chamber.
**Case No. 910/14299/25 dated 26/06/2026**
The subject of this dispute is the recovery from the debtor of inflation-related losses and 3% per annum, accrued for the period of delay in executing a court decision already rendered regarding the recovery of the principal debt.
The Supreme Court in this case confirmed the established practice regarding the application of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the existence of a court decision on the recovery of the principal debt in no way releases the debtor from liability for the untimely performance of an obligation. Inflation-related losses and 3% per annum are a compensatory mechanism that protects the creditor’s property interests from the depreciation of money and the loss of profit due to the debtor’s use of another’s funds. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the accruals cannot be made on amounts already determined by the court, as such accruals are accessory (additional) to the principal monetary obligation. The panel of judges also noted that the references inof the defendant regarding the previous practice of the Supreme Court are groundless, as the decisions cited by him concerned different factual circumstances. In summary, the court concluded that the appellate instance correctly applied the norms of law, having provided an exhaustive assessment of all evidence in the case.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 915/1621/24 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 for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery by a contractor from a municipal enterprise of debt for performed construction works and compensation for damages for unused materials after the customer’s unilateral withdrawal from the contract.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the customer rightfully refused to sign the certificate of work performed, as the contractor failed to provide proper evidence of the actual completion of the declared scope of work.
– A key factor was the absence of a properly maintained general construction journal and the lack of signatures from the technical supervision engineer on the certificates of concealed works, which is critical for construction contracts.
– The court critically assessed the expert’s report submitted by the plaintiff, noting that the expertise was conducted without summoning the customer and without inspection of the concealed works, which deprived the defendant of the opportunity to protect its interests.
– Regarding the claim for compensation for damages for materials, the court pointed out that since the materials were in storage and were not used in construction, they are not subject to payment as performed work.
– The court emphasized that the customer timely and reasonably notified the contractor about the refusal to accept the work, providing specific comments which the contractor did not refute.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the customer had the right to unilaterally reduce the scope of work, and the contractor failed to prove the fact of work performance in the declared scope; therefore, there are no grounds for the recovery of funds.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged, refusing to satisfy the contractor’s claims.
Case No. 543/367/23 dated 06/19/2026
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 Poltava Regional Military Administration filed a lawsuit against the owner of a land plot, requesting the obligation to return it to state ownership, as the plot, according to the plaintiff, is located within the boundaries of an archaeological monument of local significance “Horodyshche ‘Krucha'”.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The court emphasized that lands of historical and cultural purpose, on which archaeological monuments are located, cannot by law be in private ownership, and their occupation constitutes a violation of the owner’s rightof the state, which is not related to dispossession (negatory action).
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of developed scientific and design documentation or the failure to include the boundaries of a monument in the State Land Cadastre does not deprive the object of its status as a monument and does not cancel the restrictions on the use of such lands established by law.
– The courts of lower instances made a mistake by taking a formal approach to the evaluation of evidence and failing to take into account the registration documents, plans, and certificates available in the case files, which indicate the location of the plot within the monument.
– The Court noted that the good faith of an acquirer is not grounds for refusing to protect the state’s right of ownership if the object, by its nature, is of limited alienability or withdrawn from civil circulation.
– It was also pointed out that it is necessary to maintain a balance of interests: in the event of the return of the plot to the state, the person is not deprived of the right to claim damages from the seller of the property.
– The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not provide a proper assessment of all evidence in its entirety, in particular, letters from specialized institutions and inspection reports, which led to premature conclusions about the lack of overlapping boundaries between the plot and the monument.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside 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. 296/6695/23 dated 09/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is a grandmother’s complaint regarding the inaction of a state enforcement officer and the failure of parents to comply with a court decision regarding the arrangement of visitation with their minor granddaughter.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the execution of decisions regarding visitation with a child has its own specifics, where the main priority is the psychological state of the child, and not just the formal appearance of the parties. It was established that the parents are not evading compliance with the decision, as they regularly bring the child to meetings, and the lack of contact between the grandmother and the granddaughter is not evidence of sabotage on the part of the parents. The court emphasized that the child’s unwillingness to communicate cannot be a basis for coercion, as this creates psychological pressure on the child. The court also noted that the issue of holding parents accountable or interfering with their duties goes beyond the scope of judicial control over the actions of the enforcement officer. Regarding new evidence, the court indicated that it cannot be accepted, as it either does not relate to the circumstances at the time the decision was made or the validity of the reasons for its earlier non-submission was not proven. Finally, the participation of a representative whose right to practice law has been suspended did not affect the legality of the decision, as the court of first instance did not actually take his position into account when making the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
CaseNo. 211/4059/24 dated 10/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of closing proceedings in a case regarding the deprivation of parental rights due to the alleged existence of an identical court decision that has already entered into legal force.
2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the lower courts had erroneously applied procedural law norms by taking a formalistic approach to the issue of identity of claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that disputes regarding the deprivation of parental rights concern ongoing family legal relations, where parental conduct is evaluated over a specific period of time. Since the plaintiff substantiated the new claims with facts that arose after the adoption of the previous court decision (specifically, new alimony arrears and the lack of participation in raising the child in a later period), these circumstances could not have been the subject of previous consideration. The Court emphasized that for the application of Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a full identity of parties, subject matter, and grounds is required, which was not the case here. Consequently, the closure of the proceedings deprived the plaintiff of the right to judicial protection of the child’s interests, which is unacceptable.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 911/643/19 dated 23/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the court to invalidate orders of the State Geocadastre and, on the basis thereof, lease and sublease agreements for land plots transferred to a citizen for operating a farm without conducting land auctions.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court established that although the transfer of land plots via a simplified procedure without auctions was indeed in conflict with land legislation norms, this is not the sole decisive factor for granting the lawsuit.
* A key argument was the prosecutor’s selection of an ineffective method of protecting the state’s rights, as a claim for invalidating orders that had already exhausted their effect through execution (the conclusion of contracts) does not lead to an actual restoration of rights.
* Regarding the claims to invalidate the lease and sublease agreements, the court noted that such claims are ineffective if they are not combined with a claim for applying the consequences of the invalidity of a transaction, for example, for the return of the land plots.
* The Court emphasized that invalidating a contract merely to create prejudice or evidence for other cases is contrary to the objectives of commercial litigation.
* Since the prosecutor did not file claims aimed at the direct return of property to the state, the method of protection chosen does not ensure the effective restoration of violated rights.
* The plaintiff’s selection of an ineffective method of protection is an independent and sufficient ground for…sufficient grounds for dismissal of the claim, regardless of whether the law was violated during the transfer of the land.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances provided a comprehensive answer to all essential questions, and the prosecutor’s arguments do not refute the conclusions regarding the ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the prosecutor’s claims were dismissed.
Case No. 178/3386/23 dated 04/29/2026
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:** Recognition of a land plot sale and purchase agreement as valid and recognition of ownership thereof through judicial proceedings due to the impossibility of notarizing the transaction.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that private law instruments (a claim to recognize an agreement as valid) cannot be used by the parties to avoid public duties or to create prejudicial decisions for other cases.
– The Court stressed that the appellate court should have verified whether the buyer’s appeal to the court was an attempt to avoid the confiscation of the land plot, which had already been the subject of another legal proceeding initiated by the prosecutor.
– The appellate court failed to properly assess whether the decision of the court of first instance concerns the rights and interests of the state, which is a mandatory condition for appellate appeal by a person who did not participate in the case.
– The Supreme Court noted that only in the event of establishing the fact of abuse of rights (using the court to circumvent the law) may the appellate court recognize the state’s right to appeal the decision.
– If such abuse is proven, the appellate court has the right to dismiss the claim precisely due to the improper composition of the participants in the case, rather than solely due to the lack of evidence regarding the impossibility of notarization.
– Since the appellate court did not examine these circumstances and did not properly justify the grounds for reviewing the decision, its resolution is premature and subject to cancellation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court canceled the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 524/13764/24 dated 06/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of joint common property of spouses (a vehicle and non-residential premises) acquired during the marriage.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the presumption of community property of spouses, established by Articles 60 and 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine, according to which property acquired during marriage belongs to both spouses in equal shares, regardless of whose name it is registered in.
– Regarding the vehicle, the court recognized it as an indivisible item; therefore, it rightfully left it ininto the wife’s ownership, obliging her to pay the husband monetary compensation for the value of his share, determined on the basis of an expert assessment.
– Regarding the non-residential premises, the court refused to allocate them in kind to only one of the spouses, since the other party objected to receiving compensation, and the defendant did not deposit the funds into the court’s deposit account, which is a mandatory condition for the termination of the ownership right of the other spouse.
– The court rejected the arguments that the premises are “professional equipment,” noting that the use of real estate for business does not deprive it of its status as joint property and does not grant a preferential right to sole ownership without proper compensation.
– Regarding procedural violations, the court established that the representatives of the parties did not prove the validity of the reasons for their failure to appear in the appellate instance, and the reference to an air raid alert was not supported by evidence of the impossibility of participating in the hearing.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been duly examined by the courts of lower instances.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal — unsatisfied.
Case No. 364/404/25 dated 06/24/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of land plots from another person’s unlawful possession (vindicatory claim) and counterclaims for the invalidation of decisions of the local self-government body and state acts on land ownership rights.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court established that the land plot had left the possession of the original owner (the plaintiff) against her will, as she had not concluded any agreements regarding the division or alienation of her land.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the formation of new land plots through the division of a previously formed plot does not deprive the owner of the right to protect their property.
* The court emphasized that a vindicatory claim is an appropriate method of protection, and it is not necessary to separately challenge each intermediate transaction or registry entry to satisfy it, provided the property left possession against the owner’s will.
* Regarding the counterclaim, the court noted that the defendant did not prove the violation of his rights, as he was not a participant in the legal relations at the time the plaintiff’s ownership right arose.
* The court rejected the arguments regarding the need to involve the tenant (Ropa-Agroservice LLC) as a co-defendant, since the plaintiff independently determines the circle of defendants, and the tenant was involved as a third party whose rights are not violated by the decision.
* The court also applied the criterion of reasonableness in the distribution of legal aid costs, reducing the amount of the award, as the volume of work performed by the attorney (preparation of two responses) did not justify the claimed high fee.
3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court leftthe appellate court’s decision, by which the land plots were vindicated from unlawful possession in favor of the plaintiff, and the counterclaim was dismissed, remained unchanged.
Case No. 0907/2-1510/2011 dated 10/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A debtor’s challenge to the actions and resolutions of a private enforcement officer within enforcement proceedings, specifically regarding the initiation of proceedings, appraisal and sale of property, as well as the collection of enforcement costs and remuneration.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that complaints against an enforcement officer’s actions must be filed within a strictly defined ten-day period, and failure to meet this deadline without valid reasons is grounds for leaving the complaint without consideration.
– Regarding claims for the collection of basic remuneration and enforcement proceedings costs, the court pointed to a violation of subject-matter jurisdiction rules, as such disputes are subject to resolution exclusively under administrative legal proceedings.
– Concerning the challenge to the transfer of property to the claimant, the court noted that this is a dispute over civil rights, which cannot be resolved within the scope of “judicial control” over the actions of an enforcement officer, but requires the filing of a separate lawsuit.
– The court emphasized that effective protection of rights in such cases is possible only through adversarial proceedings involving all interested parties as defendants.
– The Supreme Court also took into account the established practice of the Grand Chamber regarding the separation of jurisdictions, which requires courts to strictly adhere to procedural rules when considering complaints against enforcement officers.
– As a result, the Supreme Court partially overturned the decisions of the lower courts, as they erroneously reviewed on the merits claims that were not subject to resolution within the scope of civil proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, closed the proceedings regarding the challenge to the collection of the enforcement officer’s remuneration and costs (due to administrative jurisdiction), and in the other part, left the appellate court’s decision unchanged, amending only its reasoning part.
Case No. 479/682/23 dated 17/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Vindication of a land plot from another’s unlawful possession and cancellation of the entry regarding the state registration of a lease agreement concluded between other persons.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that at the time of concluding the disputed lease agreement between the owner and the new tenant (Farming Enterprise “Magnat 2021”), the previous lease agreement with the plaintiff (LLC “Agrofirma Kornatskykh”) had already been recognized by the court as not having been concluded.
– Since the court decision regarding the non-conclusion of the previous agreement had entered into legal force, and an entry regarding the termination of the plaintiff’s lease right had been made in the State Register, the plaintiff’s rights n
