Case No. 404/5640/25 dated 07/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for the illegal taking of a vehicle (Part 1 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the materials of the criminal proceedings, concluded that the courts of the lower instances had duly examined all evidence provided by the prosecution and the defense. The panel of judges established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 1 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and corresponds to the factual circumstances of the case established during the trial. The Court found no grounds to satisfy the defense’s arguments regarding material violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law that could serve as a basis for overturning the challenged decisions. It was also confirmed that the imposed punishment meets the requirements of the general principles of sentencing and is fair and necessary for the rehabilitation of the convicted person. All procedural rights of the participants in the proceedings were observed, and the assessment of evidence by the lower courts was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the cassation instance sees no grounds for interfering with the judgment and the ruling of the appellate court.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the defense attorney unsatisfied, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 756/11990/25 dated 14/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the missed deadline for filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance in a case concerning a violation of road safety rules.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the right to appeal is not absolute and must be exercised within the procedural time limits established by law. The Supreme Court noted that the defense side did not provide convincing and objective evidence demonstrating the existence of valid reasons for missing the deadline provided for by Article 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The panel of judges emphasized that missing the deadline without valid reasons is a ground for refusing to initiate appellate proceedings, as this ensures the principle of legal certainty. The Court also drew attention to the fact that the appellate court had duly checked the arguments of the defense attorney and reached a reasoned conclusion regarding the absence of grounds for reinstating the deadline. Thus, the decision of the appellate instance was recognized as complying with the requirements of the criminal procedural law. No violations that would provide grounds for overturning the challenged ruling were established during the cassation review.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the defense attorney unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to reinstate the deadline for filing an appeal unchanged.
Case No. 757/23689/20-k dated 14/07/20261. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the time limit for filing an appeal against a ruling of the court of first instance in criminal proceedings.
2. In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the principle that the right to appeal must be exercised within the time limits strictly defined by law, and failure to comply with these limits without valid reasons is grounds for refusing to open proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the defense counsel and concluded that the appellate court correctly assessed the absence of objective and insurmountable circumstances that would have prevented the timely filing of the appeal. The decision emphasized that the defense was duly informed about the progress of the proceedings and therefore had no grounds for the reinstatement of the procedural time limit. The court also stressed that the discretionary powers of the appellate court regarding the assessment of the validity of the reasons for missing the time limit were exercised within the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Thus, the court of cassation found no violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged ruling.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 405/7039/21 dated 16/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of an appellate court ruling regarding the accusation of a person of official negligence that caused grave consequences (Part 2, Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, analyzed the appellate court’s compliance with the norms of criminal procedural legislation during the review of the verdict or ruling of the court of first instance. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court, in its decision of October 20, 2025, acted within its powers and provided a proper assessment of the parties’ arguments. The court did not find any significant violations of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged decision. The prosecutor’s argumentation regarding the illegality of the appellate court’s actions was not confirmed during the cassation proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court recognized the challenged ruling as lawful, well-founded, and reasoned. Interference with the appellate court’s decision in this specific case was deemed inappropriate and inconsistent with the tasks of criminal justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 405/7039/21 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 of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person of official negligence (Part 2, Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) during the exercise of technical supervision over the repair of highways, which, according to the prosecution, resulted in damage to the state.
2. **Arguments of the court:*** The court emphasized the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof: the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence that it was the actions of the accused that led to the losses.
* It was established that the accused had no real authority or technical capacity to control every stage of material supply (specifically, the weighing of asphalt concrete), as this fell within the duties of other employees.
* The prosecution’s key evidence — the conclusion of the construction and technical expert examination — was deemed inadmissible because the sampling (core drilling) was conducted in violation of established State Building Norms (DBN) deadlines (a year or more after the completion of works), which made an objective assessment of the pavement quality impossible.
* The court noted that the conclusion of the economic expert examination was derivative of the construction and technical one and, therefore, also lost its evidentiary value.
* The testimony of the accused regarding the scope of his authority and the procedure for exercising supervision was not refuted by other evidence.
* The appellate court duly examined all the prosecutor’s arguments, evaluated them, and reasonably agreed with the first-instance court’s conclusion regarding the absence of the constituent elements of a crime.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, definitively confirming the acquittal of the person.
**Case No. 127/5836/22 dated 16/07/2026**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the deadline for filing an appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling and the return of the appeal to the applicant.
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case files, concluded that the appellate court, when deciding the issue of reinstating the deadline for appeal, did not fully comply with the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The court of cassation instance pointed to the need for a thorough verification of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline cited by the applicant and an assessment of whether they constitute excusable grounds. In this regard, it was emphasized that a formalistic approach to deciding the issue of reinstating procedural deadlines may lead to a violation of an individual’s right to access to justice, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The appellate court did not provide sufficient reasoning as to why the applicant’s arguments were not convincing, which indicates an incomplete judicial review. Therefore, to ensure the lawfulness and justification of the judicial decision, the case files must be reviewed by the appellate instance, taking into account all circumstances that hindered a timely filing.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
**Case No. 320/29450/24 dated 16/07/2026**
The subject of the dispute is a citizen’s claim to recognize as unlawful the actions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and to repeal certain provisions of Government Resolution No. 481 regarding the procedure for monetaryprovision of military personnel.
When rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle of separation of powers, according to which the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has exclusive competence in the sphere of regulating issues regarding the monetary provision of military personnel on the basis of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances exceeded their authority by attempting to interfere with the discretionary powers of the government regarding the adoption of regulatory legal acts. The panel of judges noted that the challenged resolution was adopted within the powers granted to the government by law and in compliance with the procedure provided for by legislation. The Court stressed that the issue of changing the amounts of monetary provision is a matter of state policy and budgetary planning, and not a subject for judicial challenge of the content of a regulatory act in the manner chosen by the plaintiff. It was also taken into account that the lower courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, which led to the erroneous conclusion regarding the existence of grounds for satisfying the claim. As a result, the cassation instance stated the absence of legal grounds for interfering with the content of the government’s regulatory act.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, cancelled the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new decision to refuse the satisfaction of the claims.
Case No. 741/310/25 dated 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation as a family by a man and a woman without marriage registration, which is necessary for the applicant to receive a one-time monetary assistance in connection with the death of a military serviceman.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that for recognizing individuals as a family, the key factors are cohabitation, maintaining a joint household, having a shared budget, and the existence of mutual rights and obligations. In the opinion of the cassation instance, the Court of Appeal rightly took into account the totality of evidence: official documents where the deceased indicated the applicant’s address as his place of permanent residence and the applicant herself as his spouse, as well as eyewitness testimony regarding their shared life. The Court emphasized that the law does not contain an exhaustive list of evidence, therefore, the assessment of its relevance and sufficiency belongs to the discretion of the court. The cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense was rejected, as the arguments of the department amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the Supreme Court. The decision of the appellate court was recognized as being in accordance with the established practice of the Supreme Court, rather than contradicting it.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense and left the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 522/14201/24 dated 14/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court dec you provided.Decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of the appellate court’s judgment regarding the sentencing for obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Part 1, Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) due to the disagreement of the convicted person and his defense counsel with the severity of the sentence.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the court of first instance rightfully applied the summary proceedings procedure (Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine), as the convicted person clearly understood the consequences and voluntarily agreed to such a procedure.
– The court of cassation emphasized that sentencing must be based on the principles of justice, individualization, and adequacy to the act committed.
– The panel of judges took into account that the convicted person had not previously been held criminally liable, fully admitted guilt, and expressed sincere remorse.
– An important factor was active cooperation in solving the crime and the voluntary payment of a significant sum of funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
– The court concluded that the correction of the convicted person is possible without actual service of the sentence, as the goals of punishment (correction and prevention of new crimes) can be achieved through the application of a probationary period.
– Consequently, the cassation court determined that the appellate court had groundlessly revoked the exemption from serving the sentence imposed by the court of first instance and decided to restore the possibility of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amended the judgment of the appellate court, and exempted the convicted person from serving the primary sentence with probation, establishing a probation period of 2 years.
[Case No. 404/5640/25 dated 07/07/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138293821)
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the correctness of the qualification of the actions of the convicted person, who obtained a vehicle for use through deception and subsequently sold it, as well as the justification of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the actions of a person who, from the very beginning, had no intention of using the vehicle under rental conditions, but used this agreement as a method of misappropriating property, were correctly qualified under Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal taking possession of a vehicle). The court emphasized that Article 289 of the Criminal Code is a special provision that takes priority over general provisions regarding crimes against property (fraud or misappropriation) if the deception was merely an instrument for gaining control over the vehicle. The panel of judges noted that the convicted person acted consistently and planned the crime in advance, involving an accomplice to sell the car, which refutes the defense’s version of “legal possession.” Regarding the sentence, the court deemed it fair, as the convicted person not only committed the crime but also evaded authorities for a long time and misled the owner regarding the fate of the vehicle. Thus, the cassation arguments of the defense regarding the necessity of…reclassification under Art. 192 of the Criminal Code and the application of a probationary period were deemed groundless.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 334/10515/24 dated 16/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the cassation review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of an individual for committing high treason under martial law (Part 2, Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, while reviewing the materials of the criminal proceedings, analyzed the arguments of the defense regarding potential violations of substantive and procedural law during the consideration of the case in the lower courts. The panel of judges concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances had fully and comprehensively examined the evidence provided by the prosecution and provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Court established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 2, Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is well-founded, and the imposed sentence corresponds to the degree of gravity of the crime committed and the personality of the offender. The cassation court did not find any procedural violations that would constitute grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judicial decisions. The defense attorney’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of the conviction were deemed untenable, as they do not refute the facts of the crime established by the courts. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the correct application of the provisions of criminal law and compliance with the case consideration procedure.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 120/7001/25 dated 16/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the legality of the actions and the decision of the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance regarding the establishment of the fact of academic plagiarism in the plaintiff’s dissertation and the request to the Ministry of Education and Science to deprive them of the scientific degree of Candidate of Medical Sciences.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court established that at the time the complaint review began (September 2023), the National Agency did not have powers clearly defined by law to approve the procedure for considering complaints regarding academic plagiarism for the scientific degrees of Candidate or Doctor of Sciences.
– The defendant actually acted on the basis of their own internal regulations, which were developed for a different level of education (the degree of Doctor of Philosophy), which is a violation of the principle of legal certainty.
– The Court emphasized that public authorities are obliged to act exclusively within the limits and in the manner prescribed by law, and not to create their own procedures “by analogy” without proper delegation of powers.
– Only from May 8, 2024, after amendments were made to CMU Resolution No. 1197, did the National Agencythe authority received the right to establish the procedure for considering such appeals; however, these amendments do not have retroactive effect regarding the disputed legal relations.
– The Court emphasized that failure by an authority to comply with its own procedure or the absence of a legislative basis for such a procedure indicates the arbitrariness of actions, which contradicts the principle of the rule of law.
– As a result, the court concluded that since the procedure was initiated and conducted without proper legal grounds, all subsequent decisions taken within the framework of this procedure are unlawful.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was satisfied and the decision of the National Agency was canceled.
Case No. 522/7480/24 dated 23/06/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise legal analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of an individual for intentional grievous bodily harm that caused the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), due to the incompleteness of the judicial proceedings and disagreement with the qualification of the actions.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to provide comprehensive and reasoned answers to every argument of the defense, which was not done in this case. The court of appeal took a formal approach to the consideration of the case, limiting itself only to a list of evidence without their proper assessment and refutation of the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of witness testimony. An important procedural point was also ignored: the existence of a resolution on separating materials regarding the possible involvement of other persons in causing bodily injuries, which directly affects the qualification of the convicted person’s actions. The appellate court effectively duplicated the conclusions of the court of first instance without conducting its own comprehensive analysis of the evidence. This is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law (Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine), as it deprives the parties of the right to effective judicial review. As a result, due to the impossibility of verifying the legality of the verdict without a proper appellate ruling, the Supreme Court deemed the appellate court’s decision premature and unfounded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/7263/25 dated 14/07/2026
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 lawfulness of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on holding LLC “Publishing House ‘Rozumnyky'” liable for anti-competitive concerted practices during participation in public procurement and the imposition of a fine.
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized thatThe courts of lower instances approached the issue of the duration of the antitrust case consideration (over 6 years) formally, without properly examining whether the reasons for such duration were objective and valid.
* The Court emphasized that the fact of a lengthy investigation in itself is not an automatic ground for revoking the decision of the AMC (Antimonopoly Committee), unless the plaintiff has proven how exactly this violated their rights or limited their ability to defend themselves.
* The panel of judges noted that courts must evaluate the duration of proceedings through the prism of the individual circumstances of each case, rather than formally referring to the practice in other cases that do not have prejudicial significance.
* The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of verifying whether the plaintiff’s exercise of the right to defense was hindered by the actions or inaction of the AMC, and whether the duration of the investigation affected the property interests of the business entity.
* The courts of first and appellate instances violated the principles of adversarial proceedings and standards of proof, as they failed to provide a proper assessment of the AMC’s arguments regarding the justification of the timeframes for evidence collection in this specific case.
* Consequently, the courts’ conclusion regarding the revocation of the AMC’s decision was deemed premature, as all factual circumstances of decisive importance for the case had not been established.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee, revoked 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. 906/939/23 (906/656/25) dated 07/02/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138293495)
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a debt assignment agreement concluded by a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings, and the recovery of funds paid under it as a fraudulent transaction.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that when assessing the fraudulent nature of a transaction, one cannot formally equate the outflow of liquid cash with the acquisition of a claim against another person, since the actual value of such a claim may be significantly lower. The Court stressed that a debtor in a state of insolvency is obliged to act in good faith and in an economically justified manner, rather than assuming the debts of others without real benefit to their own business activities. The appellate court mistakenly limited itself only to the fact of the existence of accounts receivable, without investigating whether this operation was aimed at siphoning off assets to the detriment of creditors. The Supreme Court confirmed that the institution of declaring transactions invalid under Article 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, in combination with the general principles of good faith (Articles 3, 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), is an effective mechanism for protecting the property interests of creditors. It was established that the contested agreement had no reasonable economic purpose and led to the unfounded reduction of the debtor’s assets, which is impermissible in bankruptcy proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court revokedthe appellate court’s resolution and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim was satisfied and the debt assignment agreement was declared invalid.
Case No. 158/3647/24 dated 16/07/2026
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:** Establishing the fact of residing as one family for at least five years prior to the opening of an inheritance to acquire the right to inherit by law in the fourth line of succession.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court of appellate instance, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of maintaining a joint household, having a common budget, or the mutual rights and obligations inherent to family members.
– The court noted that providing assistance to an elderly person and participating in their funeral are not, in themselves, grounds for recognizing the fact of residing as one family within the meaning of inheritance legislation.
– The Supreme Court confirmed the prosecutor’s right to represent the interests of the state represented by a local self-government body, as the city council had failed to take appropriate measures to protect the interests of the territorial community regarding a potentially escheated inheritance.
– Regarding procedural issues, the court recognized the reasons for the prosecutor’s missed deadline for filing an appeal as valid, taking into account the need to protect the public interest and the circumstances under which the prosecutor learned of the decision.
– The court emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, the cassation court does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined.
– The Supreme Court stated that the challenged resolution of the appellate court is based on the correct application of substantive and procedural law, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the court’s violation of procedure are groundless.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the Volyn Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 522/7485/24 dated 15/07/2026
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:** An employee filed a lawsuit to declare an order of dismissal unlawful, for reinstatement at work, and for the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff missed the one-month deadline for filing a lawsuit with the court, as provided for by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, since he failed to take appropriate measures to protect his rights for a long period of time.
– It was proven that the employer repeatedly attempted to notify the employee of the dismissal and invited him to receive the order, which is confirmed by an act and witness testimony.
– The court emphasized that the plaintiff knew about his dismissal on the very day the order was issued, yet he consciously evaded receiving the docdocuments, which testifies to his passive behavior.
– Valid reasons for missing the deadline can only be objective, insurmountable circumstances, whereas in this case, the missing of the deadline was solely the result of the plaintiff’s own inaction.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the duty to comply with the time limits for filing an application to the court is a component of the legal protection mechanism, and abuse of rights or bad-faith conduct of parties in labor relations is unacceptable.
– Additionally, the court drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff requested the issuance of the order only in 2024, although the dismissal took place in 2022, which finally refuted his arguments regarding lack of awareness.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim unchanged.
Case No. 907/1045/25 dated 07/14/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A participant of a limited liability company filed a lawsuit to compel the company to provide access to an extensive list of documents regarding its economic activities, financial condition, and management, citing a violation of his corporate rights.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the fact that a participant’s right to receive information about the activities of a company is a fundamental corporate right enshrined in the Civil Code and the Law “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies”.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the list of documents defined in Art. 43 of the relevant Law is not exhaustive; therefore, a participant has the right to request any information related to the company’s activities, provided it is not restricted-access information.
* The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the availability of public access to certain information (for example, through registers) exempts the company from the obligation to provide these documents to a participant upon their request.
* Regarding the protection of personal data, the court noted that this is not a ground for a complete refusal to provide documents; the company is obliged to provide the requested information while anonymizing personal data or removing confidential information that does not affect the essence of management decisions.
* The court also emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence of the objective impossibility of providing the documents (for example, their destruction due to the expiration of storage periods), and therefore the refusal to provide information is unlawful.
* The cassation instance emphasized that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of law, and the appellant’s arguments amount to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is not grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the company’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to partially satisfy the claim unchanged.
Case No. 904/7413/21 dated 07/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the private enforcement officer’s actions regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property and the refusal to return the collected funds.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the law grants a private enforcement officer the right to initiate proceedings not only at the debtor’s place of registration but also at the location of their property. In this case, the claimant provided the enforcement officer with information from the State Register of Proprietary Rights, which confirmed the presence of the debtor’s real estate within the enforcement district, which is a sufficient ground for initiating proceedings. The court emphasized that the presence of at least one of the alternative criteria (the location of the debtor or their property) renders the enforcement officer’s actions lawful. Regarding the demand for the return of funds, the court noted that they had already been transferred to the claimant on the basis of a valid court order. Since the enforcement officer acted only as an intermediary in the transfer of funds and not as their recipient, there are no grounds for recovering them from the officer. Furthermore, the court stressed that the appellant’s arguments regarding the lack of documents held by the enforcement officer essentially amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which denied the complaint of JSC “UkrSibbank” regarding the actions of the private enforcement officer.
Case No. 750/1242/26 dated 07/14/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings based on a defense attorney’s complaint against a ruling issued by an investigating judge within the framework of criminal proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the right to appeal rulings of an investigating judge is strictly limited by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the list of rulings that can be appealed during pre-trial investigation is exhaustive and is not subject to broad interpretation. In this case, the appellate court correctly determined that the appealed ruling of the investigating judge is not included in the list of court decisions subject to appellate review separate from the verdict. Accordingly, the refusal to initiate proceedings was recognized as compliant with the requirements of procedural law. The Supreme Court stressed that the right of access to justice is not absolute and must be exercised exclusively in the manner prescribed by law. Thus, any attempts to appeal intermediate decisions of an investigating judge not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code are unfounded and not subject to substantive review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to initiate proceedings.
Case No. 357/10997/19 dated 07/14/2026
The subject of this dispute is the correctness of the qualification of the actionsthe convicted person who struck the victim with a fist, which led to the death of the latter, and the issue of intent to cause grievous bodily injury.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that, for the purpose of qualifying a crime under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the prosecution is obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent was specifically directed at causing grievous harm to health. In this case, the lower courts did not provide sufficient evidence that the blow was of “significant force” or that the convicted person intended to strike a part of the body that would knowingly lead to lethal consequences. On the contrary, the forensic examination confirmed that death occurred due to a complex set of physiological factors, including the victim’s state of intoxication, and not solely due to the force of the blow. The Court took into account that the conflict was sudden, the convicted person did not possess specialized combat skills, and his behavior after the incident indicated an absence of intent to kill or cause grievous harm. Since the prosecution failed to refute the defense’s version regarding the negligent nature of the actions, the Court concluded that it was impossible to apply Article 121 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the actions of the convicted person were reclassified under Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (homicide by negligence).
The Court ordered the reclassification of the convicted person’s actions to Part 1 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, released him from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 200/8962/17 of 07/16/2026
The subject of this dispute is the consideration of a prosecutor’s cassation appeal against a ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of individuals for fraud and forgery of documents.
In rendering this decision, the Court was guided exclusively by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for cassation proceedings. Since only the operative part of the ruling is provided in the text, it is evident that the panel of judges concluded that further consideration of the appeal on the merits was impossible. The Supreme Court applied the provisions of Articles 432 and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which define the grounds for closing cassation proceedings. It is likely that during preparation for the hearing or directly during the court session, circumstances were discovered that preclude the review of the challenged decision in the cassation order. The judges acted within the scope of their authority, ensuring compliance with procedural discipline and the finality of judicial decisions. This decision indicates that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal did not meet the requirements of the law or had exhausted the legal grounds for its consideration.
The Court ordered the closure of the cassation proceedings regarding the prosecutor’s appeal.
Case No. 468/2215/23 of 07/15/2026
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:** The plaintiff attempted to judicially re-establishto renew the land lease agreement, relying on their pre-emptive right as a lessee, and challenged the lessor’s conclusion of a new agreement with another party.
2. **Court’s Rationale:** The court proceeded from the premise that the exercise of the pre-emptive right to renew a land lease is a strictly regulated procedure that requires the lessee not only to provide written notice but also to mandatorily attach a draft supplementary agreement to it. Since the plaintiff ignored this imperative requirement of the law, they did not properly initiate the contract renewal procedure; therefore, no obligation arose for the lessor to consider such a proposal. The court emphasized that the provisions of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” are imperative and do not provide for alternative ways of exercising this right. It was also noted that the plaintiff’s reliance on previous Supreme Court practice is groundless, as the circumstances of those cases differed significantly from the current situation. The court further drew attention to the lack of evidence in the case file regarding the existence of exceptional circumstances (e.g., martial law or occupation) that would have objectively rendered it impossible for the lessee to fulfill the formal requirements of the law. Consequently, the court concluded that the lessor acted lawfully by entering into an agreement with another person after the expiration of the previous agreement.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which denied the plaintiff’s claims.
**Case No. 443/683/25 dated 07/15/2026**
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A father’s lawsuit to deprive the mother of parental rights regarding their minor daughter due to her evasion of parental duties.
2. **Court’s Rationale:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the deprivation of parental rights is an exceptional and extreme measure, applied only in the presence of proven culpable conduct and conscious neglect of duties. The court emphasized that mere inaction or lack of communication is not always a sufficient ground for a complete severance of family ties, provided that no real threat to the child’s development is proven. In doing so, the court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires courts to carefully assess the proportionality of such interference and prioritize the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts acted within their discretion when evaluating the evidence and correctly established the absence of grounds for the deprivation of rights at this time. At the same time, in order to protect the child’s rights, the court deemed it necessary to apply a preventive measure—an official warning to the mother regarding the need to change her attitude toward raising her daughter. The court also imposed on the guardianship and custody authority the duty to monitor the defendant’s fulfillment of her parental obligations in the future.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court partially…granted the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the courts of lower instances by supplementing the operative part with a warning to the mother regarding the necessity to change her attitude toward the fulfillment of parental duties and by establishing supervision over her by the guardianship authority; in the remaining part, the decision was left unchanged.
Case No. 753/10384/24 dated 07/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A claim for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, recognition of information as unreliable, and its refutation due to the dissemination on the Internet of statements that the plaintiff considered to be false facts.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court emphasized the fundamental difference between factual statements and value judgments, noting that the latter are not subject to refutation as they represent the author’s subjective opinion.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the limits of permissible criticism regarding public figures (politicians) are significantly broader than those regarding ordinary citizens, and they must be tolerant of sharp or even improper criticism.
* The disputed statement was phrased in the form of a question and reflections, which, in the context of discussing socio-political issues, constitutes a form of value judgment rather than a statement of fact.
* The court found that the expert opinion provided by the plaintiff contained contradictory conclusions and could not be used as a basis for the decision, as the expert had exceeded the scope of linguistic analysis by attempting to provide a legal assessment of terms.
* It was also taken into account that the plaintiff did not challenge the part of the statement that contained factual data (regarding the holding of a forum), and the rest of the phrase did not contain false facts that could be subject to judicial protection.
* Regarding the distribution of court costs, the court confirmed the defendant’s right to reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance, as they were duly documented, and the plaintiff did not provide justified objections regarding their proportionality.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had denied the claim in full.
Case No. 344/8185/19 dated 07/14/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 344/8185/19:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the conviction of a patrol police inspector for exceeding official authority (Part 2 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), accompanied by the unlawful use of physical force against a citizen, as well as the issue of the proper defendant in a civil claim for damages.
2. The court of cassation confirmed the validity of the lower courts’ conclusions regarding the policeman’s guilt, as the case materials, including the body camera footage, proved the absence of legal grounds for conducting a superficial inspection and using physical force (arm-twisting) against the victim. The court emphasized that…the police officer had no grounds for such actions, and his versions of events were refuted by witness testimonies and case materials. An important aspect was the confirmation of the admissibility of the forensic medical examination conclusions, which clearly established a causal link between the actions of the convicted person and the moderate bodily injuries sustained by the victim. At the same time, ****, the court departed from previous practice regarding the determination of the proper defendant in a civil lawsuit, guided by the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court noted that damage caused by an official while performing their duties must be compensated by the state, rather than directly by the convicted person, which requires the claim to be considered under civil procedure rules.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the part finding the person guilty of committing a criminal offense but set aside the judicial decisions regarding the resolution of the civil claim, remanding the case for a new trial under civil procedure rules.
Case No. 758/16381/19 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement, including the principal amount, interest for the use of funds, penalty, and 3% per annum.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court confirmed the fact of the loan agreement’s conclusion, as the plaintiff provided the agreement with the signatures of the parties, and the defendant did not refute the fact of receiving the funds with proper evidence.
– Regarding the penalty, the court concluded that after the due date for the loan repayment (May 30, 2018), the legal relationship between the parties transitioned into a “protective” stage, where the debtor’s liability for delay in a monetary obligation is regulated exclusively by Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (inflationary losses and 3% per annum), and not by a contractual penalty.
– The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, referring to the established practice of the Grand Chamber, according to which the accrual of a contractual penalty ceases after the expiration of the loan repayment period.
– Regarding the defendant’s refusal to conduct a handwriting examination, the court noted that the defendant abused their rights: they received the ruling on the appointment of the examination and were notified of the need for payment, but did not take any actions to conduct it.
– The court emphasized that the principle of adversarial proceedings implies an obligation on the parties to prove their claims and objections, and the passive behavior of the defendant cannot be grounds for overturning the decision.
– The Supreme Court found no grounds to depart from its previous conclusions, as the legal position in this case fully complies with established judicial practice.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties and left the decisions of the lower courts (in the unchanged part) without changes.
Case No. 145/2218/24 dated 07/15/2026
PrThe subject of the dispute in this case is the consideration of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the accused under Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which concluded with a procedural resolution of the issue concerning the further course of the proceedings.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided primarily by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the rights of the parties in cassation proceedings. The key factor was the expression of will by the prosecutor, who formally withdrew the cassation appeal filed by him, which is his procedural right. Since the withdrawal of an appeal is an unconditional ground for terminating the review of a case, the Court saw no grounds to continue the cassation proceedings. At the same time, the defense counsel’s motion to close the proceedings in connection with the death of the accused was left without consideration, as the prosecutor’s withdrawal of his claims took precedence. The Court did not enter into a consideration of the merits of the case, limiting itself exclusively to the procedural consequences of the parties’ actions. Thus, the panel of judges acted within the scope of its authority, ensuring adherence to the principle of dispositivity in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled to leave the defense counsel’s motion without consideration and to close the cassation proceedings in connection with the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 931/755/24 dated 08/07/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The owner of a land plot filed a lawsuit with the court to remove obstacles in the use of the land and to cancel the state registration of the lease right, as the lease agreement was concluded without his expression of will and signed by another person.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a legal transaction is an act of will, and if a party did not sign the agreement and did not express the will to conclude it, such a transaction is considered non-concluded. The courts of lower instances mistakenly applied the doctrine of “estoppel” (prohibition of contradictory conduct), believing that the receipt of rent automatically confirms the validity of the agreement. However, the court of cassation instance established that the funds received were merely compensation for the actual use of the land, rather than performance of the terms of a non-existent agreement. The fact of non-signing of the agreement, confirmed by a forensic handwriting examination, is key evidence of the absence of legal grounds for the use of the plot by the defendant. The court emphasized that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the defendant did not provide proper evidence of the emergence of lease legal relations. Therefore, the registration of the lease right on the basis of a forged document is illegal and violates the rights of the owner.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision, satisfying the land owner’s lawsuit in full, obliging the farming enterprise to return the land and canceling the state registration of the lease right.Case No. 752/21643/24 of 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff applied to the court with a claim to invalidate the certificates of the right to inheritance issued to the defendant, since after having the term for acceptance of inheritance extended for him, he also lays claim to a share in his deceased mother’s property.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the choice of the method of protection must correspond to the nature of the violated right, and the invalidation of an inheritance certificate is an extreme measure applied only in the presence of “defects” in the document itself at the time of its issuance. The court clarified that in cases where an heir who accepted the inheritance is discovered later, or the shares of the heirs change, the appropriate method of protection is to amend the certificate, rather than to cancel it entirely. Declaring a certificate invalid in its entirety when a person has a right to inheritance, but in a smaller amount, constitutes a disproportionate interference with property rights. The court emphasized its active role in providing the correct legal qualification to the plaintiff’s claims, even if the plaintiff chose a formally ineffective method of protection. Considering that the plaintiff effectively sought a redistribution of shares rather than depriving the defendant of the inheritance, the court independently reclassified the claims to ensure effective protection of the rights of both parties. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the consistency of its position, set forth in Case No. 504/3606/14-ts, regarding the distinction between the concepts of “invalidation” and “amendment” of a certificate.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the invalidation of the certificates, and rendered a new decision to amend the certificates of the right to inheritance, reducing the defendant’s share from 1/2 to 1/4.
Case No. 705/1005/23 of 15/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a land lease agreement concluded by the lessor with a new lessee during the term of the previous lease agreement, and the termination of the lease right under this new agreement.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate instance, based on the fact that the lessor acted in bad faith by concluding a new lease agreement for the same plot despite the validity of the previous agreement, which was being effectively performed by the parties. The court emphasized that the supplementary agreement on the extension of the lease term, although not registered in the registry, had been signed by the parties and performed (the lessor received rent), which indicates its validity and the existence of legal relations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the free disposal of a land plot by an owner through the conclusion of a new agreement during the term of a previous one violates the rights of the primary lessee. CThe court also noted that distinguishing between the moment of conclusion of a contract (reaching an agreement) and the moment of the emergence of a property right (registration) is key to understanding the validity of binding legal relations. Ultimately, the court concluded that declaring a contract invalid is an effective method of protecting the rights of the original lessee, which allows for the restoration of their right of use.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 500/6492/25 dated 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appealing decisions of the tax authority regarding the refusal to register tax invoices and seeking an order to register them.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for suspending the registration of tax invoices is preventive in nature and should not substitute for a full-fledged tax audit, where the reality of business transactions is examined.
– The Court noted that the tax authority’s commission has the right to assess the sufficiency of documents, but this assessment must be based on the substance of the transaction, rather than the formal completeness of the list of requested documents.
– The appellate court made an error by finding the refusal lawful solely due to the formal non-provision by the taxpayer of some additional documents, without analyzing whether the documents already provided confirmed the essence of the transaction.
– The Court emphasized that documents such as statistical reports or information on the total number of labor resources are not critically important for confirming a specific transaction for the supply of goods if the main primary documents (contracts, delivery notes, bank statements) are available.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the tax authority has the right to request additional documents; however, failure to provide them does not automatically entitle the authority to refuse registration if the aggregate of other documents allows for the identification of the transaction.
– In summary, the court of first instance correctly examined the provided evidence, whereas the appellate court groundlessly prioritized a formal approach, ignoring the proven reality of the transactions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the taxpayer’s claims were satisfied.
Case No. 910/2188/25 dated 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal by the lower courts to satisfy an application by a private enforcement officer regarding the foreclosure on monetary funds belonging to a third party (the debtor of your debtor) within the framework of the compulsory enforcement of a court decision.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that when levying execution onfunds of third parties pursuant to Article 336 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the principles of disposition and proportionality must be strictly observed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the total amount of claims under such applications cannot exceed the amount of debt specified in the enforcement document, as this creates a risk of excessive recovery and uncertainty regarding the scope of obligations. The enforcement officer filed several applications simultaneously against different persons, the total amount of which exceeded the debt threefold, which made it impossible for the court to determine specific shares of recovery without the risk of violating the parties’ rights. The court stressed that it does not have the authority to choose on its own from whom exactly to recover funds in order to avoid double recovery. It was also taken into account that a court decision cannot be rendered regarding abstract or not finally determined claims. As a result, the actions of the enforcement officer were recognized as inconsistent with the task of commercial legal proceedings regarding the effective and fair protection of rights.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer.
Case No. 902/172/23 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings upon the appeal of a representative of the debtor’s employees against the resolution on declaring the enterprise bankrupt.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court was guided by Article 272 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which limits the right to repeated appellate review if the appellant’s arguments had already been subject to consideration during a previous appellate review of the case upon the appeal of another person.
– The appellate court established that the arguments of the employees’ representative regarding the debtor’s financial condition, the inventory procedure, and the legitimacy of the creditors’ meeting are identical to those that had already been evaluated in the previous appellate resolution of 02/16/2026.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is not absolute and must be exercised within the procedural frameworks established by law to ensure the stability of court decisions.
– The court noted that the representative of the employees was not deprived of the opportunity to protect the interests of the labor collective within the liquidation procedure, particularly regarding the payment of wages.
– The cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances that have already been examined by the lower courts.
– The Supreme Court concluded that the challenged ruling of the appellate court is lawful, as a re-examination of identical arguments would contradict the principle of legal certainty.
3. **Decision of the court:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to open proceedings.
**Case No. 1-34/06 of 30/06/2026**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal by the courts of lower instances to review the 2006 verdict based on newly discovered circumstances regarding the convicted person, PERSON_5.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that the procedure for reviewing court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is an exceptional mechanism, available only in the presence of grounds clearly defined by law that existed at the time the decision was rendered but were not known to the court. The Supreme Court verified the compliance of the courts of first and appellate instances with procedural law during the consideration of the defense counsel’s application. The panel of judges concluded that the arguments raised by the convicted person in the cassation appeal did not contain substantiated grounds for overturning the contested rulings, as the courts of lower instances correctly established the absence of legal facts that would indicate the presence of newly discovered circumstances within the meaning of the criminal procedural law. The Court emphasized that disagreement with a verdict that entered into legal force many years ago cannot serve as a basis for its review under this procedure without the provision of proper evidence that would refute previously established circumstances. Thus, the cassation instance confirmed that the procedural decisions of the lower courts were made in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal and upheld the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances.
**Case No. 756/11990/25 of 14/07/2026**
The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the time limit for filing an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance, submitted by the defense counsel after the expiration of the thirty-day period established by law.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to file an appeal must be exercised within clearly defined procedural time limits, which ensure legal certainty. The Court emphasized that receiving a copy of the verdict after the date of its pronouncement does not automatically imply the existence of valid reasons for missing the deadline, if the party had sufficient time to prepare the appeal after becoming acquainted with the decision. In this case, the defense counsel received a copy of the verdict on October 23, while the deadline for filing an appeal did not expire until November 14, which provided her with over three weeks to perform procedural actions. The Court stressed that the defense side is obliged to act in good faith and take reasonable measures to exercise its rights without unjustified delays. Since the defense counsel did not provide any objective obstacles that would have prevented her from filing an appeal in the period from October 23 to November 14, there were no grounds for reinstating the time limit. Consequently, the appellate court’s decision was recognized as lawful, reasoned, and in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to reinstate the time limit for filing an appeal.amendments.
Case No. 161/3017/20 of 07/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court ruling, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding a person accused of committing robbery under Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. During the cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court examined the arguments of the defense counsel regarding potential violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the appellate court. The Court analyzed the case files and concluded that the appellate court had duly examined all arguments of the defense set forth in the appellate complaint. The panel of judges established that the conclusions of the lower courts were based on a complete and comprehensive examination of the collected evidence in its totality. The court of cassation did not find any procedural violations that would constitute an absolute ground for overturning the contested decision. The Court confirmed that the classification of the accused’s actions under Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and corresponds to the established factual circumstances of the case. Thus, there are no grounds for interfering with the decision of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation complaint of the defense counsel.
Case No. 718/2895/24 of 07/15/2026
The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court judgment regarding the conviction of a person for illegal handling of weapons, ammunition, or explosives (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the materials of the criminal proceedings, concluded that the lower courts acted within the scope of their authority and complied with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation. The panel of judges analyzed the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation complaint but found no substantiated grounds for overturning or amending the contested decision of the appellate court. The Court established that the conclusions of the appellate instance regarding the person’s guilt in committing the incriminated crime are based on proper and admissible evidence, which was examined in full. The correctness of the classification of the convicted person’s actions and the proportionality of the imposed sentence to the gravity of the committed offense and the personality of the offender were also verified. The Supreme Court found no significant violations of law that could serve as a basis for interference with the decision of the appellate court. In conclusion, the court of cassation recognized the contested judgment as lawful and well-founded.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation complaint of the defense counsel.
Case No. 759/10092/25 of 07/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective.
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of an appellate complaint by the court of appellate instance due to technitechnical features of its submission in electronic form.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that excessive formalism in matters of access to justice is inadmissible. The Court noted that if an appeal is filed through the “Electronic Court” system and signed with a qualified electronic signature (QES), it is considered duly signed, even if technically uploaded as an attachment to a cover letter. The Supreme Court stressed that the “Electronic Court” service ensures the identification of the person, therefore the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the “non-signing” of the appeal is erroneous. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that upon detecting deficiencies in the form of the appeal, the appellate court is obliged to first stay the proceedings to allow for the rectification of such deficiencies, rather than returning it to the applicant immediately. Such an approach guarantees the realization of an individual’s constitutional right to an appellate review of the case. The Court also referred to its own established practice, which requires courts to avoid excessive formalism that undermines the right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the court of appeal to resolve the issue of initiating appellate proceedings.
Case No. 757/43018/24-cv dated 07/15/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from JSC “Ukrainian Railways” of unpaid material assistance for wellness, surcharges for an academic degree, and average earnings for the period of delay in final settlement upon dismissal.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court established that material assistance and surcharges for an academic degree are part of the salary; therefore, their non-payment upon dismissal is a direct violation of labor legislation.
– The employer did not have the right to unilaterally suspend payments provided for by the collective agreement, as amendments to such agreements are made only by mutual consent of the parties.
– The decision of the Management Board of JSC “Ukrainian Railways” to suspend payments was adopted on March 14, 2022, whereas the specialized Law of Ukraine “On the Organization of Labor Relations under Martial Law” entered into force only on March 24, 2022; therefore, it does not have retroactive effect.
– The Court emphasized that Article 9 of the Labor Code of Ukraine automatically renders invalid the terms of agreements that worsen the employee’s position compared to legislation, without the need for a separate judicial declaration of their invalidity.
– Regarding the average earnings for the period of delay, the Court applied the principle of proportionality and fairness, upholding the appellate court’s decision to reduce the amount of recovery, taking into account the circumstances of martial law.
– The Supreme Court also referred to its previous practice, confirming that the unilateral cancellation of social guarantees by an employer is unlawful.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railways” and left the judgment of the appellate court unchanged.
