Case No. 916/5780/24 of 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of an agricultural product supply agreement and application of the consequences of an invalid transaction due to its focus on the groundless formation of VAT tax credit.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the business operations under the agreement had signs of being fictitious (“lack of goods”), as the parties failed to prove the actual movement of assets (absence of evidence of transportation, storage, and origin of the goods).
* The appellate court reasonably considered that the supplier lacked the necessary material and technical facilities for the production or storage of the declared volumes of products.
* An important factor was that the agreement provided for settlements through a bank account that had been closed even before the conclusion of the agreement itself, and the parties did not provide evidence of settlements made by other means.
* The court noted that concluding an agreement without a business purpose and a real intention to fulfill it indicates concerted actions of the parties aimed at the artificial creation of a tax benefit.
* The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, indicating that tax information, in conjunction with other evidence (data on account closures, lack of assets), is sufficient to conclude that the operations were unreal.
* The court emphasized that the formal execution of primary documents (dispatch notes) is not proof of the reality of an operation if there is no actual movement of goods.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, by which the supply agreement was declared invalid.
Case No. 522/17560/23 of 07/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of a person’s permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine in the period from 1985 to 1988 for the subsequent acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship by territorial origin.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that establishing a legal fact in separate proceedings is lawful, as the applicant has no other possibility of obtaining the relevant documents due to the occupation of her place of previous residence (Makiivka city).
– The Supreme Court noted that the objections of the Migration Service regarding the sufficiency of evidence do not create a “dispute over rights” that would preclude the consideration of the case in the order of separate proceedings.
– The courts of lower instances correctly applied the “balance of probabilities” standard, evaluating the available evidence (USSR passport, employment record book, diploma) in their entirety.
– The court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence if the lower courts have provided it with a proper legal assessment.
– The Migration Service did not…filed motions for conducting expert examinations to refute the authenticity of the documents; therefore, their doubts regarding the genuineness of the documents were dismissed.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that legal conclusions in cases depend on specific circumstances, and in this case, the courts acted within the scope of their authority, adhering to the adversarial principle.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 536/647/25 of 07/20/2026
Here is a detailed legal analysis of this court decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to determine an additional period for submitting an application for the acceptance of an inheritance by will, claiming that they were unaware of the entire composition of the inheritable property (in particular, a land plot).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that in order to determine an additional period, an heir must prove the existence of objective, insurmountable, and significant obstacles that prevented them from applying to a notary within six months from the date of the testator’s death.
– The Supreme Court confirmed the established practice according to which an heir’s lack of awareness regarding the composition of the inheritable property or legal ignorance regarding the procedure for accepting an inheritance are not valid reasons for missing the deadline.
– The court noted that the assessment of the validity of the reasons must relate specifically to the period within six months after the opening of the inheritance, as it is during this time that the obstacles must exist.
– The plaintiff was aware of the fact of the testator’s death and the existence of a will in their favor, and therefore had the opportunity to take the necessary actions in a timely manner.
– The courts of lower instances correctly assessed the evidence, having not established any objective circumstances that would have rendered the plaintiff’s timely application to a notary impossible.
– The plaintiff’s reference to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (Case No. 686/5757/23) was rejected, as the conclusions of the courts in this case do not contradict the Grand Chamber’s position regarding the necessity of evaluating the circumstances in each specific case.
– The court of cassation instance emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the arguments of the appeal boil down to a subjective interpretation of legal norms, which is not a ground for overturning decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 686/17937/25 of 07/15/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on closing the appellate proceedings initiated by the appeal of the probation authority and returning said appeal to the applicant.
The Supreme Court, while reviewing the arguments of the cassation appeal, analyzed the compliance of the appellate court’s actions with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation. The court proceeded from the premise that the right to appellate review…shall be implemented within the frameworks of the procedures established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In this case, the Court of Appeal reached a correct conclusion regarding the existence of grounds for closing the proceedings, as the complaint was filed in violation of procedural norms or by a subject who did not have the appropriate authority for this in the specific legal relationship. The court of cassation instance stated that the Court of Appeal did not make any errors in the application of legal norms that could serve as a basis for overturning the ruling. The arguments of the representative of the Probation Center regarding the groundlessness of closing the proceedings were deemed unfounded and insufficient to refute the conclusions of the court of appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the procedural order of appeal must be strictly observed, and any departures from it entail the impossibility of considering the complaint on the merits.
The Supreme Court left the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the representative of the Probation Center — unsatisfied.
Case No. 990/59/25 dated 16/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is a challenge by a candidate for the position of a judge against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to approve the results of cognitive ability testing, following which the plaintiff did not receive a passing score and was removed from further participation in the competition.
**2. Main arguments of the court**
* The court emphasized that the HQCJ is endowed with discretionary powers to independently choose the method of implementing qualification assessment procedures, in particular to engage external providers (LLC “Symetrics-Ukraine”) in the absence of its own software.
* The Grand Chamber noted that the legislation does not require the HQCJ to approve a complete list of cognitive ability test questions, as this would contradict the very purpose of such testing and the principles of its anonymity.
* The court pointed out that the publication of the competition results is a legal mechanism for ensuring the transparency and openness of the procedure, and the plaintiff’s voluntary participation in the competition excludes the possibility of qualifying such actions as interference with her private life.
* It was emphasized that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding technical malfunctions during the testing are unfounded, as they were not duly recorded on the day of the exam and are based solely on assumptions.
* The court noted that re-testing an individual candidate would violate the principle of anonymity and equality of all participants in the competition, as it would allow for the identification of the person and create risks of human factor influence.
* The Grand Chamber concluded that the court of first instance mistakenly equated the “content of testing” with the “list of questions,” which led to an incorrect interpretation of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and…status of judges”.
**3. Court Decision**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the appellate complaint of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ), set aside the decision of the court of first instance, and rendered a new decision, by which it fully dismissed the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 947/21366/24 dated 07/15/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s crediting of the term of pre-trial detention, which had already been taken into account within the framework of another criminal proceeding, toward the term of punishment imposed for a combination of sentences.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed a substantial violation of the norms of criminal law, in particular Articles 71 and 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the law do not provide for the possibility of repeatedly crediting a term of pre-trial detention that had already been taken into account when rendering a previous judgment. It was also noted that when imposing a final punishment for a combination of sentences, it is impermissible to credit a term that has already been actually served under a previous judgment, as this contradicts the mechanism of aggregating punishments. The appellate court did not properly examine the case materials, which clearly indicated that the specified period of detention had already been taken into account in case No. 520/14412/19. As a result, the Supreme Court recognized the appellate decision as unlawful and unfounded, as it does not comply with the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Separately, the Court drew attention to the need to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal proceeding, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 906/368/25 dated 07/15/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 2,073,830.93 based on assignment of claim agreements (cession) regarding funds that the plaintiff considered erroneously transferred.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court established that the funds which the plaintiff attempted to recover as “erroneously transferred” were, in fact, payment for actually performed contract work, which is confirmed by work acceptance certificates and tax invoices.
* Since the obligations under the construction contracts were fulfilled in full, the monetary obligation of the defendant to the original creditor was terminated, and therefore, the right of claim at the time of its assignment to the plaintiff was effectively non-existent.
* The Court emphasized that the suspension of proceedings in a case is possible only in the presence of an objective impossibility of its consideration, whereas the existence of a parallel judicial dispute regarding the invalidation of agreements is not an automatic ground for suspension.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the goThe commercial court has sufficient authority to independently assess evidence and establish the factual circumstances of the case without awaiting decisions in other proceedings.
* The plaintiff failed to prove that it was critically necessary to await the results of another case to establish the absence of a right of claim; therefore, the refusal of the courts of lower instances to stay the proceedings was lawful.
* The court noted that the presumption of lawfulness of a legal transaction (Article 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) remains in effect until the transaction is declared invalid; therefore, the courts reasonably proceeded from the validity of the construction contracts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances denying the claim unchanged.
**Case No. 904/7107/25 dated 07/08/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision made by the commission of the Distribution System Operator (DSO) regarding the accrual of the cost of unmetered electricity due to the detected unauthorized connection of the consumer’s electrical installations.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the court of first instance, emphasizing that the report on the violation was drawn up in compliance with the requirements of the Retail Electricity Market Rules (REMR). The court noted that the document clearly recorded the fact of unauthorized connection to networks not belonging to the DSO, in violation of the metering scheme, which falls under the definition of a violation according to subparagraph 7 of paragraph 8.4.2 of the REMR. The panel of judges emphasized that even if the report was drawn up simultaneously with the installation of a new metering unit, this does not disprove the fact of the violation detected. The Supreme Court also indicated that potential technical defects in the preparation of the report do not negate the proven nature of the violation if it is confirmed by the totality of other evidence. Consequently, the appellate court erroneously overturned the decision of the local court, giving excessive importance to formal aspects instead of assessing the essence of the violation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the consumer’s claim was denied.
**Case No. 990/164/25 dated 07/09/2026**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A candidate for the position of judge challenging the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the approval of the results of the qualification examination and the termination of participation in the competition due to disagreement with the assessment of the practical assignment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the HQCJ is a collegiate body whose decisions regarding the assessment of candidates are based on discretionary powers, i.e., on the internal conviction of the commission members.
* The fact that a practical assignment was reviewed by a commission member outside of working hours (during…during vacation or sick leave) does not constitute a violation, as it does not affect the objectivity of the assessment, and access to the system was carried out exclusively in an authorized manner.
* The Court noted that Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24 are auxiliary (instructive) in nature and do not oblige the HQCJ to detail the points for each individual element of the task in the final decision.
* The assessment of a practical task is carried out based on a total score, and not by summing up the marks for individual criteria; therefore, the absence of detailing does not indicate that the decision is arbitrary.
* The principle of anonymity of the examination is a key guarantee of objectivity, therefore, re-evaluation of a specific candidate’s papers is impossible, as this would violate the equality of conditions for all competition participants.
* The Court emphasized that its task is to verify compliance with the procedure, and not to interfere with the professional assessment of a candidate’s knowledge, unless it is obviously arbitrary.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the HQCJ’s actions.
Case No. 902/1052/23 dated 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 matter of the dispute:** Declaring invalid a contract for the construction of multi-story residential buildings on defense lands, concluded between the Podilsk Capital Construction Directorate of the Ministry of Defense and a private enterprise.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The courts of first and appellate instances formally denied the claim, referring exclusively to the fact that the prosecutor had chosen an ineffective method of protection by failing to state a claim for the application of the consequences of an invalid transaction (bilateral restitution).
* The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not follow the instructions given by it during a previous cassation review of the same case.
* The Court emphasized that when denying a claim due to an ineffective method of protection, the court is obliged not only to state this fact but to explain to the plaintiff which method of protection is appropriate in a specific situation.
* The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the courts did not evaluate the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of Defense Lands” and the Law “On Investment Activity.”
* Furthermore, it was not investigated whether it is possible to apply restitution at all in this case, considering that the plaintiffs (state bodies) are not parties to the contract.
* The Court stressed that the formalistic approach of the lower courts to following the instructions of the cassation instance made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case.
* As a result, the decisions were overturned due to incomplete examination of evidence and violation of procedural law norms.
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 Vinnytsia Oblast.Case No. 990/487/25 of 07/16/2026
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:** A judicial candidate’s challenge to the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding his non-admission to the fourth stage of the qualification examination due to the establishment of a passing score that exceeded the average permissible score.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the HQCJ is vested with discretionary powers to independently determine the conditions for admitting candidates to the next stages of the examination, taking into account the number of vacant positions. The Court distinguished between the concepts of “average permissible score” (as a threshold for successfully passing a stage) and “passing score” (as a tool for competitive selection under conditions of a limited number of positions). Setting a passing score higher than the average permissible one is not a violation of the law, but a logical mechanism of the competitive procedure provided for by Article 74 of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” The Court noted that the difference in passing scores for different specializations is due to objective differences in the level of competition and the number of vacancies, which does not constitute discrimination. The Court also rejected arguments regarding procedural violations due to technical aspects of software or the publication of sample tasks, as these actions did not affect the equality of conditions for participants. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that admitting a candidate by circumventing the established passing score would undermine the objectivity of the competition and the principle of equality for all participants.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the HQCJ’s appellate complaint, revoked the decision of the court of first instance in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim, and adopted a new decision — to fully reject the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 990/59/26 of 07/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted, through judicial procedure, to compel the President of Ukraine to fulfill a pre-election promise regarding de-oligarchization, linking its non-fulfillment to his personal losses and demanding their compensation.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that administrative courts consider only those disputes where a subject of power (the President) acts within the scope of their administrative functions defined by the Constitution and laws.
– Political promises made by a candidate during the election process are part of the political struggle, not administrative activity, and therefore they are not subject to legal assessment in court.
– The Court stressed that it has no authority to interfere in political processes or to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of pre-election programs.
– Regarding the plaintiff’s reference to the principle of “legitimate expectations,” the Grand Chamber clarified, that this principle applies to legal relations with public authorities, and not to political declarations of candidates.
– The court noted that the right to judicial protection applies only to actual violations of individual rights, and not to disagreement with a political course or non-fulfillment of election slogans.
– Therefore, since the dispute does not concern public-authority administrative functions, it is not subject to consideration under administrative court proceedings at all.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to initiate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 712/9254/20 of 07/15/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of a verdict convicting a person for the illegal acquisition, storage, and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in connection with arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the severity of the imposed sentence.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court established that conducting a repeat controlled purchase within the framework of a single criminal proceeding without entering separate data into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (ERDR) for each new episode is a significant violation of criminal procedural law.
– The court emphasized that it is impermissible to investigate new independent crimes under the guise of the materials of the initial proceeding if they are not part of a single continuing crime.
– In accordance with the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, the evidence obtained during the search and forensic examinations, which were based on the illegally conducted repeat controlled purchase, was declared inadmissible.
– Regarding the sentence, the court noted that for the application of the preferential provision of Art. 69-1 of the Criminal Code (imposition of 2/3 of the maximum term), a combination of conditions is required: the presence of mitigating circumstances under clauses 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Art. 66 of the Criminal Code, the absence of aggravating circumstances, and the admission of guilt, which in this case were not fully established.
– The court also rejected arguments regarding the recalculation of the term of detention due to “unsatisfactory sanitary conditions,” since the current Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for such a compensation mechanism.
– The court directly referred to its previous practice (cases No. 742/502/24 and No. 711/5536/20), confirming the consistency of its position regarding the inadmissibility of investigating new episodes without entering information into the ERDR, which effectively consolidates the legal position regarding the inadmissibility of such evidence.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the conviction under Part 2 and Part 3 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code, closed the proceedings regarding these episodes, and upheld the verdict only under Part 1 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code with the imposition of a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 991/4900/25 of 07/17/2026with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** A claim by a SAPO prosecutor for the civil forfeiture of assets (a vehicle, an apartment, and parking spaces) registered in the names of the relatives of a former tax service official, and their recovery into state revenue due to the discrepancy between the value of the property and lawful income.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant, as a category “B” civil servant, held the status of a person authorized to perform functions of the state, which makes her a subject of anti-corruption oversight.
* Applying the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, the court concluded that the assets were registered in the names of her son and mother only nominally, while the actual control and use of these assets were exercised by the official herself and her husband.
* The court took into account the systematic presence of the official and her husband at the locations of the assets, their involvement in renovations, payment of utility bills, and communication with real estate sellers, which was confirmed by mobile network data and other evidence.
* The defendants’ arguments regarding the existence of legitimate savings and the receipt of gifts were dismissed by the court as unfounded, as they were not supported by proper evidence (in particular, there were no currency exchange receipts, and the expert’s report was based on assumptions without taking into account actual living expenses).
* The court emphasized that the use of materials from covert investigative actions in this civil process is admissible, as they are evaluated exclusively to establish property-related circumstances, rather than to prove guilt for a criminal offense.
* Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that it was suspended for the period of martial law; therefore, the claim was filed within the four-year period established by law.
3. **Court Decision:** The court partially granted the claim, recognizing the assets as unjustified and ordering their recovery (or the value thereof in the case of alienated property) into state revenue.
Case No. 904/3579/25 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the invalidation of the decisions of a general meeting of co-owners of a condominium (OSBB) due to violations of the procedure for their convocation, conduct, and vote counting.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that for the decisions of a general meeting to be declared invalid, formal procedural violations alone are insufficient, as the court must establish the actual fact of a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the specific plaintiff. The court underscored the necessity of maintaining a balance of interests between an individual co-owner and the majority of residents who have exercised their right to manage the building. When overturning the first-instance court’s decision, the appellate court failed to assess whether the plaintiff’s rights were actually violated and whether the cancellation of the decisions would lead to their actual restoration.i. Also, the arguments regarding the possible abuse of the right to initiate a lawsuit with the aim of avoiding the fulfillment of contractual obligations to the management company were left unaddressed. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate instance did not examine the completeness of evidence regarding the quorum and the expression of will of the co-owners, limiting itself only to the statement of the absence of certain documents. Consequently, the conclusions of the appellate court were deemed premature due to insufficient justification and failure to take into account the principle of proportionality.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal for a full and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances.
Case No. 751/3006/24 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 breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the courts of previous instances to appoint a son as a custodian over his father, whose civil capacity had been restricted due to a mental disorder.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The courts of first and appellate instances mistakenly believed that the fact of the applicant’s military service is an automatic ground for refusal to appoint him as a custodian.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that civil legislation contains an exhaustive list of circumstances under which a person cannot be a custodian (Art. 64 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and military service is not among them.
* The court noted that a person’s professional status or line of work is not decisive; what matters is the best interest of the ward and the real ability of the custodian to perform their duties.
* The guardianship and custody authority provided an appropriate submission regarding the expediency of appointing this specific applicant, which the courts did not properly examine.
* The court does not have the right to substitute the guardianship and custody authority in the matter of evaluating a candidate if the submission is lawful and no obstacles to the person’s appointment have been established.
* The court noted that it is departing from the previous position held in other Supreme Court decisions, as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 305/1557/24 definitively clarified that military service is not an unconditional obstacle to performing the functions of a guardian or custodian.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the refusal to appoint a custodian, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 523/5172/25 dated 15/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the accusation of a person of committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 1 of Art. 389 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of punishment not involving deprivation of liberty).
The court of cassation instance concluded that during the appellate review of the case, significant violations were committedof the requirements of the criminal procedural law, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and reasoned decision. The Supreme Court established that the court of appeal did not ensure a proper verification of the arguments of the prosecutor set forth in the appeal and did not provide them with an appropriate legal assessment. Since the appellate review procedure was conducted in violation of the standards stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, this became the ground for setting aside the ruling. An important aspect was also the issue of observing the rights of the accused, in connection with which the court made a decision to immediately release the person from the correctional center. Thus, the court of cassation stated the necessity of a rehearing of the case in the court of appeal to correct the errors made.
The court resolved to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal, order a new consideration in the court of appellate instance, and release the accused from custody.
Case No. 990/59/25 dated 07/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s challenge of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) with the demand to recognize it as unlawful and to oblige the commission to perform certain actions.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, while considering the appellate appeal of the HQCJ, concluded that the decision of the court of first instance was erroneous. The court proceeded from the fact that the discretionary powers of the HQCJ in matters of qualification assessment of judges must be protected from unreasonable interference by administrative courts. It was emphasized that procedural decisions of the commission, adopted within the scope of its special competence, are not subject to cancellation if they comply with the requirements of the law and do not violate the fundamental rights of a person. The court emphasized that judicial review of HQCJ decisions must be limited only to checking compliance with the procedure, and not to re-evaluating the commission’s professional findings. Considering the absence of proven procedural violations that could have affected the result, the Grand Chamber recognized the actions of the HQCJ as lawful. Thus, the court’s legal position is based on the priority of the autonomy of the qualification body within the scope of its powers.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court satisfied the appellate appeal of the HQCJ, set aside the decision of the court of first instance, and rendered a new decision rejecting the claim.
Case No. 990/146/25 dated 07/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s challenge of the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding his completion of the qualification assessment and the demand to oblige the commission to perform certain actions.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the procedure for the qualification assessment of judges is within the discretionary powers of the HQCJ, and judicial interference in these processes is possible only in case of a gross violation of the procedure that affected the result. In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the materials of the appellate appeal and established thatThe Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court correctly applied the substantive and procedural laws during the initial review of the case. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) were not substantiated during the judicial proceedings. It was also emphasized that courts should not assume the functions of the body responsible for assessing the professional competence of judges, provided such an assessment was conducted within the scope of the law. As a result, the court found no grounds for overturning the decisions of the HQCJ, as they were adopted within the scope of authority and in the manner prescribed by the applicable legislation.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 754/14223/24 dated 15/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Below is a summary of the essence of the case and the legal position of the Supreme Court:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to have an apartment recognized as the common joint property of the former spouses, to invalidate the gift agreement for said apartment concluded by her ex-husband, and to have her ownership rights to a 1/2 share of the property recognized.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court acknowledged that the apartment was indeed common joint property, as the share contributions for it were paid during the marriage.
* However, the key factor was the application of the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff applied to the court a long time after the dissolution of the marriage and the registration of ownership of the apartment in the ex-husband’s name.
* The court emphasized that the commencement of the statute of limitations is related not only to the moment when a person actually learned of the violation, but also to the moment when they had an objective opportunity to learn about it by exercising reasonable diligence.
* Since the plaintiff did not show interest in the fate of the property and did not take steps to protect her rights for more than 30 years after the divorce and 8 years after the state registration of the ownership right to the apartment, the court interpreted this as negligence regarding her own interests.
* The plaintiff’s argument that she only learned of the violation from a notary in 2024 was rejected, as she had the opportunity to verify the status of her rights much earlier.
* The expiration of the statute of limitations, which the defendant requested to be applied, is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of the merits of the property rights.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the legal norms, finding no grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming the dismissal of the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
