Case No. 913/374/24 dated 09/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from the borrower and the guarantor under a credit agreement, specifically interest for the use of credit funds accrued after the bank filed a lawsuit, which was subsequently returned without consideration.
2. The cassation court proceeded from the premise that the return of a statement of claim without consideration is not an action that certifies a change in the term of performance of the principal obligation (early recovery), as the claim was not considered on the merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that to apply the consequences of Part 2 of Article 1050 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (change in the performance period of the agreement), an actual expression of will by the creditor, which reaches the debtor’s notice, is required, rather than the mere fact of filing a statement that was later returned due to procedural defects. The court noted that the right to accrue interest for the use of the loan is terminated only when the creditor has actually exercised their right to demand early repayment of the entire amount. Since in this case the agreement was not terminated, and the demand for early repayment of funds was exercised by the bank only in April 2024, the accrual of interest for the previous period is lawful. The court also indicated that additional decisions on the recovery of legal costs lose their force if the main decision, on the basis of which they were rendered, is overturned.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to recover interest and rendered a new decision granting the bank’s claims in full, and also overturned the additional decisions on the recovery of legal costs in favor of the defendants.
Case No. 911/1783/21 dated 09/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of monetary compensation for the value of two apartments in the city of Kyiv from the State Specialized Forestry Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine” by way of restitution (return of what was performed under an invalid transaction).
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The court established that the preliminary agreements, based on which the defendant received the real estate, were declared invalid by the court due to violations of land and forestry legislation.
* Since the property was transferred to the defendant in performance of these invalid agreements, a legal obligation to return what was received (restitution) arose.
* Given that the actual return of the apartments in kind became impossible (they were alienated or transferred to the state housing fund), the court applied the mechanism of compensating their value at the prices existing at the time of such compensation.The Court emphasized that restitution is a special method of protection, and the provisions of civil legislation on unjust enrichment (Art. 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) are applied here subsidiarily, as the legal basis for the acquisition of the property has ceased to exist.
* The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account previous practice, noting that the cases cited by the respondent are not similar in terms of the subject matter and grounds of the claim.
* The Court also emphasized that the claims are well-founded, as they are directly related to the existence of a court decision declaring the contracts invalid, and the appellant’s arguments essentially amount to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which does not fall within the powers of the cassation instance.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Specialized Economic Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine” and upheld the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, which had granted the claim for the recovery of the value of the property.
Case No. 906/553/25 dated 06/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful of the inaction of a local self-government body regarding the failure to accept state-owned real estate objects into communal ownership and the obligation to perform actions for their acceptance.
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the cassation appeal does not contain proper justification for the grounds for reviewing the case, since the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the appellant concerned legal relations that are not similar to the circumstances of this case. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence carried out by the courts of lower instances, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance, which is a court of law, not of fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the similarity of legal relations and justifying the need to form a new legal conclusion lies exclusively with the appellant. Since the appellant did not specify the specific legal norms for which there is no conclusion of the Supreme Court and did not prove a violation of substantive or procedural law, there are no grounds for canceling the appealed decisions. Consequently, the court concluded that the lower instances correctly applied the norms of law, and the appellant’s arguments are declarative and formal.
3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court and upheld the resolution of the commercial court of appeal, by which the claim was granted.
Case No. 910/1800/22 (910/9447/23) dated 07/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a summary of the case for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute**1. **Subject of the dispute:** The Plaintiff sought to invalidate loan and pledge agreements concluded by the debtor prior to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, citing their fictitious nature, the director’s exceeding of authority, and the interested nature of the parties.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the debtor had indeed received funds under the loan agreement, which were used for business operations, thereby refuting arguments regarding the fictitious nature of the transactions.
– The consent of the debtor’s general meeting of participants for the execution of these transactions was confirmed, which refuted allegations that the director had exceeded their authority.
– The court emphasized that the mere fact of the parties being interested does not automatically serve as grounds for invalidating a transaction if it did not cause losses to the debtor or creditors.
– An important aspect was that obtaining the loan did not lead to a reduction in the debtor’s assets, but rather provided resources to maintain solvency.
– The court noted that invalidating the loan agreement in this situation would be economically inefficient, as the obligation to repay the received funds would remain regardless, and the debtor’s financial position would not improve.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, courts should assess not only the formal-legal aspect but also the economic expediency of transactions so as not to interfere with the company’s activities without grounds.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had denied the claim in full.
Case No. 991/10530/23 dated 07/13/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided judgment of the High Anti-Corruption Court in case No. 991/10530/23. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a former People’s Deputy of Ukraine of committing high treason (by providing assistance to a foreign organization in subversive activities) and illicit enrichment.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the accused, acting in prior conspiracy with another person, was engaged in confidential cooperation with the intelligence agency of the Russian Federation (GU GSh VS RF) and received tasks and monetary remuneration from it.
– The fact of providing assistance in subversive activities against Ukraine was confirmed by the accused’s organization of a series of special information campaigns (press conferences) aimed at discrediting Ukrainian government bodies and deteriorating relations with strategic partners.
– The court recognized as proven the fact that the accused received funds in the amount of at least 567,000 US dollars through a system of “liaisons” and third parties, which was confirmed by witness testimony, protocols of covert investigative (search) actions, and other case materials.
– The court stated that the value of these assets significantly exceeds the lawful income of the accused, as declared by him for 2020 years, which constitutes the corpus delicti provided for in Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
– Regarding the defense’s arguments concerning the inadmissibility of evidence due to a violation of investigative jurisdiction, the court noted that the Prosecutor General’s directive to have the case investigated by NABU detectives was reasoned and aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the investigation into interconnected facts.
– The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the records of covert investigative (search) actions due to their destruction during martial law, noting that the prosecution had taken all possible measures to obtain the documents, and their absence was due to objective reasons.
3. **Court Decision:** The court found the accused guilty of committing crimes provided for in Part 2 of Article 28, Part 1 of Article 111, and Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and imposed a final sentence of 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of all property belonging to the accused and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a term of 3 years.
Case No. 403/3000/12 dated 13/07/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a will and an application for acceptance of an inheritance due to the testator’s alleged inability to realize the significance of her actions, as well as due to the presence of psychological pressure and fraud on the part of the defendant.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiffs failed to provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm the absolute inability of the testator to control her actions at the time the transactions were executed. The key argument was the findings of two forensic psychiatric examinations, which confirmed that the person did not suffer from mental disorders that would prevent her from freely expressing her will. The court emphasized that advanced age, the presence of an oncological disease, or emotional distress due to the loss of loved ones are not, in themselves, grounds for declaring a will invalid. The court also noted that the allegations of fraud or psychological pressure remained mere assumptions by the plaintiffs, as no evidence of intentional actions by the defendant aimed at coercion was established. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the courts of lower instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case. Consequently, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/9871/25 dated 14/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the claim of the Executive Body of the Kyiv City Council to declare the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine invalid.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the need to verify the legality of the actions of the Antimonopoly Committee within the scope of its powers regarding[regarding] the control over compliance with the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The Supreme Court analyzed the case materials and concluded that the courts of the previous instances correctly established the factual circumstances, having provided them with a proper legal assessment. The panel of judges confirmed that the challenged decision of the AMC was adopted in violation of substantive law, which served as the basis for declaring it invalid. The Court also noted that the appellant’s arguments in the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal and boil down to a re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation. Thus, the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s position and the validity of the Committee’s decision cancellation were confirmed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and left the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 922/1723/25 dated 07/14/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of supplementary agreements to an electricity procurement contract and the recovery of funds from the supplier, which, in the prosecutor’s office’s opinion, were paid without grounds due to an unjustified increase in the price of the goods.
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the grounds for cassation appeal relied upon by the appellant were not confirmed during the consideration of the case. In particular, the Court concluded that the arguments of PJSC “Kharkivenergozbut” regarding the incorrect application of substantive law are unfounded, as the courts of previous instances correctly established the circumstances of the case and provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Supreme Court pointed out the absence of grounds for reviewing the case, given that the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances are consistent with the established practice regarding the impossibility of groundlessly increasing the unit price of goods in procurement contracts. Regarding the reference to Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Court determined that the applicant did not prove the existence of an exceptional legal problem or the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court on the relevant issue. Thus, the cassation appeal did not contain convincing arguments that would refute the legitimacy of the decisions rendered in favor of the Baturyn City Council.
3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in part of one of the grounds for the appeal, and in the other part, left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, denying the appeal of PJSC “Kharkivenergozbut”.
Case No. 914/2761/25 dated 07/09/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the order of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to suspend the consideration of an application regarding the abuse of a monopoly position pending the resolution ofof another related commercial case by the court.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the bodies of the AMCU (Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine) have discretionary powers to stay the consideration of an application if, in order to objectively establish the facts of a violation of competition legislation, it is necessary to await a court decision in another case where prejudicial issues are being resolved. In this situation, the dispute regarding the contractual capacity of electrical installations in case No. 914/68/25 is key to assessing the actions of the energy supplier; therefore, the stay of the AMCU application review was a logical and well-founded step. The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of staying the consideration of an application is a procedural mechanism aimed at a comprehensive clarification of circumstances, rather than a denial of access to the protection of rights. The complainant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of another case were rejected, as the legal relations therein are not similar, and the factual circumstances differ significantly. The Court also emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence, and the challenged decisions were adopted in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 301/1593/24 dated 09/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to return an appeal filed by a representative of the probation authority, and the resolution of the issue regarding the possibility of further cassation review of this appeal.
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that it was impossible to continue cassation proceedings on the filed appeal. The key point here is the procedural nature of the challenged decision of the appellate instance, which effectively obstructed the further progress of the case, but at the same time was not subject to review in the cassation procedure under the given circumstances. The Court was guided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the grounds for closing cassation proceedings. In particular, it was established that the filed appeal does not meet the requirements that would allow the Supreme Court to intervene in the decision of the appellate court at this stage. Thus, the panel of judges stated the absence of legal grounds for considering the case on its merits within the scope of the filed cassation appeal. This decision is aimed at ensuring procedural discipline and preventing unfounded delays in the judicial process.
The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings on the appeal of the head of the district department of the branch of the State Institution “Probation Center.”
Case No. 990/106/25 dated 09/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding the results of qualification assessment or procedural issues of judge selection, which the plaintiff considered unlawful.
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the prThe qualification assessment procedure and the decision-making process of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) must be carried out in strict accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the appeal and concluded that the court of first instance correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Court noted that the discretionary powers of the HQCJ regarding the assessment of judges cannot be substituted by the court if the commission acted within the scope of the law and did not commit gross procedural violations. It was also taken into account that the plaintiff did not provide compelling evidence that the contested decision violates his rights or legitimate interests in a manner that requires judicial intervention. As a result, the court found no grounds for overturning the decision of the Administrative Cassation Court, as it is based on a complete and comprehensive examination of the case materials.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 753/26/24 dated 09/07/2026
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:** Cassation appeal by the prosecutor regarding the ruling of the appellate court concerning the legality and fairness of sentencing a convicted person using Articles 69 (imposition of a more lenient punishment) and 75 (exemption from serving a sentence with probation) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is a discretionary power of the court, which must consider the balance between retribution for a crime and the possibility of a person’s rehabilitation. The Court noted that in order to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is not enough to simply list mitigating circumstances; it is necessary to justify how exactly they significantly reduce the gravity of the crime, which was duly done in this case. Regarding the prosecutor’s arguments about the impossibility of simultaneously applying Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with reference to the same circumstances, the Court indicated that these institutions have different legal purposes and grounds. The judges emphasized that when passing the sentence, the individual characteristics of the convicted person were taken into account, in particular, his state of health (the presence of an oncological disease) and the absence of a criminal record. The appellate court, in the opinion of the cassation instance, provided exhaustive answers to all the prosecutor’s arguments, and the imposed sentence is proportionate and fair. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for overturning the decision due to its “excessive leniency.”
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/389/25 dated 08/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is thechallenging by the plaintiff of a decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) with a request to declare it unlawful and to oblige the commission to take certain actions.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, while reviewing the case on appeal, concluded that the decision of the court of first instance was rendered with an incorrect application of substantive law. The Court proceeded from the premise that the discretionary powers of the HQCJ in procedures for qualification assessment or selection of judges must be protected from excessive judicial interference, provided that the procedure was followed. The Grand Chamber emphasized that courts should not usurp the functions of an authority vested with exclusive competence to evaluate the professional and personal qualities of candidates for a judicial position. The court’s reasoning is based on the principle of the separation of powers and the inadmissibility of substituting the commission’s assessment with a court decision in the absence of proven procedural violations that would have affected the outcome. Thus, the court determined that the challenged decision of the HQCJ was adopted within the scope of powers granted by law and in compliance with the established procedure.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court satisfied the appeal of the HQCJ, set aside the decision of the court of first instance, and rendered a new decision rejecting the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 570/2495/21 dated 08/07/2026
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 declaration of illegality of a village council’s decision regarding the registration of ownership rights to a residential house, the invalidation of the certificate of ownership for it, and the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to a share in this property as a member of a former collective farm household.
**2. Arguments of the court**
The court established that the disputed house belonged to the category of “collective farm household,” and the plaintiff, being a minor as of April 15, 1991, had a legal right to a share in this property. The court also confirmed that after her father’s death, the plaintiff, together with other family members, had actually accepted the inheritance, which gave her the right to a share in the household. At the same time, the court emphasized that the issuance of an individual certificate of ownership in the name of one family member without taking into account the shares of other co-owners constitutes a violation of their rights. However, the key factor was the application of the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff applied to the court many years after she became aware or could have become aware of the violation of her rights. The court pointed out that the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence regarding her property over a long period of time and also had the opportunity to learn about the situation during the drafting of a power of attorney in 2009. Since no valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court were established, the expiration of the statute of limitations became an independent and sufficient ground.for the refusal of the claim.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/1117/25 dated 09/07/2026
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 military unit filed a lawsuit against the Service for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure for compensation for material damage caused by damage to a service vehicle as a result of a traffic accident due to the improper condition of the road surface (icy conditions).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court determined that in order to hold the defendant civilly liable, it is necessary to prove the existence of the elements of an offense: unlawful conduct, damage, a causal link, and fault, which the plaintiff did not do in this case.
– The decision of the court in the administrative offense case, which the plaintiff referred to, has no prejudicial value for this case, as the composition of the participants in the proceedings is different.
– The defendant proved that the operational maintenance of the road was carried out properly: during the period when the icy conditions occurred, patrolling and treatment of the surface with anti-icing materials were conducted within the time limits prescribed by DSTU 3587:2022.
– The court noted that the absence of orders or administrative protocols from the police regarding the improper condition of this road section during the disputed period indicates the absence of inaction on the part of the defendant.
– The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of procedural norms by the courts when accepting evidence from a third party, as they were submitted within the framework of the preparatory proceedings.
– The cassation appeal was essentially reduced to a request to re-evaluate evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the court of cassation, which only reviews the correctness of the application of legal norms.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the military unit unsatisfied.
Case No. 908/33/25(908/1708/25) dated 09/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Vesta Center LLC to recover material damages from the state in the amount of over UAH 55 million, which the plaintiff links to the invalidation of the electronic auctions at which it had previously purchased real estate.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that in order to impose tort liability on the state, the plaintiff is obliged to prove the totality of three elements: the unlawfulness of the actions of the government body, the existence of actual damage, and a direct causal link between them. In this case, the court determined[…], as the plaintiff had voluntarily alienated the acquired property even before the auction was declared invalid; therefore, the loss of ownership of the object is not a consequence of the enforcement officer’s actions for the plaintiff themselves. Furthermore, the claimed amount of damages is, in fact, the plaintiff’s contractual debt to third parties (under a loan agreement) rather than losses incurred directly due to the actions of the state enforcement officer. The court emphasized that the causal link in tort obligations must be direct, whereas, in this case, the debt arose due to the plaintiff’s financial difficulties and their failure to fulfill their own contractual obligations. The court also noted that the plaintiff chose an erroneous method of protection, as they did not make claims for the refund of funds paid for the property, but attempted to recover the amount of their debts to creditors from the state. Consequently, the courts of lower instances rightfully refused to satisfy the claim due to the lack of evidence of the elements of a civil offense.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of Vesta Center LLC unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courts to refuse the claim — unchanged.
Case No. 920/1471/24 dated 09/07/2026
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 lower courts’ rejection of a creditor’s monetary claims in bankruptcy proceedings due to an alleged failure to provide evidence, despite the presence in the case of an unexecuted court ruling on the compulsory production of these documents from the debtor.
2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of first and appellate instances committed procedural errors, as they prematurely rejected the creditor’s claims without determining the status of the previously issued ruling on the production of evidence. The court emphasized that if the court of first instance itself ordered the production of documents, it was obliged to verify whether the debtor had complied with this requirement or informed the court of the reasons for the inability to provide the documents, and only then apply procedural consequences. The Supreme Court stressed that the court cannot ignore its own procedural decisions and must evaluate the reasons for the non-fulfillment of the ruling on the production of evidence. It was also noted that a court decision in another case is not automatic evidence, but may have prejudicial significance; however, this does not relieve the creditor of the burden of proving their claims. Ultimately, the courts did not carry out a comprehensive examination of the case, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances regarding the existence or absence of the debt.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the rejection of monetary claims and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a proper examination of the circumstances concerning the compliance with the ruling on the production of evidence.
Case No. 910/1802/25 dated 14/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the recovery ofindebtedness under a construction contract, which arose as a result of mutual claims of the parties regarding the performance of works and the legality of the collection of funds under a bank guarantee.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the necessity to verify the completeness of the establishment of circumstances that are of essential significance for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the cassation instance pointed to the insufficient substantiation of the conclusions of the courts of lower instances regarding the legality of the collection of funds under the bank guarantee in the amount of 108,188.40 UAH. The Court emphasized that in order to resolve the issue of the groundlessness of receiving these funds, it is necessary to clearly establish the fact of performance or non-performance of contractual obligations in the relevant part. Since the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of all evidence relating to the scope and quality of the performed works, the decisions cannot be considered sufficiently motivated. It was also taken into account that the issue of the distribution of court costs directly depends on the results of the resolution of the dispute on the merits; therefore, the cancellation of the decisions in the part concerning the collection of funds automatically resulted in the cancellation of the additional decisions. The Supreme Court concluded that establishing the truth in the case requires the examination of additional evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
The Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeals of both parties, to cancel the decisions of the courts of lower instances in the part concerning the resolution of the claims, and to remand the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/1885/23 dated 07/14/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Limited Liability Company “Engie Energy Management Ukraine” on declaring invalid the decision of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of legality and the verification of compliance with procedural norms during the adoption of the challenged decision of the AMCU. Since the cassation instance left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged, this indicates that the courts of the first and appellate instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Supreme Court concluded that the arguments of the Anti-Monopoly Committee set forth in the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts of lower instances regarding the validity of the claims. The Court confirmed that there are no grounds for canceling the decisions of the courts of lower instances, as the norms of substantive and procedural law were applied correctly. Thus, the position of the lower courts regarding the illegality of the AMCU decision was recognized as complying with the requirements of current legislation.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/8243/25 dated 07/14/2026
1. SubjectThe subject of the dispute is the claim of “Construction-Consulting Group “Bazis” LLC regarding the invalidation and cancellation of a decision of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine related to the imposition of sanctions or other regulatory actions of the AMCU.
2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the need to ensure the uniformity of law enforcement practice in cases concerning the competence of the Antimonopoly Committee bodies. The Court concluded that the courts of lower instances committed a misapplication of the norms of substantive law when assessing the lawfulness of the AMCU’s actions. In particular, the cassation instance established that the contested AMCU decisions were adopted within the powers granted by law and in compliance with the procedure provided for by the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The Court emphasized that commercial courts should not substitute themselves for the body authorized to exercise control over compliance with competition legislation if such a body acted within the scope of its discretion. As a result, it was recognized that the grounds for canceling the AMCU decisions, relied upon by the courts of first and appellate instances, were unfounded. Thus, the Supreme Court stated that there were no violations on the part of the AMCU, which precludes the satisfaction of the business’s claims.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeals of the Antimonopoly Committee, canceled the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new decision denying the lawsuit of “Construction-Consulting Group “Bazis” LLC.
Case No. 344/1886/21 dated 09/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief legal analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict, by which the convicted person was found guilty of accepting an unlawful benefit by an official (Part 3 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) after the court of first instance had acquitted him.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not re-evaluate evidence, but only verifies the correctness of the application of legal norms; therefore, the arguments of the convicted person regarding the incompleteness of the examination of witness testimony are not the subject of review.
– The appellate court duly examined the totality of the evidence, including the results of covert investigative (search) actions (CISA), which confirmed the fact of extortion and receipt of funds through an intermediary, as well as the discovery of marked bills in the garage of the convicted person.
– The court rejected the defense’s version regarding the “repayment of a debt” due to the absence of any documentary evidence (promissory notes) and the late filing of an amended declaration, which appeared to be an attempt to evade liability.
– Regarding the entrapment (provocation) of a crime, the court noted that law enforcement officers acted passively, merely recording criminal activity that was already taking place, and the convicted person himself chose a contradictory position: simultaneously denying the fact of receiving money and claiming provocation.
– A technical error in the date of the [text incomplete]meeting, permitted by the Court of Appeal, was recognized as one that does not affect the legality of the verdict, since the overall evidentiary base remains compelling.
– Arguments regarding the violation of the secrecy of the judges’ deliberation and the procedure for witness examination were not confirmed by the case materials and were therefore dismissed as unfounded assumptions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Ternopil Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 947/15244/23 dated 08/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of an appeal against a ruling of the court of first instance, by which a motion to cancel interim measures was denied after the court decision had entered into legal force.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the right to judicial protection is a constitutional guarantee that should not be limited by a formal list of rulings subject to appeal. The Court emphasized that the list of rulings defined by Article 353 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine is not exhaustive when it comes to the possibility of protecting a person’s rights. Since the decision in the case had already entered into legal force, the applicant was objectively deprived of the opportunity to challenge the ruling together with the court decision on the merits. The Court of Appeal, by returning the appeal, effectively blocked access to justice, failing to take into account that the ruling was issued after the conclusion of the proceedings on the merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that if a person has no other way to restore their rights, they have the right to file an appeal against such a ruling separately. Thus, the formalistic approach of the Court of Appeal to the application of procedural norms led to a violation of the right to appellate review.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to the appellate court to continue proceedings from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 392/1699/24 dated 08/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of substituting a party to enforcement proceedings (debtor) in connection with the reorganization of the National Aviation University by way of division.
2. The Supreme Court indicated that for the substitution of a party in enforcement proceedings, it is necessary to clearly establish the fact of the transfer of specific substantive rights and obligations to a successor. The Court emphasized that the legal succession of a legal entity is universal; therefore, the provisions of the separation balance sheet are of decisive importance. In this case, the lower courts did not fully examine the materials of the separation balance sheet, which contain contradictory or incomplete data regarding the distribution of salary arrears. The Court of Appeal reached a premature conclusionprovision regarding legal succession without clarifying exactly whose activity led to the emergence of the debt to the claimant. The Supreme Court emphasized that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and courts do not have the right to establish factual circumstances independently at the cassation stage. Therefore, for the proper resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish how exactly the accounts payable were distributed among the newly created legal entities.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/7263/25 dated 07/14/2026**
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the territorial office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding holding LLC “Publishing House ‘Rozumnyky'” liable for violating legislation on the protection of economic competition.
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that the lower courts did not fully examine all circumstances material to the proper resolution of the dispute. Specifically, the cassation instance pointed out the need for a more thorough analysis of the evidence upon which the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision was based and a verification of compliance with the procedure during its adoption. The Court emphasized that the commercial courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the legitimacy of qualifying the plaintiff’s actions as anti-competitive. Since additional examination of evidence is required to establish the factual circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court is deprived of the procedural opportunity to independently render a new decision. Consequently, the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances were deemed premature and inconsistent with the requirements of procedural law regarding the completeness and justification of a judicial act.
The Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
**Case No. 551/1184/23 dated 07/09/2026**
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:** Cassation appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a person was convicted for the illegal acquisition and sale of narcotic drugs (Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court established that the evidence of guilt (witness testimony, records of covert investigative (search) actions, results of forensic examinations) is relevant, admissible, and sufficient to confirm the guilt of the convicted person.
– Regarding the defense’s arguments about provocation of a crime, the Court noted that law enforcement agencies acted passively, and the convicted person had the intent to sell drugs even before the start of the controlled delivery.
– The Court considered minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses and attesting witnesses to be natural, as they…do not affect the overall picture of the crime and do not refute the established facts.
– The court confirmed the legality of funding undercover purchases, rejecting the defense’s arguments regarding the lack of documentation on the origin of the funds.
– Regarding technical errors in the dates of drafting the protocols, the court accepted the explanation of the operative officer, who confirmed that this was a technical clerical error, not a procedural violation.
– The court also rejected arguments regarding the involvement of other persons in the storage of narcotics, as the case is being considered exclusively within the scope of the charges brought against a specific person.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 344/6474/22 dated 07/07/2026
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:** Cassation review of the legality of the conviction of a former police officer for extortion and receipt of an unlawful benefit (bribe) for facilitating the issuance of a residence permit in Ukraine.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the questioning of a witness under Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is a legal instrument, and the impossibility of their cross-examination in court due to the witness’s state of health (heart transplant) does not violate the right to a fair trial, as the defense was notified of the questioning but did not take advantage of it.
– Regarding the status of the convicted person, the court clearly distinguished that the demand for a bribe concerned the provision of an official opinion on the absence of obstacles to immigration, which fell within his official duties.
– The court recognized that although part of the covert investigative (search) action (CISA) materials were destroyed due to martial law, this did not affect the proof of guilt, as the fact of the meeting and the transfer of funds is confirmed by other independent evidence (protocols of inspection, examination, and identification of money).
– Regarding the appellate court’s refusal to re-examine evidence, the cassation instance emphasized that such examination is mandatory only if the evidence was examined by the court of first instance incompletely or with violations, which the defense failed to prove.
– The court recalled that the cassation instance is a “court of law,” not a court of fact; therefore, the reassessment of evidence that has already been duly evaluated by lower courts is not within the powers of the Supreme Court.
– In general, the court concluded that the person’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and all procedural guarantees of the defense were observed.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the defense counsels’ cassation appeals.
Case No. 2a-14797/12/2670 dated 08/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal of decisions of cof the courts of lower instances, which granted the claim of the Kyiv City State Administration and imposed restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly for a number of non-governmental organizations.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the previous court decisions are subject to cancellation, as they were rendered in violation of fundamental human rights to peaceful assembly, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court took into account exceptional circumstances that arose after the decisions were rendered in 2012–2013, in particular, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes the inadmissibility of unfounded restrictions on the right to protest. The Court emphasized that state authorities failed to prove the existence of a real threat to public order that would justify such a prohibition. An important aspect was that the right to peaceful assembly is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society, and any restrictions must be proportionate and clearly justified. In summary, the Grand Chamber stated that the initial decisions on restricting assemblies did not meet the criteria of lawfulness and necessity in a democratic society.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the application for review of the case based on exceptional circumstances, cancelled the decisions of the courts of lower instances, and rendered a new decision refusing to satisfy the claim of the Kyiv City State Administration regarding the restriction of the right to peaceful assembly.
Case No. 145/146/17 dated 14/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the necessity of reviewing court decisions in an administrative offense case based on exceptional circumstances in connection with a judgment of the ECtHR, despite the destruction of the paper case files in the court of first instance.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the state has an unconditional obligation to ensure the execution of ECtHR judgments by restoring the person’s previous legal status, in particular through the review of the case. The fact of the destruction of the paper case file due to the expiration of storage periods is merely a technical action that does not negate the validity of a court decision and the court’s duty to ensure the right to its review. The Court emphasized that the modern automated document management system allows for the storage of information and digital copies of procedural documents. Since case materials are necessary for the consideration of an application for review, the Court deemed it necessary to obtain them in the form of electronic data. Thus, the absence of a paper archive cannot be an obstacle to the administration of justice and the realization of a person’s right to have a case reviewed.
3. The Court ordered to retrieve from the automated case management system of the Tyvriv District Court of Vinnytsia Oblast all available information and digital copies of documents related to Case No. 145/146/17.
Case No. 489/930/21 dated 08/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, folPrepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by the debtor the inaction of a state enforcement officer, which consists in the refusal to lift the attachment on property after the full repayment of alimony arrears and the employment of the debtor.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the attachment of property is a measure to ensure the execution of a decision, not an instrument for the indefinite restriction of the debtor’s rights. The Court established that since the alimony arrears have been fully paid and the debtor has official employment with a regular income, the execution of the decision is secured in another manner — through deductions from wages. The Court of Appeal erroneously considered that the possibility of future arrears arising is a sufficient ground for maintaining the attachment for many years. The Supreme Court emphasized that an attachment cannot be a “preventive” measure until the children reach the age of majority if there are currently no grounds for compulsory collection. The Court also noted that in the event of the debtor’s attempts to alienate property to the detriment of the claimant’s interests, other legal protection mechanisms exist, in particular, challenging such transactions in court. Thus, the continued maintenance of the attachment violates the balance between the interests of the claimant and the rights of the debtor as a property owner.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the debtor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on obliging the state enforcement officer to lift the attachment on the property.
**Case No. 185/1664/25 dated 08/07/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging a court decision on declaring a natural person (a serviceman missing in action during hostilities) dead for the purpose of processing an inheritance.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that declaring a person dead is based on a legal presumption of death, which is confirmed by a set of evidence: orders of the commander, materials of the official investigation, and data from criminal proceedings.
– The Supreme Court clarified that the six-month period for declaring a person dead (according to Article 46 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) must be calculated from the day of the end of active hostilities in the specific territory where the person disappeared, and not from the moment of the end of martial law in the country.
– The panel of judges noted that the social context and principles of justice require sensitivity to the complex life circumstances of the families of defenders; therefore, linking it to the end of martial law would be a disproportionate restriction of citizens’ rights.
– The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to interrogate witnesses, since their written statements were already present in the materials of the official investigation.
– Regarding new evidence about the burial of the person, which the appellant tried to submit at the appeal stage, the court indicated that they were not admitted because the appellant did not prove the objective impossibility of submitting them to the court of first instance.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the establishment of the facts of the case and the assessment of evidence are the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, therefore the cassation court does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged, recognizing it as lawful and well-founded.
Case No. 342/984/24 dated 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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:** Determination of the method of a father’s participation in the upbringing of and communication with two minor children who live apart from him with their mother.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the priority of the best interests of the children, which must prevail over the personal conflicts and ambitions of the parents.
– It was established that there are long-standing hostile relations between the parents, which makes the voluntary settlement of a communication schedule impossible.
– The court took into account the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority, which deemed it appropriate to establish a clear schedule for meetings and video calls, as this ensures stability for the children.
– An important factor was that the father did not provide evidence of systematic obstacles on the part of the mother, and the mother herself partially acknowledged the claims, agreeing to a certain schedule.
– The court emphasized that the right to communication is not absolute and must be exercised without harm to the children’s psychological state; therefore, the limitation regarding the mother’s presence at meetings until the children reach a certain age is justified.
– The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempts to change the subject of the claim at the stage of the case’s trial on the merits, as this violates procedural time limits and the principles of good faith, and the plaintiff had every opportunity to do so earlier.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was partially satisfied and a specific schedule for the father’s communication with the children was established.
Case No. 954/1318/24 dated 08/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The father’s lawsuit to terminate the mother’s parental rights regarding their joint minor child.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the termination of parental rights is an extreme measure of influence, which is applied only in exceptional cases when there is proven culpable conduct and deliberate evasion of duties.
* The lower courts did not find convincing evidence that the mother had consciously and intentionally removed herself from the child’s upbringing, rather than simply objectively lost contact due tomartial law and residence in temporarily occupied territory.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority is of a recommendatory nature and is not binding upon the court if it is insufficiently substantiated or contrary to the child’s interests.
* The Court noted that the mere fact of a lack of communication or financial support does not constitute an automatic ground for the deprivation of parental rights, unless it is proven that the mother’s conduct poses a real threat to the child’s health or development.
* The plaintiff did not prove how exactly the deprivation of the mother’s parental rights would improve the child’s situation, beyond resolving purely financial issues (obtaining benefits).
* The Court indicated that the severance of family ties through the deprivation of parental rights does not serve the best interests of the child, as the mother is not a person whose conduct negatively affects the daughter’s development.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to an attempt to reassess the evidence, which exceeds the powers of the court of cassation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the deprivation of parental rights remained unchanged.
Case No. 569/9783/25 dated 08/07/2026
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 the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of average earnings from SE “Ukrspyrt” in connection with the inclusion of the debtor in the list of privatization objects.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances committed a significant procedural error by failing to properly verify the issue of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the dispute. The key point is that the enforcement proceeding regarding the claimant was consolidated into a combined enforcement proceeding, which includes over 270 proceedings against one debtor. The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that if a combined proceeding consolidates the enforcement of decisions rendered by courts under the rules of different jurisdictions (e.g., civil and commercial), then disputes regarding the actions of the enforcement officer in such a proceeding must be considered under the rules of administrative legal proceedings. Since the courts of first and appellate instances considered the case under the procedure of civil legal proceedings without clarifying whether all enforcement documents in the combined proceeding were issued by courts of civil jurisdiction, they violated the norms of procedural law. Due to this, the Supreme Court was unable to assess the legality of the suspension of enforcement actions on the merits, as it must first be determined whether this court had the authority to consider the given complaint at all.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, remitting the case for a new trial
