Case No. 904/925/24 dated 07/28/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of returning an appeal without consideration due to the non-payment of the court fee for challenging a ruling of the court of first instance rendered in the procedure of judicial control over the execution of a judgment.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that judicial control over the execution of judgments is an integral part of the right to judicial protection, and the establishment of financial barriers in the form of a court fee at this stage nullifies the principle of the binding nature of a court decision. The Court took into account the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 2-r/2026, which declared unconstitutional the provisions enabling the collection of a fee for challenging such rulings. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment creditor who has already received a decision in their favor should not bear additional expenses to ensure its execution, unless otherwise expressly provided by law. The appellate court, by demanding payment of the fee, engaged in excessive formalism and violated constitutional guarantees of access to justice. Thus, the panel of judges confirmed that no court fee is paid for filing an appeal against rulings issued in the procedure of judicial control (in particular, regarding the acceptance of a debtor’s report).
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court to return the appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeal to continue proceedings from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 906/1064/24 dated 07/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by Nadra Invest LLC to recognize as concluded a land lease agreement under new terms after the expiration of the previous agreement.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the exercise of the lessee’s preferential right to renew a land lease agreement is not unconditional and requires reaching an agreement between the parties on all essential terms of the contract. Since the lessor (the settlement council) within the scope of its powers proposed its own terms regarding the lease term and the amount of rent, and the lessee did not agree with them, the parties did not reach an agreement. The Court emphasized that a preferential right cannot be transformed into a right to the compulsory conclusion of a contract on terms beneficial only to the lessee. The absence of agreement on essential terms of the contract led to the termination of the lessee’s preferential right to its renewal. The court also noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to apply to the settlement council for the purpose of obtaining the land plot for use in another procedure provided for by the Land Code and the Subsoil Code. Thus, the lower courts lawfully denied the claim, as the pre-contractual dispute in this situation was not subject to judicial resolution.
3. The Supreme Courtupheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 910/8475/25 dated 07/22/2026
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of refunding court fees to the initiating creditor in the event that the court refuses to open bankruptcy proceedings due to the existence of a dispute over rights.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, proceeded from the fact that the bankruptcy procedure has its own specifics that distinguish it from standard litigation. The Court emphasized that a ruling on the refusal to open bankruptcy proceedings, issued as a result of a preliminary hearing, is effectively a decision on the merits of the dispute, as the court at this stage already examines the validity of the creditor’s claims. Therefore, the provision of Paragraph 3, Part 1, Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees,” which provides for the refund of the fee upon refusal to open proceedings, cannot be applied to a preliminary hearing in bankruptcy cases. The Court clarified that the refund of the fee is possible only at the stage of accepting the application for consideration, if it does not meet formal requirements. Since in this case the court considered the application on its merits and established the existence of a dispute over rights, the court fee expenses must be distributed according to general rules rather than being refunded from the budget. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the initiating creditor has no right to a refund of the court fee if the opening of proceedings is refused due to the existence of a dispute over rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeal of Marlax LLC.
Case No. 947/24990/21 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 947/24990/21:
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 regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal acquisition and possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for the purpose of distribution).
2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly established the guilt of the convicted person based on the totality of evidence, including witness testimony and the crime scene inspection report. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the inspection report, noting that a crime scene inspection does not require the mandatory participation of a defense attorney, and the actions of the police did not constitute a personal search, as the convicted person surrendered the substances voluntarily. The Court also emphasized that amendments to the List of Narcotic Drugs do not have retroactive effect; therefore, the reference to Article 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is groundless. An important aspect was that the courts did not establish a mercenary motive for the convicted person, which is key to the application of property confiscation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that imposing confiscation as an additional punishment in this situation contradicts the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal[the court] dismissed the appeal, however, it amended the court decisions by excluding the provisions regarding the imposition of an additional penalty in the form of property confiscation.
Case No. 217/92/23 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to recover from a financial company the funds paid under an installment goods agreement, claiming that the goods were not delivered to him, and also demanded compensation for a penalty and moral damages.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the agreement between the parties was concluded in electronic form using an electronic signature, which is equivalent to a written agreement.
* The key evidence was the express waybill of the “Nova Poshta” delivery service, which documented the fact that the plaintiff received the goods at the specified address.
* The court noted that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar lawsuit, which was denied, indicating the groundlessness of his claims regarding non-receipt of the goods.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence are within the exclusive competence of the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, the cassation court does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence.
* Regarding the complaint about the inability to participate in a videoconference, the court noted that the risks of technical malfunctions when participating from outside the court premises are borne by the participant of the case themselves.
* Considering that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of a violation of his rights, and the arguments of the appeal boil down only to disagreement with the evaluation of the evidence, no grounds for canceling the decisions of the lower instances were found.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 914/1360/24(914/532/25) dated 07/27/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine of a penalty for the late payment of a fine by a business entity against which bankruptcy proceedings have been initiated.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP) establishes a special legal regime for the debtor, which has priority over the general norms of legislation on the protection of economic competition. A key argument was that the moratorium on the satisfaction of creditors’ claims, provided for by Article 41 of the CUBP, contains an imperative prohibition on the accrual of any financial sanctions, including penalties, for non-fulfillment of obligations during the period of bankruptcy procedures. The court distinguished between the legal nature of the AMCU fine, which is an independent monetary obligation, and the penalty, which is accessory (additional) in nature and is a financial sanction. Since a penalty is, by its essence, a forfeiture, its accrual after the opening of proceedings in a bankruptcy case…and declaring the debtor bankrupt directly contradicts the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP). The court also referred to the current legal position of the judicial chamber for bankruptcy cases, which confirms that the special bankruptcy regime applies to all types of financial sanctions, regardless of their public-law origin. Thus, the accrual of penalties during the moratorium period is legally impossible, which renders the claims of the AMCU (Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine) groundless.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine.
Case No. 904/121/25 dated 07/22/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appeal by the tax authority against the court ruling on the approval of the liquidator’s report, the liquidation balance sheet, and the closure of bankruptcy proceedings due to the court’s refusal to compel the liquidator to provide documents for a tax audit.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the liquidator had performed all measures provided for by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP): conducted an inventory, sent inquiries to all state authorities and registries, closed accounts, and transferred documentation to the archive, without identifying any assets of the debtor.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that although the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings is grounds for a tax audit, the exercise of the tax authority’s powers must take into account the principle of the duration of bankruptcy procedures and the good faith of the authority’s conduct.
* The court noted that the tax authority had filed a repeated motion to compel the production of documents three months after a similar motion had already been rejected by the court, with the first ruling not having been appealed.
* The court interpreted the repeated submission of identical demands immediately before the final hearing as an attempt to artificially delay the liquidation procedure.
* The court emphasized that the absence of a completed tax audit is not an automatic basis for declaring the liquidation procedure incomplete if the tax authority has not proven the unlawful inaction of the liquidator through appropriate procedural complaints.
* The court also noted that the tax authority had sufficient procedural opportunities to exercise its rights, including the right to submit creditor claims, which it did not exercise properly.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, and the decisions of the lower courts regarding the liquidation of the bankrupt and the closure of the proceedings remained unchanged.
Case No. 902/996/25 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 detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the lawfulness of the decision of the commission of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” [text cuts off]regarding the additional charge to the consumer (PE “Firma Mebli”) for the cost of unmetered electrical energy due to detected damage to the seals and the meter casing.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the system operator violated its own internal procedure for reviewing violation reports, as the case had not been preliminarily reviewed by a specialized commission (the AUP commission), which is mandatory for charges exceeding 10,000 kWh.
– The operator failed to provide proper evidence that the seals were officially transferred to the consumer for safe custody in compliance with the requirements of the Commercial Metering Code.
– The court emphasized that in order to apply sanctions for damage to seals, it is necessary to prove the fact of the consumer’s access to the current-carrying parts of the metering circuit, which was not recorded in the violation report.
– Regarding the calculation of the energy volume, the court noted that the application of contractual capacity is possible only in the event of a proven denial of access to representatives of the operator for inspection or the consumer’s refusal to perform measurements, neither of which occurred in this case.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant did not refute the conclusions of the appellate court with proper references to the practice of the Supreme Court, but merely attempted to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
– The court also confirmed that the previous decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the appellant concerned different factual circumstances (e.g., cases of unauthorized connection); therefore, they are not relevant to this case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” unsatisfied and left the resolution of the appellate court, which satisfied the consumer’s claim, unchanged.
Case No. 916/2904/25 dated 07/28/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the decisions of the general meeting of the Association of Co-owners of a Multi-Apartment Building (OSBB).
2. In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the procedure for convening and conducting the general meeting of the OSBB complies with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Associations of Co-owners of Multi-Apartment Buildings” and the statute of the respective association. The court established that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of significant violations that could have affected the voting results or violated his rights as a co-owner. Furthermore, the court analyzed the compliance with the quorum during the adoption of the challenged decisions, which, in the court’s opinion, was duly ensured. The court emphasized that formal defects that did not lead to a distortion of the will of the co-owners are not sufficient grounds for declaring decisions invalid. In addition, the principle of the stability of civil circulation and the inadmissibility of abusing the right to challenge the decisions of the governing bodies of a legal entity were taken into account. In summary, the court concluded that there were no grounds to satisfy the claims, as the plaintiff’s rights had not been violated.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts withoutamended.
Case No. 751/11169/14 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the substitution of a party to enforcement proceedings (the claimant) with its legal successor (Verdict Capital LLC) on the basis of claims assignment agreements.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that procedural succession is derived from substantive succession; therefore, the main task was to confirm the fact of the transfer of claims from the bank to the financial company. The courts of first and appellate instances established that the claims assignment agreements are valid, and there is no evidence of their invalidity in the case files. The Supreme Court emphasized that the substitution of a claimant is possible at any stage, provided the time limits for submitting an enforcement document for execution have not expired. Since the writ of execution was returned to the claimant within the prescribed time limits, and the successor provided proper evidence of the acquisition of the right of claim, there were no grounds for refusing to substitute the party. The court also noted that the issue of the applicant’s bankruptcy or the existence of a license at the time of concluding previous agreements does not refute the fact of the transfer of the right of claim in this specific case. Ultimately, the cassation court indicated that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined by lower courts.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 712/5235/24 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of paternity of a deceased person with regard to an adult child for the purpose of exercising inheritance rights.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of cohabitation and maintenance of a joint household by her mother and the deceased prior to the moment of her birth, which is a key condition for the judicial establishment of paternity under the legislation of that period.
* The courts of previous instances reasonably assessed the provided photo and video materials critically, as they pertained to the period after the plaintiff’s return from abroad, and not to the period of her birth or early childhood.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that although DNA testing is the most reliable method of establishing kinship, the plaintiff did not exercise her procedural right and did not file a motion for its appointment during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances.
* The court noted that the evidence available in the case files (in particular, correspondence) testifies only to friendly relations between the plaintiff’s mother and the deceased, but does not confirm the existence of family relations or his acknowledgment of paternity.
* It was also taken into account that at the time of the plaintiff’s birth, the deceased was in a marregistered marriage with another woman, which further calls into question the version regarding the maintenance of a common household with the plaintiff’s mother.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the reassessment of evidence does not fall within its powers, and the courts of previous instances did not commit any violations of substantive or procedural law when evaluating the collected materials.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim remained unchanged.
Case No. 906/1064/24 dated 07/27/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the court of cassation instance.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and justification of legal costs. The Supreme Court emphasized that contractual obligations between an attorney and a client regarding the amount of the fee are not automatically binding on the court when allocating costs between the parties. The court took into account the objections of the plaintiff, who pointed out that the case was not complex, and the legal position of the defendant actually duplicated arguments from other similar cases between the same parties. The court also took into account the volume of work performed, which was limited to the preparation of a response and participation in one court hearing. Based on this, the court concluded that the claimed amount of 15,000 UAH is excessive and does not meet the criterion of reasonable necessity. As a result, the court exercised its right to reduce the amount of costs, determining that 8,000 UAH should be recovered.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application of the Khoroshiv Settlement Council, ordering LLC “Nadra Invest” to pay 8,000 hryvnias as compensation for professional legal assistance costs.
Case No. 910/1678/25 dated 07/28/2026
The subject of the dispute is the collection of debt in the amount of over 191 million UAH under the initial claim and over 478 million UAH under the counterclaim within the framework of economic legal relations between JSC “Ukrtransgaz” and JSC “NVKHG ‘Zorya’-‘Mashproekt'”.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of procedural economy and compliance with the requirements of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the grounds for cassation appeal. In particular, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s arguments regarding the existence of grounds for reviewing the case, provided for by paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, were not confirmed, since the applicant did not prove the fact that the courts of previous instances failed to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations. Regarding the grounds provided for by paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the court established the absence of violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged decisions. The court confirmed that the courtand the courts of first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, provided a proper assessment of the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive law. Taking into account the absence of compelling legal arguments for amending or setting aside the judicial acts, the panel of judges recognized them as lawful and well-founded. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the conclusions reached by the lower courts.
The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds, to leave the cassation appeals unsatisfied, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 924/684/25 dated 07/28/2026
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of debt from Joint-Stock Company “Khmelnytskoblenergo” in favor of natural persons.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the grounds for cassation appeal provided for by Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine were not properly substantiated by the parties, as the applicants failed to prove the existence of an exceptional legal issue or the necessity to depart from established practice. The Court established that the arguments of the appellants effectively boil down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence carried out by the courts of first and appellate instances, which falls outside the scope of the cassation instance’s authority. The Supreme Court verified the compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law by the previous courts and did not detect any violations that would have led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute. Since the cassation appeals did not contain persuasive legal grounds for setting aside the challenged decisions, the court found them groundless. Thus, the decision of the Commercial Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the resolution of the North-Western Commercial Appellate Court were recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings on part of the grounds, and in the remaining part, to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 202/8513/24 dated 07/29/2026
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 regarding the conviction of an individual for a completed attempt at intentional murder.
2. The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation appeals, reached a conclusion regarding the necessity to set aside the decision of the appellate instance due to the existence of substantial violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The Court established that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the defense’s arguments, which could have significantly influenced the qualification of the convicted person’s actions or the sentencing. In particular, the requirements regarding the completeness of the judicial review and the substantiation of the conclusions set forth in the judicial decision were ignored. The panel of judges emphasized the necessity of adhering to the standards of proof and ensuring the right to a fair trial within the framework of appellate proceedings. Since underDuring the review, shortcomings were identified that could not be rectified by the court of cassation instance, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principles of legality and justice when resolving the issue of a person’s guilt.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, set aside the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, while keeping the convicted person in custody.
Case No. 752/11647/23 dated 07/28/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of leaving a statement of claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s failure to rectify the shortcomings of the claim (failure to determine the value of the claim and failure to pay the court fee) after the commencement of proceedings in the case.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Court emphasized that procedural law (Articles 187, 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) grants the court the right to stay a statement of claim and, consequently, leave it without consideration, even if proceedings in the case have already been commenced, in the event of identifying non-compliance with the requirements of Articles 175 and 177 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
2. The plaintiff was duly notified of the necessity to rectify the shortcomings, in particular regarding the provision of a property appraisal report for the proper determination of the value of the claim and the payment of the additional court fee; however, the plaintiff failed to fulfill these requirements within the established time limit.
3. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that after the commencement of proceedings, the court loses the right to verify the statement of claim for compliance with legal requirements, noting that this is a misinterpretation of procedural norms.
4. The Court emphasized that each party bears the risk of the consequences associated with their failure to perform procedural actions, and in this case, the plaintiff did not exercise their right to correct the errors.
5. Reference to previous practice of the Supreme Court (resolution dated December 14, 2022, in case No. 760/27582/17) confirmed the consistency of the position that the stage of commencement of proceedings does not preclude the possibility of subsequently staying the claim.
6. The Court also noted that leaving a claim without consideration does not deprive a person of the right to re-apply to the court after rectifying all shortcomings, which serves as a guarantee of access to justice.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court.
Case No. 344/3452/25 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The debtor’s challenge of a notary’s executive endorsement regarding the recovery of debt under a credit agreement due to the lack of indisputability of the debt and the failure to provide the necessary documents.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the notary is obliged to verify the indisputability of the debt, and the bank, in turn, must provide a full package of documents as provided for by the List of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which was not done in this case.it was not present.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that a notary’s violation of the procedure for executing an endorsement constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for declaring it unenforceable.
– Regarding the bank’s argument of “improper defendant” due to the sale of the debt under a factoring agreement, the court noted that since no procedural substitution of the party in the enforcement proceedings had occurred, the bank remains the proper defendant.
– The court indicated that it cannot re-evaluate evidence, as it is a court of law and not a court of fact, and the circumstances established by the lower courts are sufficient to conclude that the endorsement is unlawful.
– It was also emphasized that courts should not be limited to a formal verification of documents but must ascertain the actual state of the debt at the time the endorsement was executed.
– The decision is based on the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the protection of debtors’ rights in cases involving enforcement endorsements.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the illegality of the enforcement endorsement.
Case No. 903/340/20 of 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an application for procedural succession of the claimant in enforcement proceedings, the issuance of a duplicate of the enforcement document, and the renewal of the time limit for its submission in connection with the reorganization of branches of a state enterprise.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that procedural succession is a consequence of the transfer of substantive rights and obligations from one person to another; therefore, to establish it, the court is obligated to analyze the scope of rights transferred to the successor.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the lower courts approached the issue formally, failing to properly examine the orders on the liquidation of the branch and the transfer acts provided by the applicant.
– It is important to distinguish between the concepts of “succession of a legal entity” and “succession of rights and obligations” (singular succession), as branches are not legal entities but merely separate subdivisions.
– The court noted that since the claimant in the case is a legal entity (SE “Forests of Ukraine”), the transfer of claims between its branches must be confirmed by relevant internal documents, which the courts failed to evaluate properly.
– The lack of an assessment of the transfer act in conjunction with other evidence led to premature conclusions regarding the impossibility of substituting the party.
– The Supreme Court pointed to the necessity of verifying whether the right of claim under a specific court order had passed to the successor, which is key to resolving the application.
– Due to the incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case, the courts were unable to reasonably resolve the issue of either substituting the claimant or issuing a duplicate of the order.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court… [the court] overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Volyn Oblast.
Case No. 916/5339/25 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of unjustifiably retained funds (in the amount of rent) from a real estate owner for the actual use of a communally owned land plot without properly executed title documents.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court distinguished the legal regime of land plots depending on the circumstances of martial law. Firstly, the court recognized that during the temporary occupation of the territory (from 03/01/2022 to 11/11/2022), the user was objectively deprived of the possibility to use the property and the land; therefore, the recovery of funds for this period is unlawful. Secondly, regarding the period of active hostilities (from 05/01/2023), the court emphasized that tax benefits provided by the Tax Code apply only to contractual land users, and not to persons who use land without documents. The court stressed that an actual user is not automatically exempt from land payments unless they prove that they took active steps to formalize a lease right and that the local self-government body acted with unlawful inaction. Since the courts of lower instances did not investigate the conduct of the parties and did not verify the calculation for the period of hostilities, the Supreme Court deemed their conclusions premature. It is important that the court confirmed established practice: a person who uses land without a contract does not fall under the scope of tax benefits for “titled” lessees.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast to establish the circumstances regarding the existence of grounds for the recovery of funds during the period of hostilities.
Case No. 909/747/21 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the alienation of a communally owned land plot, which, according to the prosecutor, belongs to the water fund and was sold without conducting land auctions.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate instance because the court did not fulfill the prior instructions of the cassation court and did not provide a proper assessment of all evidence in the case. Specifically, the appellate court ignored numerous documents (water body passport, General City Plan, cartographic materials) that the prosecutor provided to confirm that the disputed plot is part of a coastal protection strip. Furthermore, the court did not consider the prosecutor’s argument regarding the violation of the procedure for selling the plot without competitive principles (Art. 134 of the Land Code of Ukraine), as the area of the plot significantly exceeded…and the area of the immovable property located thereon. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court’s conclusion was based on a single dubious expert study without consideration of other case materials. Since the additional decision regarding the allocation of court costs is derivative of the main one, it was also set aside. The Court stressed that a decision must be reasoned, and the dismissal of the parties’ arguments must be motivated, which was not done in this case.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the resolution and the additional resolution of the commercial appellate court and remit the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 694/515/25 dated 07/28/2026
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:** A student challenged the university’s order on her expulsion due to non-fulfillment of the individual study plan during her studies under an academic mobility program at a foreign higher education institution.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that although the student did indeed study abroad, she failed to follow the mandatory internal university procedures for formalizing academic mobility. In particular, the plaintiff did not submit the necessary applications, did not conclude an academic mobility agreement with the Ukrainian university, and did not approve an individual study plan as required by the institution’s Regulation. The court emphasized that the existence of a tripartite cooperation agreement between universities is merely a general arrangement and not an automatic ground for recognizing studies abroad as academic mobility. Since the student did not formalize her status as a mobility participant, she was obligated to fulfill the study plan at her own university. Since the examinations and credits were not completed, the expulsion for non-fulfillment of the individual study plan was recognized as lawful. The court also stressed that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the plaintiff did not prove her compliance with all administrative requirements.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, denying the student’s claim.
Case No. 991/9831/25 dated 07/28/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the legality of the attachment of property (a vehicle and an apartment) as a provisional measure in a case on recognizing assets as unjustified and their recovery into state revenue.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the purpose of a provisional measure is to prevent bad-faith actions by the defendants that may complicate or make impossible the execution of a future court judgment.
* It was established that the defendant, being a person authorized to perform state functions, is aware of anti-corruption legislation, yet there are reasonable assumptions about the concealmentassets through relatives.
* The court confirmed the legality of considering the application without notifying the defendants, as this was necessary to prevent them from alienating the property before the seizure was imposed.
* Regarding the court fee, the court clearly explained that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, no fee is charged for filing lawsuits and applications for securing a claim in cases regarding the recognition of assets as unjustified.
* The court noted that the measures taken are proportionate, adequate, and balanced, as they are aimed at preserving the property until the dispute is resolved on its merits.
* The Supreme Court also refused to transfer the case to the Joint Chamber, as it found no grounds to deviate from the previously established legal position regarding the exemption from paying court fees in such categories of cases.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court in the appealed part.
Case No. 953/5664/22 dated 07/01/2026
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:** Recovery from the contractor in favor of the customer of a penalty, fine, inflationary losses, and three percent per annum in connection with the breach of deadlines for the performance of a contract for the manufacture and installation of a modular house.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court made significant errors by failing to properly examine the terms of the contract regarding the phased performance of work and liability for the delay of each individual stage. The court emphasized that the freedom of contract allows parties to provide for the cumulative application of a fine and a penalty, therefore, the appellate court’s refusal to recover the penalty solely on the basis of a general prohibition of “double liability” is premature. Also, the appellate court did not establish the moment the monetary obligation (refund of the advance payment) arose, which is critically important for the correct calculation of inflationary losses and three percent per annum. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not assess the evidence regarding the sending of a claim and did not verify the base for calculating the penalties. Since these circumstances were not established, and the court of cassation does not have the right to evaluate evidence on its own, the case was remanded for a new trial.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the appellate court and the additional decision in the part concerning the resolution of the claims for recovery of the penalty, inflationary losses, and three percent per annum, sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/7046/25 dated 07/22/2026
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:** Recognition of an additional agreement on the renewal of a lease agreement as concludedand of a land plot of municipal ownership.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental principle of the unity of the legal status of a land plot and the real estate objects located thereon. The Court noted that the presence of immovable property on the plot belonging to other persons (an apartment building, parking) significantly limits the rights of the landowner and makes it impossible to lease such a plot to third parties without taking into account the rights of the real estate owners. The lower courts erroneously failed to verify the arguments of the Kyiv City Council regarding the actual location on the plot of objects not belonging to the lessee and failed to assess whether the plaintiff had properly fulfilled the terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that under such circumstances, the application of the mechanism for renewing a lease agreement under Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” is impossible. Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not establish key facts regarding the legal status of the objects on the plot, their decisions were recognized as premature. Therefore, for a full and objective clarification of the circumstances, the case must be reconsidered.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 760/15292/20 dated 07/29/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the verification 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 knowingly false reporting of the preparation of an explosion (Part 1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. Within the framework of cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court analyzed the appellate court’s compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural law during the review of the judgment. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court did not ensure a proper verification of the arguments presented by the convicted person in their appeal, which constitutes a material violation of the requirements of criminal procedural law. The court of cassation instance established that the challenged ruling of the appellate court does not meet the requirements of motivation and justification provided for by Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In particular, the appellate court did not provide exhaustive answers to the defense’s arguments that could have affected the legality of the judgment. In this regard, to ensure the right to a fair trial and proper appellate review, it was deemed necessary to set aside the decision of the appellate instance. The case was remanded for a new trial to the appellate court to rectify the committed violations and reach a lawful decision.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the convicted person, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 729/2740/23 dated 07/29/2026
The subject matter of the dispute is the determination of the proper defendant and the scope of compensation for damages caused as a result of a traffic accident within the framework of a civil claim in a criminal [case]in the proceedings.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the necessity of correctly applying the provisions of civil and criminal procedural legislation regarding the liability of an insurer under a contract of mandatory insurance of civil liability of owners of land vehicles. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of liability of PJSC “NASK ‘Oranta'” and established that the insurer is obligated to indemnify the damage caused to the life and health of the victim within the limits defined by law and the terms of the contract. The Court concluded that the appellate instance erred by failing to properly impose the duty to pay the insurance indemnity on the insurance company, which is the entity bearing liability for damage caused by the insured vehicle. The Court also took into account the victim’s right to receive compensation for professional legal assistance expenses, imposing this duty on the convicted person. This decision is aimed at ensuring effective protection of the victim’s rights and adherence to the principle of full compensation for damages. The Court found no grounds to overturn the verdict regarding the convicted person’s guilt, limiting itself to an adjustment of the financial obligations of the parties in the civil lawsuit.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the insurance company, modifying the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the resolution of the civil lawsuit by ordering the recovery of 320,000 UAH from the insurer in favor of the victim and imposing legal assistance expenses on the convicted person.
Case No. 646/3258/19 of 07/28/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the lawsuit without consideration due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear at court hearings.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that, pursuant to Paragraph 3, Part 1, Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the repeated failure of a properly notified plaintiff to appear constitutes an unconditional ground for leaving the lawsuit without consideration.
– The Court emphasized that in the event of repeated non-appearance, the validity of the reasons for absence has no legal significance for the application of this provision, as the law requires the plaintiff to either participate personally or submit an application for the case to be heard in their absence.
– It was established that the plaintiff was properly notified of the court hearings, as the subpoenas were returned with a note regarding the addressee’s absence, which, under the law, is equated to proper service.
– The Court rejected arguments regarding a “helpless state” and illness, noting that these circumstances do not exempt the plaintiff from the duty to exercise their rights in good faith and not to delay the process.
– Separately, the Court drew attention to the abuse of procedural rights, as the case hearing was postponed 9 consecutive times due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff’s side.
– Regarding procedural matters, the Court recognized the actions of the first instance court to leave [the case] without consideration as lawful.the recusal motions without consideration, as they were submitted in a foreign (Russian) language, which violates the requirements of procedural legislation.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate instance acted within its powers and lawfully upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the contested court decisions.
Case No. 465/6931/24 dated 07/28/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal by the lower courts to appoint a specific person (a serviceman) as a guardian for an incapacitated citizen.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the appointment of a guardian is intended, first and foremost, to ensure the best interests of the incapacitated person, rather than to fulfill the applicant’s desire. The Supreme Court emphasized that the submission of the guardianship and custody authority is advisory in nature and must be duly motivated, which was not done in this case. The courts established that the candidate for guardian did not prove the real possibility of providing constant care, as he is on military service and resides separately from the ward. Furthermore, no evidence was provided regarding the impossibility of the parents, who live together with the incapacitated son, performing the functions of a guardian. The court also drew attention to the need to prevent the abuse of private-law tools to avoid the fulfillment of other duties. It is important that the court took into account the position of the Joint Chamber, which points to the necessity of a thorough investigation into the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of a guardian, rather than a mere formal review of the application.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which denied the appointment of PERSON_4 as the guardian of the incapacitated PERSON_3.
Case No. 527/1096/19 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 527/1096/19:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of the conviction of a person for unlawful seizure of a share in the authorized capital of an enterprise (Art. 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) through the adoption of general meeting resolutions which the prosecution considered to be forged transactions.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that criminal liability under Art. 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine arises only in the presence of direct intent to seize property using forged documents.
– The Grand Chamber established that at the time of the actions (2018), judicial practice was contradictory, and the convicted person acted within the scope of the then-prevailing legal positions of the Supreme Court, which allowed for holding meetings without the participation of heirs.
– The court emphasized the principle of legal certainty: a person cannot bear criminal liability for actions that, at the time they were committed, were considered lawful according to the prevailing judicial prac
