Case No. 296/5083/17 of 07/21/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of a person’s conviction for offering an unlawful benefit to public officials (Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and verification of the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and entrapment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the police officers to whom the funds were offered held the status of public officials, as they were carrying out instructions within the framework of criminal proceedings and had a real opportunity to influence the course of the investigation.
– Regarding the arguments of entrapment, the court referred to the case law of the ECHR, noting that a defense of entrapment requires an admission of the commission of the acts, whereas the convicted person denied the very fact of the crime, which is an inconsistent position.
– The court confirmed the legality of conducting covert investigative (search) actions, as they were carried out in a place not accessible to the public on the basis of an investigating judge’s ruling.
– Regarding the arguments about the violation of the right to defense during the arrest, the court pointed out that an inspection of the scene of the incident is an urgent action that may be conducted prior to an official arrest, and the suspect’s rights were duly explained immediately after the actual detention.
– The court recognized the evidence (protocols of covert investigative (search) actions, video recordings, witness testimonies) as relevant and admissible, and their totality as sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
– The court also upheld the decision to release [the defendant] from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, citing the current position of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 911/3646/25 of 07/23/2026
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:** Declaration of invalidity of a deed of gift for a share in the authorized capital of a company, an acceptance-transfer act for said share, and cancellation of the corresponding entries in the Unified State Register.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the premise that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (declaration of invalidity of transactions and cancellation of registration entries) is ineffective for the restoration of corporate rights in this case.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that to protect the rights of a participant whose corporate rights have been violated by changes in the composition of participants or the size of shares, the law provides for a special method — a lawsuit to determine the size of the authorized capital and the shares of participants.
– The court emphasized that the list of methods of protection defined by Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities…” is exhaustive for such legal relations.
– Arguments of the…of the plaintiff that this method of protection applies only to excluded participants were rejected as being based on a selective interpretation of judicial practice.
– The court noted that since the plaintiff did not challenge the violation of the preemptive right to purchase a share, but sought only to restore the previous composition of participants, they should have specifically chosen a lawsuit for the determination of the size of shares.
– The court also reallocated the costs for legal assistance, significantly reducing the amount to be recovered from the plaintiff, as it found the defendant’s claimed expenses at the cassation stage to be unreasonably inflated and disproportionate to the complexity of the case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, dismissing the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/17/25 dated 01/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 910/17/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles for the territorial community in using a plot of communal land by demolishing a real estate object that the plaintiff considers an unauthorized construction.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the construction was carried out on a land plot that was not allocated for this purpose, which is an independent ground for classifying the object as unauthorized according to Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the registration of ownership rights to an unauthorized construction does not change its legal status and does not legitimize the illegal seizure of land. Since the defendant had no property rights to the land plot, they could not acquire legal ownership of the structure located on it. The court emphasized the principle of the unity of the fate of the land plot and the buildings located on it, where priority belongs to the protection of the land owner’s rights. It was also noted that the defendant, as a buyer, should have exercised due diligence and verified the seller’s rights to the land, which was not done. Therefore, the demolition of the object is a proportionate measure to restore the violated rights of the territorial community.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the court of first instance’s decision, which granted the claim for the demolition of the unauthorized construction.
Case No. 990/146/25 dated 16/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A candidate for a judicial position challenged the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification exam, demanding they be declared unlawful due to the lack of a detailed, itemized justification for the scores awarded for the practical assignment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the HQCJ is vested with broad discretionary powers, and the evaluation of practical assignments is carried outby members of the commission according to their inner conviction.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the current legislation (Law No. 1402-VIII and Regulation No. 185/zp-24) does not contain requirements for mandatory recording of scores separately for each element of a practical task in examination sheets.
* The “Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24” approved by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) are of an instructive and auxiliary nature for the purpose of unifying approaches, and do not impose an imperative duty to detail the assessment in the decision.
* The Court noted that the practical task is assessed as a whole, rather than as a sum of points for its individual parts; therefore, the absence of element-by-element detailing does not indicate a violation of procedure or the arbitrariness of the decision.
* A candidate’s disagreement with the score received is merely a subjective stance and cannot serve as grounds for overturning the exam results, provided that the procedure was observed.
* The justification of the HQCJ’s decision consists in compliance with procedural requirements, rather than in providing an extensive mathematical or verbal explanation for every grade awarded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the candidate’s appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, confirming the lawfulness of the HQCJ’s actions.
Case No. 11/B-664 of 07/22/2026
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 lawfulness of the lower courts’ dismissal of the tax authority’s monetary claims against a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings due to the expiration of the 1095-day statute of limitations for the collection of tax debt.
2. The Court proceeded from the fact that the tax authority filed an application for recognition of monetary claims against the debtor, which arose in 2012–2014, only in 2025, which significantly exceeds the 1095-day period established by Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that this period is imperative, and its expiration renders the tax debt uncollectible, thereby making it impossible to collect in bankruptcy proceedings. Regarding the tax authority’s attempt to submit new evidence (a 2014 court decision) at the appellate stage, the Court noted that the applicant failed to prove valid reasons for not submitting it earlier, and dismissed the references to the reorganization of State Tax Service bodies as groundless. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the validity of claims lies with the creditor, and procedural negligence cannot be justified by formal references to internal organizational changes. The Court also drew attention to the inadmissibility of delaying bankruptcy proceedings that last for decades, which violates the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Consequently, the cassation appeal was found to be groundless, as the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance, by which the monetary claims of the tax authority were rejected.of the tax authority in the amount of 1,034,638.59 UAH.
Case No. 990/389/25 dated 08/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to recognize a candidate for the position of judge of an appellate court as having failed to confirm the ability to administer justice according to the “personal competence” criterion.
**2. Arguments of the Court**
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the HQCJ has broad discretionary powers when evaluating candidates, and courts should not substitute themselves for the Commission by re-evaluating the results of an interview or scores assigned based on the internal conviction of HQCJ members.
* The Court noted that the assessment based on criteria of personal and social competence does not imply a presumption of a candidate’s compliance; therefore, the burden of proving one’s compliance lies with the applicant, and not the other way around.
* An important conclusion was that an individual’s behavior in private life (in particular, the fulfillment of parental duties) is relevant for assessing “responsibility” as a professional quality of a judge, since high standards of integrity must be inherent to a judge both at work and outside of it.
* The Court recognized that the HQCJ did not interfere with private life, since the examination of sensitive circumstances took place in a closed session, and only information from open sources was used in the public decision.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the assessment within the framework of a competition is a competitive procedure where the Commission compares candidates with each other, and the disagreement of the court of first instance with the level of detail of the HQCJ’s reasoning is not a ground for canceling the decision if it is not arbitrary.
* The Court also confirmed the legitimacy of the HQCJ’s application of the new competition rules, as they were in force at the time of the relevant evaluation stages, and the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to participate in the competition under these conditions.
**3. Decision of the Court**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court canceled the decision of the court of first instance and adopted a new decision, by which it completely denied the satisfaction of the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 446/1339/21 dated 17/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recognition of ownership rights to hydraulic structures (a dam and water-conveyance structures) and the legality of the approval of a settlement agreement between an individual and a local self-government body regarding this property.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that hydraulic structures are engineering objects that cannot exist separately from a water body; therefore, they are its appurtenance and cannot be an independent object of ownership. The Court notedthat the owner of such a structure can only be the owner of the land plot on which the water body is located, which makes it impossible to privatize structures separately from the land. Furthermore, the courts of lower instances did not verify whether the disputed structures constitute unauthorized construction and whether they violate the legal regime of water fund lands, which by law are not subject to privatization. The Supreme Court emphasized that a settlement agreement cannot be approved if it contradicts the law or violates the interests of the state, and the courts did not examine the issue of the land plot’s designated purpose. Account was also taken of the conclusions set forth in other rulings of the Supreme Court that hydraulic structures are not subject to state registration as separate real estate objects. Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not establish these key factual circumstances, their decisions were recognized as premature and inconsistent with the requirements of substantive law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all necessary circumstances.
Case No. 201/6915/25 of 07/01/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective.
1. **Subject of the dispute:** establishment of the fact of living together as a single family without registration of marriage, division of a one-time monetary allowance in connection with the death of a police officer, and recognition of ownership rights to property acquired during cohabitation.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that police officers are not military personnel; therefore, the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police” apply to the disputed legal relations regarding the payment of a one-time monetary allowance, rather than the Law “On Social and Legal Protection of Military Personnel.”
* The Court highlighted that, according to Article 101 of the Law “On the National Police,” in the event of a dispute, the body authorized to make the payment is obligated to suspend it until the court decision enters into legal force, which makes such a measure to secure the claim lawful.
* Regarding the attachment of the vehicle, the Court found it justified, as the plaintiff provided evidence that the defendant attempted to alienate the property which is the subject of the dispute, creating a real risk of making the future court decision impossible to execute.
* At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate instance that imposing an attachment on a bank account into which social payments are deposited is inadmissible in view of the direct prohibition established by Part 4 of Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* The Court noted that measures to secure a claim do not resolve the dispute on its merits but merely preserve the existing state of affairs, preventing the dishonest actions of the defendant.
* The Supreme Court stated that the appellate court erroneously canceled the measures to secure the claim regarding the suspension of payments and the attachment of the vehicle, as these measuresare proportionate and necessary for the protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, set aside the appellate court’s ruling regarding the refusal to suspend payments and the attachment of the vehicle, upheld the first-instance court’s ruling in this part, and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged in the remaining part (regarding the attachment of funds).
Case No. 736/1003/24 of 07/01/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in an interview format:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of the application by LLC “FC ‘Dniprofinancegroup’” regarding the apportionment of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred during cassation proceedings in a case involving a complaint against the actions of a private enforcement officer.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that the applicant had missed the five-day deadline for submitting evidence of expenses; however, it recognized the reasons for the delay as valid, since the evidence was submitted immediately after the text of the Supreme Court’s resolution became available in the registry.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to reinstate a procedural deadline exists if a party has proven the objectivity of the obstacles that prevented a timely application.
* Regarding the merits of the expenses, the court was guided by the adversarial principle: since the applicant provided the contract, the certificate of services rendered, and proof of payment, these expenses are considered real and substantiated.
* An important factor was that the opponent (PERSON_1) was duly notified of the application but provided no objections regarding the amount of the fee or motions for its reduction.
* The court emphasized that in the absence of objections from the other party, it is not obligated on its own initiative to reduce the amount of expenses if they appear proportionate to the complexity of the case.
* Considering that the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 was dismissed, the court concluded that it was fair to impose the duty of reimbursement upon her.
* Thus, the court confirmed that UAH 5,000 for the preparation of a response to the appeal is a reasonable and proportionate amount for this category of cases.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the application of LLC “FC ‘Dniprofinancegroup’,” reinstated the deadline for submitting evidence, and ordered PERSON_1 to pay UAH 5,000 to the company for legal assistance costs.
Case No. 910/20417/21 of 07/09/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenging of actions of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the issuance of orders in the field of state registration of rights, which the plaintiff (PJSC “MTB Bank”) considers unlawful and subject to cancellation.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and the limits of the powers of the Ministry of Justice as an authority exercising control in the field of state registration. The Supreme Court analyzed the case materials and concluded that the courts of lower instances correctly established the factual circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute.The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of legal grounds for the cancellation of the contested orders, as the defendant’s actions complied with the requirements of the legislation in force at the time they were performed. It was also taken into account that the procedural issues raised by the bank did not affect the legality of the decisions adopted by the Ministry on their merits. The court emphasized that interference with the discretionary powers of a public authority is possible only in the event of gross violations of the law, which were not established in this case. Consequently, the arguments of the cassation appeal were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to refute the conclusions of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of MTB Bank PJSC, and upheld the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 904/3031/24 of 07/22/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by the Dnipro City Council on the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot by demolishing unauthorizedly reconstructed real estate objects and cancelling construction permit documentation.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances took a formalistic approach to the case, failing to investigate the legal status of the “shade canopies” prior to their reconstruction — specifically, whether they were independent real estate objects or merely auxiliary structures. The court emphasized that the reconstruction of an object that was not properly registered as real estate may indicate the creation of a new object without the proper allocation of a land plot, which is a sign of unauthorized construction. It was also stressed that the right of ownership of a building and the right to land are inextricably linked; therefore, it is impossible to ignore the defendant’s lack of rights to a land plot under communal ownership. The courts failed to evaluate the plaintiff’s arguments that the plot was never allocated for development and that the defendant is attempting to legalize the objects by changing their technical characteristics. The Supreme Court pointed out the lower courts’ disregard for the instructions provided in the previous resolution regarding the same case, which constitutes a gross violation of procedural law. In summary, the court concluded that without establishing the legality of the emergence of ownership rights to the original structures and the legal grounds for land use, the decision to dismiss the lawsuit is premature.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region.
Case No. 910/20417/21 of 07/09/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (MTB Bank PJSC) appealed to the court with a claimwith a claim against the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to declare unlawful and cancel the orders by which the state registrar’s decision regarding the registration of a mortgage in favor of the bank was canceled.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The court determined that the dispute, by its nature, is a dispute over property rights to immovable property, as it concerns the lawfulness of the mortgage registration.
* Guided by the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 03.09.2025 in case No. 910/2546/22, the court noted that in such cases, the Ministry of Justice cannot be the sole defendant, as the plaintiff has no dispute with it regarding property rights.
* The proper defendants in this category of cases must be the persons upon whose complaint the Ministry of Justice canceled the registration actions (in this case, the mortgagors), as it is their property interests that are directly affected by the court decision.
* The court emphasized that the determination of the defendant is the exclusive right of the plaintiff, and filing a lawsuit against an improper defendant is an independent ground for the dismissal of the claims.
* The court also pointed out that procedural legislation does not grant the court the right to independently involve co-defendants at the stage of appellate review without the corresponding expression of will by the plaintiff.
* Since the bank did not involve the proper defendants (the mortgagors), and the lawsuit was filed only against the Ministry of Justice, the court concluded that the claims could not be satisfied.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PJSC “MTB Bank” unsatisfied and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, which had dismissed the lawsuit, unchanged.
**Case No. 990/156/25 dated 23/07/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging by a candidate for the position of a judge the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification exam and the refusal to proceed to the next stage of the competition due to allegedly improper assessment of a practical task.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The court emphasized that the HQCJ is a body with broad discretionary powers, and the assessment of practical tasks is carried out by members of the commission based on their internal professional conviction.
* The Grand Chamber noted that the current legislation and the internal regulations of the HQCJ do not contain an imperative requirement to record scores separately for each element of a practical task in the examination sheets.
* The court recognized that Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24 are of an auxiliary, instructional nature intended to unify approaches, and do not establish a mandatory procedure for element-by-element point accrual that would be subject to judicial review.
* Regarding the arguments about a procedural violation (work of commission members during leave or sick leave), the court indicated that this is not prohibited by law, provided that the impossibility [to perform duties] has not been proven.personal review of the candidate’s work.
* The Court emphasized that interference with the discretionary powers of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) regarding the assessment of candidates’ professional skills is inadmissible unless obvious arbitrariness or substantial procedural violations provided for by Article 88 of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” are proven.
* All arguments of the plaintiff regarding unauthorized access to papers or falsification of results were dismissed as being based on assumptions and not supported by proper evidence.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and adopted a new one—to fully deny the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 990/156/23 of 07/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the claim of a former member of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the recognition of the Council’s inaction as unlawful due to the non-payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism and the denial of access to perform powers following the court’s cancellation of the order regarding his removal from the staff.
**2. Court Arguments**
The court proceeded from the fact that the cancellation of the order to remove the plaintiff from the HCJ staff in previous judicial proceedings effectively restored his legal status as a member of the Council, which entitles him to receive average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism. At the same time, the Grand Chamber emphasized that since the HCJ is a collegiate body with a clearly defined number of members under the President’s quota, the appointment of other persons to these positions in a legal manner made it impossible for the plaintiff to actually return to work. The Court applied the principle “the law does not require the impossible,” noting that after the vacant positions were filled by other candidates (February 10, 2020), the plaintiff objectively could not perform his duties; therefore, the payment of earnings for the period after this date is unfounded. The Court also emphasized that average earnings for the time of forced absenteeism are the equivalent of salary, and therefore, its accrual is possible only for the period when a person had a real opportunity to work but was deprived of such an opportunity through the employer’s fault. On this basis, the court limited the period of recovery of funds to the time from the moment of unlawful removal to the moment when the positions under the presidential quota were finally occupied by other persons.
**3. Court Decision**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the inaction of the HCJ as unlawful and awarding the plaintiff average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism from August 2, 2019, to February 9, 2020, in the amount of 1,744,741.84 UAH (including taxes), while denying the satisfaction of the remaining claims.
Case No. 990/201/25 of 07/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by youDecision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A challenge by a candidate for the position of a judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) and the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) to deem the candidate as not meeting the criteria of integrity and to terminate their participation in the competition.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court emphasized that the evaluation of candidates for HACC judge positions is the exclusive discretionary competence of the HQCJ and the PCIE; therefore, the Court lacks the authority to reassess the facts that formed the basis for the Commission’s conclusions.
– Judicial review is limited to verifying compliance with procedures and the reasoned nature of the decision, rather than reviewing the integrity conclusions on the merits.
– Regarding the “impartiality” indicator, the Court found justified the conclusion concerning a gross violation of procedural law (failure to apply rules of jurisdiction in a case where another judge was a party), which negatively affected the authority of the judiciary.
– Regarding the “honesty” indicator, the Court upheld the HQCJ’s position on the inconsistency of the candidate’s explanations regarding the receipt of an expensive gift in cryptocurrency, as the candidate significantly changed their testimony regarding the source of the assets following clarification requests.
– The Grand Chamber emphasized that integrity is a key category, and the existence of reasonable doubts in this area is sufficient grounds for terminating a candidate’s participation in the competition if the decision on their compliance failed to receive the required number of votes.
– The Court noted that the balance between the interests of the candidate and the public interest in forming a high-quality composition of the anti-corruption court was maintained.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 990/433/25 of 09/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to leave without consideration the application of a candidate for the position of judge of an appellate commercial court and the refusal to submit a recommendation for their appointment.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the case must be considered exclusively within the scope of the claimed requests, which relate directly to the rights of the plaintiff, rather than other participants in the competition. The Grand Chamber confirmed that the plaintiff has no right to challenge the results of the competition concerning other candidates, as this does not change the legal nature of the challenged acts regarding the plaintiff themselves. The Court noted that the subject of evidence is limited to verifying the observance of the plaintiff’s own rights, rather than investigating conflicts of interest in third parties. Since all vacant positions in the court selected by the plaintiff were filled by candidates with higher ratings, the HQCJ’s decision to leave the application without consideration was recognized as lawful. The Court also noted…noted that the plaintiff had equal conditions with other participants and the opportunity to freely choose the court, which they exercised, but did not achieve the desired result due to objective rating indicators. Therefore, no violations of the plaintiff’s rights by the HQCJ were established.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 1/679/12/2013 of 22/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the review of judicial decisions in a criminal case due to exceptional circumstances following the establishment by an international judicial institution of a violation by Ukraine of international obligations during the consideration of the case regarding PERSON_21.
The Court considered the application of the defense counsel submitted in connection with the finding by an international authority of violations of a person’s rights during criminal proceedings. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the existence of grounds for reviewing the verdict and rulings issued by the courts of lower instances, taking into account the requirements of current legislation and the state’s international obligations. A key aspect was the acknowledgment that the previous judicial decisions did not fully comply with the standards of a fair trial enshrined in international acts. The Court concluded that the identified violations are sufficient grounds for setting aside the acts of the appellate and cassation instances. At the same time, the Grand Chamber did not engage in a re-evaluation of the evidence of guilt, but focused on the procedural necessity of a retrial taking into account the findings of the international institution. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principle of legal certainty and the restoration of the person’s violated rights within the national judicial system.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially granted the application, set aside the rulings of the appellate and cassation courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 953/8079/24 of 22/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings concerning the accusation of a person for illegal seizure of a vehicle (Part 3, Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation analyzed the defense’s arguments regarding the incorrect qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the presence of aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that the qualifying attribute of “recidivism” in this specific case was applied by the courts of lower instances without proper legal justification or contrary to the case file. The panel of judges established that the factual circumstances established during the trial do not confirm the presence of recidivism as a qualifying attribute of the crime provided for by Part 3, Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the court did not find grounds for a full cancellation of the verdict or the closure of the proceedings, as the main qualification of the crime remained substantiated. Therefore, the court wasexercised its authority to modify court decisions without remanding the case for a new trial. This allowed for the correction of a legal error regarding the formulation of the charge, without altering the substance of the verdict concerning the proof of guilt and the imposed sentence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal but modified the court decisions of the lower instances by excluding the reference to the qualifying element of “recidivism” (repetition) from the charge.
Case No. 918/1134/25 dated 07/15/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the recognition of an additional agreement to a land lease contract as concluded for a new term under the terms agreed upon by the parties (a term of 7 years, rent at 5% of the normative monetary valuation).
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the binding nature of final court decisions (res judicata), as the legitimacy of the lessee’s exercise of the preemptive right and the existence of agreements regarding the lease terms had already been established within the framework of a previous case between the same parties.
* The court noted that since the parties, in the course of correspondence, had effectively reached an agreement on the essential terms (term and amount of rent), the lessor’s avoidance of signing the agreement was groundless.
* The Supreme Court stressed that a lessee who has duly performed their obligations has a legal right to the renewal of the contract, and courts should not ignore facts already established in other cases regarding the existence of such an agreement.
* The appellate court erroneously overturned the decision of the first instance court, as it failed to take into account that the previous court decision had resolved the state of legal uncertainty regarding the lessee’s right to continue the relationship.
* The court of cassation instance pointed out that in the event of reaching an agreement on essential terms, followed by the lessor’s delay, the lessee has the right to demand the conclusion of the contract in court precisely on those terms that were agreed upon during negotiations.
* The Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the first instance court, which granted the claim, complies with the norms of substantive law and the principles of equity; therefore, there were no grounds for its reversal.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the first instance court, by which the claim of AH “Elit” was granted.
Case No. 916/1845/25 dated 07/01/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from the developer (Kador LLC) in favor of the local self-government body of funds for shared participation in the development of the settlement’s infrastructure, as well as inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court of cassation instance[the court] emphasized that the courts of lower instances approached the resolution of the dispute formally, failing to properly examine the actual circumstances of the contract performance.
– The Supreme Court stressed that, in accordance with the principle of *jura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”), a plaintiff’s error in choosing a legal provision or a method of protection is not an absolute ground for dismissing a claim if the essence of the claims is clear.
– The Court of Appeal groundlessly dismissed the claim solely on the basis of a supposedly “improper method of protection,” without assessing whether the contract was in force and whether an obligation to pay funds had arisen for the developer.
– The Court noted that participation contribution agreements concluded before 01/01/2020 remain in effect until their full performance, and a developer’s obligation to pay a contribution is not automatically annulled.
– The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity to establish whether the payment deadline for the contribution had been breached and whether the developer had evaded the fulfillment of obligations.
– Since the Court of Appeal did not examine the evidence and did not establish key facts (in particular, regarding the scope of construction and the terms of contract performance), the decision does not meet the requirements of legality and substantiation.
– Consequently, the cassation instance concluded that the case must be remanded for a new trial for a full clarification of the circumstances.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 183/3647/14 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings due to the alleged full execution of a court decision on the collection of debt under a loan agreement.
2. **Court arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that enforcement proceedings are the final stage of judicial proceedings, and therefore, an enforcement officer is obliged to act strictly within the limits of the writ of execution. Since the operative part of the 2014 court decision clearly defined the debt amount in Hryvnia equivalent, the enforcement officer was obliged to be guided by that specific amount, rather than the currency equivalent at the time of payment. The courts established that although the funds were collected from the debtor, they were not actually transferred to the new creditor, which makes the resolution on the termination of proceedings premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that an enforcement officer has no authority to independently recalculate currency obligations if the court decision contains a fixed amount in the national currency. The principle of legal certainty requires the enforcement officer to execute the decision exactly as set forth in the operative part. Thus, the enforcement officer’s actions regarding the closure of the proceedings were recognized as unlawful due to the failure to execute the decision in full (the funds did not reach the creditor).
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court
