Case No. 915/648/24 dated 15/07/2026
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:** Recovery of debt in the amount of 2,787,660 UAH from the Construction and Repair Department under a construction contract for capital repair works of a street, which, as the contractor claims, were actually performed but not paid for by the customer.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that a key aspect in disputes regarding payment for work is proving their reality, rather than just the existence of signed certificates.
* The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances did not ensure a full examination of the evidence, in particular, whether the works were indeed performed within the framework of the disputed contract and not a previous one (from 2023).
* The court stressed that the customer has the right to withdraw from a construction contract at any time, but this does not exempt them from the obligation to pay for the part of the work actually performed.
* An important procedural point was that the appellate court should not have considered new grounds for the defendant’s objections (regarding the absence of primary documents for materials), which were not raised in the court of first instance, as this violates the principle of adversarial proceedings.
* The court also noted that a formal mention of “April 2024” in the certificates (after the termination of the contract) is not automatic proof that the work was performed outside the duration of the contract; therefore, courts must evaluate the actual period of performance in conjunction with other evidence.
* Ultimately, the court found that the previous instances had not clarified the legal significance of the contract terms regarding the handover of the construction site and permits for commencing work, which is critical for determining the obligation to pay.
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 Commercial Court of Mykolaiv Region for a full and comprehensive establishment of the factual circumstances.
Case No. 922/239/26 dated 16/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Lawfulness of the court of first instance’s refusal to defer the payment of court fees by a legal entity and, consequently, the return of the statement of claim without consideration.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the right of access to court is not absolute; however, any financial restrictions (court fees) must be proportionate and must not undermine the very essence of this right.
– The Supreme Court stressed that courts do not have the right to formally refuse legal entities a deferral of payment of fees solely based on their status as a subject, without examining the actual property status.applicant’s financial condition.
– The decision states that the court of first instance made an error by failing to provide any assessment of the evidence regarding the plaintiff’s difficult financial situation (seizure of accounts, lack of assets, etc.).
– **:** The Supreme Court effectively consolidated a departure from previous narrow practice, indicating that courts are obliged to individually assess the proportionality of restricting access to justice for legal entities, relying on the case law of the ECHR (in particular, the cases “Teltronic-CATV” and “Nalbant v. Turkey”).
– The appellate court correctly determined that a refusal to grant a deferral without proper justification and analysis of financial documents violates Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
– Consequently, the formalistic approach of the court of first instance to the application of Article 8 of the Law “On Court Fees” was deemed inconsistent with the requirements of procedural law and the principles of the rule of law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the appellate court’s resolution, which had remanded the case to the court of first instance to consider the issue of accepting the statement of claim.
Case No. 910/9939/18 of 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your materials:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of the defendant’s motion for the recovery from the plaintiff of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred during the cassation proceedings.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court was guided by the principles of reality, necessity, and reasonableness of legal costs, emphasizing that the mere existence of a contract and a statement of work performed is not an unconditional basis for their full reimbursement. The court analyzed in detail the list of services provided by the attorney, establishing that some of them (e.g., preparation of objections against the opening of proceedings, which were rejected, or duplicative work) are not subject to compensation. The court also took into account that the preparation of a response to a cassation appeal already includes an analysis of case materials and judicial practice; therefore, separately itemizing these actions in the cost of services is unjustified. Special attention was paid to verifying the actual provision of services; in particular, the court was critical of the claimed costs for simultaneous interpretation, as there was no evidence of its performance during the court session. In conclusion, the court applied the criterion of proportionality, reducing the amount to be recovered to a level it deemed fair and commensurate with the scope of the work performed.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant UAH 20,850.00 for legal assistance instead of the claimed UAH 40,800.00.
Case No. 345/5838/25 dated 15/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of debt for housing and utility services, inflationary losses, and three percent per annum.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the closure of proceedings in the case due to the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the claim (Clause 4, Part 1, Article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) is lawful, as it is a manifestation of the principle of dispositivity — the plaintiff’s right to dispose of their claims at their own discretion.
– Regarding the defendant’s arguments about the need to close the case due to the “absence of a subject matter of the dispute” (Clause 2, Part 1, Article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine), the court noted that this ground applies when the dispute has ceased to exist; however, in this case, the plaintiff chose the procedural form of withdrawing the claim.
– The court emphasized that since the plaintiff withdrew the claim specifically because of the defendant’s voluntary repayment of the debt after the initiation of proceedings, the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of court expenses pursuant to Part 3, Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court found the approach of the lower courts to be erroneous, as they had simultaneously ordered the recovery of a portion of the court fee from the defendants and the refund of another portion from the state budget, calling these “mutually exclusive grounds.”
– In view of this, the court cancelled the refund of the fee from the budget and ordered the defendants to reimburse the full amount of the court fee paid by the plaintiff.
– The court left the issue of legal assistance expenses unchanged, agreeing with the conclusion of the lower instances regarding their partial reduction due to a lack of proportionality with the scope of work performed.
– The court rejected the motions to refer the case to the Grand Chamber and to issue a separate ruling due to the lack of legal grounds.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the court decisions in the part concerning the distribution of the court fee (increasing the amount of recovery from the defendants) and cancelling the refund of the fee from the state budget; the remaining parts of the decision were left unchanged.
Case No. 199/9026/23 dated 15/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery from the employer (Nova Poshta LLC) of material and non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of a person as a result of a traffic accident committed by an employee of the company while performing his labor duties.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the driver was in an employment relationship with Nova Poshta LLC and, at the time of the traffic accident, was operating the vehicle while performing his official duties as a courier.
* Pursuant to Article 1172 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, liability for damage caused by an employee while performing labor duties is imposed on the legal entity (employer) and not on theof the employee.
* The Court rejected the arguments of Nova Poshta LLC regarding the lack of liability on the grounds that they were merely the customers of the transportation services, as the fact that the employee was performing work-related tasks at the time of the traffic accident was confirmed by the case materials.
* Regarding non-pecuniary (moral) damage, the Court emphasized that it is compensated regardless of fault if the damage was caused by the death of a natural person as a result of the operation of a source of increased danger.
* The amount of compensation of UAH 2.5 million in favor of each plaintiff was recognized by the Court as proportionate, balanced, and consistent with the principles of justice, taking into account the depth of the mental suffering of the deceased’s relatives.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law and did not commit violations of procedural law, while the arguments of the cassation appeal essentially amounted to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Nova Poshta LLC and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 916/3203/25 of 07/13/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the attachment imposed by a private enforcement officer on the right of lease and sublease of real estate belonging to the debtor.
The Supreme Court, in analyzing the actions of the enforcement officer, proceeded from the fact that the right of lease is a derivative property right that has limited negotiability. The Court emphasized that an enforcement officer cannot have broader powers to dispose of property rights than the debtor itself under the contract. Since the lease and sublease agreements expressly prohibited the debtor from transferring rights to third parties without the prior written consent of the lessor, such a right is not freely alienable. Accordingly, imposing an attachment on these rights without taking into account their specifics and the restrictions established by the agreements constitutes a violation of legal requirements. The Court stressed that the attachment of a debtor’s property and the attachment of property rights are different categories, and the enforcement officer had no legal grounds to equate them in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court stated that the lower courts mistakenly limited themselves only to the formal fact of the debtor’s right to use the premises.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision, by which it recognized as unlawful and cancelled the resolution of the private enforcement officer on the attachment of the debtor’s property rights.
Case No. 905/1015/25 of 07/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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 PrJSC “DTEK PEM-Energovuhillia” in favor of PrJSC “NPC “Ukrenergo” of over UAH 237 million in debt under the contract for the settlement of electricity imbalances.of energy resulting from the adjustment of consumption volumes.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court established that the disputed volumes of electricity were actually consumed by another entity — KP “Voda Donbasu” Company, therefore, imposing liability for these imbalances on the defendant is groundless.
– The courts of lower instances correctly classified the plaintiff’s claims as non-contractual in nature, as they are based on the application of the Retail Market Rules rather than on the contractual obligations of the parties.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by the lower courts.
– The plaintiff failed to prove that the challenged decisions were inconsistent with the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and its references to judicial practice were declarative in nature without proper justification of relevance.
– The court emphasized that a failure to take into account a conclusion of the Supreme Court occurs only when a court has applied a rule of law differently than it was applied in similar legal relations, which was not established in this case.
– Ultimately, the conclusions of the lower courts were recognized as compliant with current legislation and consistent with the established practice of the Supreme Court.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC ‘Ukrenergo'” unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 560/11510/24 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerned the legality of the tax authority’s assessment of real estate tax (other than land) and the collection of the corresponding tax debt from an individual.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the failure of the controlling authority to meet the deadline for sending a tax notice-decision (by July 1st) is not grounds for cancellation of the tax liability, as the general statute of limitations of 1095 days applies (pursuant to Art. 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine).
– Regarding exemptions, the court noted that since the owner was not registered as a sole proprietor (FOP) and did not use the premises for industrial production, there are no grounds for exemption from taxation under subparagraph “e” of Clause 266.2.2 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.
– At the same time, the court established that the tax notice-decision for 2020 was adopted and sent in violation of the 1095-day statutory limit, which makes it unlawful.
– Regarding the deadlines for filing a lawsuit, the Supreme Court clarified that for a tax authority in cases involving the collection of debt based on a finalized decision, a six-month filing period applies.
– The court also emphasized that tax liability is not terminated solely due to procedural delays by the controlling authority.of the authority, provided they do not exceed the general statute of limitations.
– As a result, the Supreme Court partially supported the taxpayer’s position regarding the cancellation of accruals for 2020, but upheld the obligations for 2021–2022.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower instances regarding the collection of debt for 2020 and declaring the corresponding tax assessment notice unlawful, while leaving the remaining accruals unchanged.
Case No. 909/1125/24 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Reclamation for the state of a land plot designated for forestry purposes, which the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council had groundlessly transferred to municipal ownership and leased to a third party.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the disputed plot belongs to the forest fund lands, which are under the permanent use of a state forestry enterprise, as confirmed by forest management planning and cartographic materials.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Paragraph 5 of the Final Provisions of the Forest Code of Ukraine, such materials are proper evidence of the right to permanent use of forest lands if a state deed has not yet been issued.
– The court rejected the City Council’s arguments regarding the legality of the transfer of land into municipal ownership, as state-owned forest lands are not subject to automatic transfer to territorial communities without being withdrawn in the manner prescribed by law.
– It was recognized that the reclamation of property (vindication) is an effective way to protect the right of state ownership, as the plot exited the state’s possession against its will.
– Regarding the statute of limitations, the court clearly stated that the limitation period began from the moment the City Council adopted the illegal decision in 2023; therefore, the prosecutor applied to the court within the established three-year period.
– The court also emphasized that the appellants’ disagreement with the assessment of evidence is not grounds for overturning the decision, as the appellate court examined all case materials, including technical documentation and forest management data, in their entirety.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, by which the prosecutor’s lawsuit was satisfied and the land plot was reclaimed for the benefit of the state.
Case No. 904/4893/23 (904/6230/25) dated 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt under repayable financial assistance agreements (loans), accrued 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances did not properly examine the content and terms of each individual transaction, limiting themselves only to an analysis of the payment purposes in bank statements. The Court emphasized that a loan agreement is a real contract; therefore, the mere fact of transferring funds is insufficient to confirm it, and it is necessary to establish the existence of a written form and the terms of repayment agreed upon by the parties. The Court also drew attention to the fact that an act of reconciliation of mutual settlements is not a primary accounting document, yet it must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, which the lower courts failed to do. It was specifically emphasized that for loan relations where the repayment term is not defined, a special 30-day period from the moment of demand applies (Art. 1049 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), rather than the general 7-day period (Art. 530 of the Civil Code of Ukraine). Furthermore, the Court pointed to the necessity of thoroughly verifying the arithmetic calculation of the debt, as there are contradictions between the amounts stated in the case materials and the amounts collected by the courts. Finally, the Court noted that the allocation of legal aid expenses must be justified, and their amount must be proportionate, which the appellate instance failed to ensure.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower instances regarding the collection of the principal debt and legal aid expenses, remanded the case for a new trial, and regarding the collection of 3% per annum, rendered a new decision dismissing the claim.
**Case No. 289/502/23 dated 07/15/2026**
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your review:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to a land share (unit) and the obligation to perform actions regarding the registration of land ownership by a person who was not included in the list of members of a collective agricultural enterprise.
2. The court established that the plaintiff had the right to receive a land share as a former member of the enterprise, but had not taken any measures to protect their rights for a long time (over 27 years). The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to file a claim arises from the moment when a person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right, namely — from the moment of issuance of the state deed for the right of collective ownership of land (1995). The court noted that a claim for recognition of the right to a land share is a claim for the protection of a violated right, to which the statute of limitations applies, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for its expiration. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of the procedure for hearing the case in the appellate court, as the plaintiff had been properly notified of the hearing but did not appear. Additionally, the court indicated that procedural deadlines for amending an appeal cannot be reinstated ifthey were missed without valid reasons.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming the lawfulness of the refusal to satisfy the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 910/19189/23 dated 07/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of 130,747,443.64 UAH between business entities in the oil and gas market.
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of the rule of law and the necessity to comply with procedural law standards when evaluating the evidence provided by the parties. The Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the findings of the appellate court, which had previously analyzed the circumstances of the case and the legal relations between Naftogaz Oil Trading LLC and Glusco Retail LLC. The Court concluded that the appellate court correctly applied the substantive law provisions governing contractual obligations and the procedure for performing monetary obligations. The arguments of the appellant, JSC Ukrnafta, were found to be groundless, as they did not refute the facts established by the court regarding the existence of the debt. The Court also took into account the status of the third parties and their role in the proceedings; however, it found no grounds to reassess the evidence that had already been duly examined on appeal. Consequently, the cassation instance confirmed that the previous court’s judgment is well-founded, lawful, and in compliance with the requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC Ukrnafta and left the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 158/588/25 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiffs sought to invalidate a certificate of the right to inheritance and a deed of gift for a house, and to cancel a city council decision on the transfer of a land plot, alleging a violation of their inheritance rights.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court focused on the procedural issue of compliance with the time limits for appellate appeal, as this is a fundamental guarantee of legal certainty. The Court established that the appellate court, without proper justification, had reinstated the time limit for the appeal for the defendant, even though the full text of the court of first instance’s decision had been delivered to the electronic cabinet of his representative as early as December 5, 2025. The Supreme Court emphasized that citing “valid reasons” without specification and verification of evidence constitutes a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Since the representative received the decision in electronic form, this is equivalent to serving the decision upon the party itself, and the risk of the consequences of missing the deadline lies withon the defendant. The Appellate Court failed to verify these circumstances, thereby committing a violation of procedural law, which led to a premature consideration of the case on its merits. As a result, due to the procedural error of the appellate instance, the decision on the merits of the dispute could not be upheld.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling on the reinstatement of the deadline and the judgment of the Appellate Court, remanding the case to the appellate court for a de novo determination of the issue regarding the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 757/35518/25-cv dated 07/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of funds paid in execution of a court judgment regarding a civil claim, which was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that funds paid in execution of a court judgment cannot be considered unjustly acquired within the meaning of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since at the time of their receipt, there was a legal basis — the court judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that a special procedural mechanism exists for the restitution of such funds — the restitution of execution of a court judgment, provided for by Article 444 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Since a civil claim in criminal proceedings is considered under the rules of civil procedure, the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the restitution of execution is entirely lawful and does not contradict the principles of criminal procedure. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of legal protection (an action for unjust enrichment instead of an application for restitution of execution) constitutes an independent ground for the dismissal of the claims. It was also noted that such an approach ensures legal certainty and effective protection of the parties’ rights, and the plaintiff’s attempt to apply the provisions regarding unjust enrichment is erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Court, confirming the dismissal of the claim for the recovery of unjustly acquired funds.
Case No. 694/1492/24 dated 07/15/2026
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 matter of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a certificate of right to inheritance in part, cancellation of the state registration of rights, and recovery of a 1/4 share of a land plot by an heir entitled to a compulsory share.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a compulsory share arises directly by operation of law at the moment of the opening of the succession, and not from the moment the certificate is issued or documents are submitted to a notary. The court noted that a notary has an active duty to verify the circle of persons entitled to a ccompulsory share, and the mere return of a postal item does not constitute a waiver of the heir’s rights. The court of cassation distinguished between the concepts of “amending a certificate” and “declaring a certificate invalid,” indicating that in the event of a violation of an heir’s rights to a compulsory share, the declaration of the certificate as invalid is the proper method of protection. Furthermore, the court emphasized that an heir who has accepted an inheritance has the right to vindication (recovery) of property from another’s illegal possession as an independent claim. The court of appeal mistakenly qualified the claim for recovery of property as derivative, without examining the issue of the acquirer’s good faith and the proportionality of the interference with their rights. In this regard, for a full and comprehensive establishment of the circumstances, the case was sent for a new trial to the appellate instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, cancelled the ruling of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 383/1513/23 of 07/15/2026
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:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a negatory action to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot by returning it from illegal possession and cancelling the state registration of the lease right, arguing that she did not sign the lease agreement.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that the land lease agreement was signed by the plaintiff, as an expert examination confirmed the authenticity of her signatures on the 3rd and 4th pages of the document. The court emphasized that current legislation does not require the mandatory signing of each page of an agreement, and the absence of a signature on the first pages does not indicate the absence of the party’s intent to conclude the transaction. In addition, the parties performed actions in execution of the agreement, in particular, they signed acts of acceptance and transfer of the land plot and the determination of its boundaries in kind. The court noted that the plaintiff reached an agreement on all essential terms of the contract, which confirms its conclusion. Although the court of appeal mistakenly referred to the fact of receiving rent in the absence of proper evidence, the Supreme Court recognized this as a formal violation that did not affect the correctness of the final conclusion on the dismissal of the lawsuit. The cassation appeal was dismissed, as the applicant’s arguments boiled down to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is outside the powers of the court of cassation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, by which the lawsuit was dismissed.
Case No. 676/5247/24 of 07/16/2026Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the apartment owner’s claim for the removal of an attachment on real property imposed by the court back in 1996 within the framework of criminal proceedings, which prevents her from disposing of the property and formalizing an inheritance.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the apartment, the right to which was acquired by her through privatization after the issuance of the attachment order, and therefore, the property did not belong to the debtor at the time the encumbrance was imposed. The Supreme Court confirmed that in cases regarding the removal of an attachment imposed to secure the confiscation of property for the benefit of the State, the proper defendant is the territorial body of the State Tax Service, as it is endowed with the relevant fiscal powers. The court rejected the arguments of the tax authorities regarding their improper status as a party, noting that this particular body performs functions related to confiscated property. It was also emphasized that an attachment imposed on property that did not belong to the convicted person violates the plaintiff’s right of ownership, guaranteed by law. The courts of lower instances correctly established the factual circumstances, and the cassation appeal essentially amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the court of cassation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the decisions, as they are based on the correct application of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the removal of the attachment on the property.
Case No. 757/22502/21-ts of 07/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim for declaring real estate sale and purchase agreements void, cancelling decisions on the state registration of rights to it, and vindicating property from illegal possession by another party on the grounds that the real estate was removed from his ownership against his will.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court, referring to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (resolution dated November 27, 2024, in case No. 204/8017/17), departed from previous practice regarding the recognition of transactions as void in the absence of a party’s signature, emphasizing that such a contract is considered non-concluded, rather than void.
* The court noted that a non-concluded transaction cannot be recognized as invalid or void, since it does not generate legal consequences at all.
* Regarding the vindication of property, the court emphasized that a vindication claim (recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser) is the most effective method of protecting the right of ownership.
* To vindicate property, the owner does not need to cancelall previous transactions or registrar decisions, as a court judgment on recovery is an independent ground for the registration of ownership rights for the plaintiff.
* The court established that the defendant did not exercise due diligence when purchasing the apartment, as the register contained information about the attachment of the property at the time of the transaction, which refutes her status as a bona fide purchaser.
* Thus, the court concluded that the claims for declaring the agreements null and void and for the cancellation of registration actions are ineffective methods of protection, whereas the recovery of property is a lawful and well-founded one.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts in the part regarding the declaration of the agreements as null and void and the cancellation of registration actions, denying the claim in this part, but upheld the decision in the part regarding the recovery of the apartment in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 420/9659/24 dated 07/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging a tax notification-decision on the application of penalties for violations of legislation regarding the use of settlement registrars (RRO) and cash circulation.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff is the legal successor of the enterprise to which the tax notification-decision was issued, and therefore has the legal right to apply to the court with a lawsuit.
– The Supreme Court rejected the tax authority’s arguments regarding the impossibility of challenging the act by a legal successor, as the judicial precedents cited by the tax authority concerned different factual circumstances and are not similar to this case.
– The court emphasized that the tax authority, in its cassation appeal, did not actually challenge the appellate court’s findings on the merits of the dispute (regarding the absence of evidence of violations and the incorrect application of penalties), but focused only on the procedural issue of legal succession.
– Since the tax authority did not provide proper evidence of the plaintiff’s receipt of cash that would be subject to processing through an RRO, the appellate court rightfully canceled the tax notification-decision.
– The court also supported the appellate position that the deadlines for the controlling authority were not suspended, as it involved conducting an unscheduled documentary inspection.
– The Supreme Court stated that the appellant’s arguments do not refute the legality of the appellate court’s decision, and the references to Supreme Court practice are groundless due to the lack of similarity of the legal relations.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the tax authority’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court, by which the claim was satisfied, unchanged.
Case No. 924/638/24 dated 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to grant an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, by which the plaintiff was denied the invalidation of resolutions of the general meeting of a housing construction cooperative and the cancellation of the state registration of changes to information about the legal entity.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the circumstances stated by the plaintiff (in particular, regarding the absence of a certain person’s status as a cooperative member at the time of the meeting) are not newly discovered within the meaning of procedural law. Firstly, these arguments are essentially a new justification for the claims that could have been stated during the initial consideration of the case, since the relevant documents have existed since 2013. Secondly, the court emphasized that a review based on newly discovered circumstances cannot be used as a “disguised” appellate procedure for re-evaluating evidence that had already been examined by the courts earlier. Thirdly, the courts of lower instances established the presence of a quorum at the meeting regardless of the status of individual persons, which makes the applicant’s arguments immaterial to changing the outcome of the case. The court also emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty (*res judicata*), according to which a final court decision cannot be subject to review merely for the sake of a new trial. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed that the applicant did not prove the objective impossibility of learning about these circumstances earlier, which is a mandatory condition for granting such an application.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 907/140/25 dated 07/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Svaliava City Council to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot of communal ownership by obliging the defendant to dismantle objects (greenhouses, a building, and a fence) placed on it without authorization.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the territorial community’s right of ownership to the land plot is inviolable, and the plaintiff, as the owner, has a legal right to demand the removal of any obstacles to its use. It was established that the lease agreement with the defendant had terminated, yet the plot was not cleared of property, which effectively deprives the owner of the ability to freely dispose of their land. The court emphasized that by law, a person using a plot without legal grounds is obliged to restore it to a suitable condition, in particular by demolishing structures at their own expense. The appellants’ arguments regarding the transition of ththe court dismissed the claim of ownership of this property by a third party, as this does not exempt one from the obligation to vacate the plot, and the claim itself is a classic negatory action for the protection of property rights. The court also noted that previous decisions in the case regarding the termination of the lease are prejudicial, and the appellants’ arguments regarding the necessity of involving other persons or applying a different procedure of protection are groundless and aimed at a reassessment of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the cassation appeals.
Case No. 910/12927/23 (910/10532/25) dated 16/07/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The liquidator of the bankrupt filed a lawsuit to invalidate a consulting and IT services agreement and to recover UAH 720,000 from the counterparty, arguing that this transaction is fraudulent (executed to the detriment of creditors).
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings, courts should not be limited to a formal verification of the existence of the agreement and certificates of completion of work. The court is obligated to investigate the reality of the business transaction, in particular, whether the services were actually rendered, whether they had economic feasibility, and whether the purpose of the agreement was to siphon off the debtor’s assets. The lower courts made a mistake by taking a formal approach to the assessment of evidence and failing to verify whether the service provider had the technical capacity to provide the specified services. Furthermore, the courts did not establish whether this payment affected the debtor’s solvency and whether it led to the impossibility of satisfying the claims of other creditors. The Supreme Court emphasized that fraudulent transactions are often masked as ordinary business activities; therefore, the court must evaluate them through the prism of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights. As a result, the conclusions of the lower courts were found to be premature due to insufficient investigation of the factual circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 305/2027/23 dated 13/07/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit for the recovery from the illegal possession of the defendants of a forest land plot, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, was illegally alienated from state ownership.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff’s obligation to deposit funds into a dep
