Case No. 760/8374/26 dated August 18, 2026
The subject of the dispute is the consideration of a defense motion to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of three persons for committing collaborative activities.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the provisions of Articles 32 and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the determination of the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the necessity of transferring the case to another court, yet found no sufficient legal grounds to grant such a motion. In particular, the court took into account that current legislation clearly defines the criteria under which proceedings may be transferred from one court to another, and in this instance, these conditions were not met. The panel of judges concluded that there were no objective circumstances that would hinder the consideration of the case by the court to which it had been assigned in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the principle of ensuring the efficiency and promptness of judicial proceedings, which is a priority in criminal procedure, was taken into account. As a result, the court deemed the defense’s arguments insufficient for changing the venue of the case.
The Supreme Court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court.
Case No. 333/10438/24 dated August 19, 2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling to return the appeal to the applicant, which effectively deprived the latter of the right to have the judicial decision reviewed.
2. The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case files, concluded that the appellate court committed procedural violations that hindered access to justice. The court of cassation instance established that the grounds for returning the appeal, as provided by the appellate court, do not comply with the requirements of criminal procedural law or are insufficiently substantiated. Specifically, the individual’s right to file an appeal, which is a fundamental guarantee in criminal procedure, was violated. The Supreme Court emphasized that a formalistic approach to the examination of appeals is inadmissible as it restricts the constitutional right to judicial protection. Consequently, the panel of judges determined that the appellate court’s decision cannot stand, as it impedes further proceedings in the case. Thus, to ensure the legality and fairness of the judicial process, the case must be remitted for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 752/7784/23dated 06/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerns the invalidation of a property purchase and sale agreement and the recovery of funds paid for it from the seller (Olkom-Leasing LLC) due to the respondent’s lack of legal rights to alienate the property.
2. **Court’s reasoning:** The Supreme Court concluded that the cassation proceedings were initiated in error, as this case, by its characteristics, is not subject to appeal in cassation. The Court emphasized that, according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, court decisions in minor cases where the value of the claim does not exceed 250 times the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons are not subject to review in cassation. In this case, the value of the claim is 560,000 UAH, which is below the threshold established by law (757,000 UAH). Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any justification in its appeal regarding the exceptional nature of the case or the existence of legal issues of fundamental importance for the formation of a uniform judicial practice. The Court underscored that the Supreme Court serves as a “court of law” and should not re-examine cases that lack the appropriate level of significance. Thus, as the law explicitly limits the right to cassation for such disputes, the Court is deprived of the opportunity to assess the legality of the decisions of the lower courts in this case.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings initiated by the appeal of Olkom-Leasing LLC due to the inadmissibility of appealing court decisions in this category of cases in cassation.
Case No. 904/4771/23 (904/6370/25) dated 18/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of a statement of claim filed by a liquidator in a bankruptcy case due to non-payment of the court fee and the court’s refusal to grant a deferral of such payment.
2. **Court’s reasoning:**
* The lower courts formally denied the deferral of the court fee, citing that a debtor in the liquidation stage is not included in the list of persons defined by Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees.”
* The Supreme Court emphasized that such an approach is overly formalistic and violates the right to access to justice guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
* The Court stressed that the absence of a legal entity from the list of exempt persons does not relieve the court of the duty to individually assess its actual financial status.
* The courts failed to examine the evidence provided by the liquidator (certificates of zero account balances, inventory protocols confirming the lack of assets), which proved the inability to pay the fee.
* The Supreme Court indicated that the proportionality of the restriction of accessto the court must be assessed through a balance between the interests of the state and an individual’s right to judicial protection.
* Since the courts did not assess the proportionality of the financial burden, their decisions were deemed unfounded.
* **:** In this case, the Supreme Court relies on the positions of the Grand Chamber (in particular, in cases No. 925/1293/19 and No. 917/1219/24), which require courts to depart from a formal interpretation of Article 8 of the Law “On Court Fees” in favor of assessing the actual ability of a legal entity to pay the fee.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case for a new hearing to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for the proper resolution of the issue regarding the deferral of the court fee.
Case No. 904/5748/18 of 18/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective.
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to review its own resolution based on newly discovered circumstances, by which the applicant (liquidator) attempted to validate his own amended report on expenses in bankruptcy proceedings.
**2. Main Arguments of the Court**
The court emphasized that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances is not an instrument for correcting shortcomings in the previous consideration of a case or supplementing the evidentiary base after a decision has already entered into legal force. The key condition for recognizing a circumstance as “newly discovered” is its existence at the time of the case consideration and the objective impossibility for the applicant to have known about it at that time. In this case, the liquidator independently prepared an amended report after the resolution had been rendered, which indicates that these data were known to him or could have been generated by him earlier. The court emphasized that submitting new calculations or additional explanations regarding already examined expenses is an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is strictly prohibited by procedural law. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the conclusions of another court in a different case as to whether a specific document is a “newly discovered circumstance” do not have prejudicial significance for resolving the issue of reviewing a decision, as this is a legal assessment, not a fact. Thus, the liquidator failed to prove the existence of any of the three mandatory criteria of newly discovered circumstances, which made it impossible to satisfy his application.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the liquidator’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to review the case.
Case No. 167/441/25 of 19/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of an individual for committing criminal offenses related to the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs (Part 1 and Partpart 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. During the cassation review, the Supreme Court examined the defense’s arguments regarding possible violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the lower courts. The panel of judges analyzed the materials of the criminal proceedings and concluded that the appellate court’s findings regarding the person’s guilt in committing the incriminated crimes are well-founded and supported by proper evidence. The Court established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 1 and Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed sentence meets the requirements of the law and the principles of justice. The cassation instance did not find any procedural violations that would constitute absolute grounds for overturning the court decision. The defense counsel’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of the conviction were deemed insufficient to refute the facts established by the courts. As a result, the court found no grounds to satisfy the appeal, as the challenged decision complies with the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
3. The Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the Volyn Court of Appeal, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 608/1088/23 dated 08/19/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the court of first instance’s judgment and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of an individual under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription for military service during mobilization).
2. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, analyzed the lower courts’ compliance with substantive and procedural law in sentencing. The Court concluded that, despite the convicted person’s proven guilt in committing the incriminated offense, the lower courts did not fully consider the circumstances that would allow for the application of the institution of exemption from serving a sentence. The panel of judges determined that the goal of rehabilitating the convicted person could be achieved without actual isolation from society. Considering the personality of the convicted person and the circumstances of the case, the court applied the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, replacing the actual term of imprisonment with a probationary period. This decision is aimed at ensuring the principle of individualization of punishment, which is key in criminal proceedings. At the same time, the court established a number of obligations for the convicted person, as provided for in Article 76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to ensure proper supervision of his conduct during the probationary period.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the judgment in the part concerning the qualification of the crime, but modified it in the part concerning the punishment, exempting the convicted person from serving the actual term by setting a probationary period of 2 years and ordering immediate release from custody.
Case No. 490/748/18 dated 08/12/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the reviewReview of the legality of the appellate court ruling, which upheld the acquittal of a person accused of committing intentional light bodily injury.
2. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that the appellate court, when reviewing the case, failed to ensure a proper examination of the prosecution’s arguments. The court of cassation instance established that, during the appellate proceedings, significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law were committed, which hindered the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision. In particular, the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of all evidence referred to by the prosecutor and did not duly justify its decision to reject it. Such an approach by the appellate court violated the right to a fair trial and the principles of adversarial proceedings. Consequently, to ensure a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case, a necessity arose for a re-examination of the appeal. The court did not express a position regarding the guilt of the person, but merely pointed out procedural deficiencies that must be addressed during the new proceedings.
3. The Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 490/748/18 dated 08/12/2026**
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Cassation review of the appellate court ruling, which left unchanged an acquittal regarding a person accused of committing intentional light bodily injury (Part 1, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is the final instance capable of verifying the completeness of judicial proceedings; therefore, it is obligated to thoroughly examine and assess all arguments of the parties.
* The Court established that the appellate instance approached the review of the prosecutor’s appeal formally, failing to provide a legal assessment of key arguments regarding the evaluation of evidence and the refusal to order a repeat forensic examination.
* In particular, the appellate court disregarded the prosecutor’s arguments that the local court had groundlessly declared an expert’s report inadmissible as evidence, citing the expert’s official subordination, even though these circumstances required deeper analysis.
* Furthermore, arguments regarding contradictions in the verdict and the first-instance court’s disregard for the testimony of the victim and a witness, provided under oath, were ignored.
* The Supreme Court underscored that the absence in the appellate court’s ruling of reasoned responses to the appellant’s arguments constitutes a violation of the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* Such a violation of procedural law is recognized as significant, as it prevented the adoption of a lawful and well-founded decision, which is inherently…a ground for cancellation of the ruling.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case for a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 916/3075/24(916/2992/25) dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation review of an appellate court ruling to close proceedings upon an appeal by a person who did not participate in the case but believed that the court decision declaring an additional agreement (a fraudulent transaction) invalid violated their property rights.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to appellate review for persons not involved in the case arises only when the court decision directly decides on their rights, obligations, or interests. The Court emphasized that conclusions in the reasoning part of a decision regarding the legal assessment of certain facts do not have prejudicial significance for persons who were not participants in the proceedings and do not create obligations for them. Since the operative part of the decision concerned only the parties to the dispute (the debtor and the counterparties), the appellate court lawfully closed the proceedings, finding no evidence of “interference” with the appellant’s rights. The Court also emphasized that a legal assessment provided by a court within one dispute is not binding on third parties, and therefore, an appellant cannot challenge a decision solely due to disagreement with the reasoning. Reference to new case law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is mandatory for application by courts, even if it was established after the filing of the appellate complaint. Ultimately, the Court noted that the appellant has the right to protect their interests in separate litigation if they believe their rights have been violated.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling to close the appellate proceedings, recognizing it as lawful and well-founded.
Case No. 369/18297/21 dated 13/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of the distribution of procedural costs in criminal proceedings that were closed by the appellate court due to the death of the accused.
The Supreme Court, in considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the premise that the appellate court, when closing the proceedings on the basis of Clause 5, Part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, committed a procedural incompleteness by failing to resolve the issue of the fate of procedural costs. The Court noted that the obligation to resolve the issue of cost distribution arises in any decision that concludes the consideration of a case on its merits. At the same time, citing the practice of the Grand Chamber, the Court emphasized that the failure to resolve this issue is not a significant violation requiring reversalthe ruling, as the cassation court can rectify this on its own. By applying the analogy of law, the Court determined that in the event of the accused’s death, procedural costs cannot be recovered from the individual, as they withdraw from the legal relationship, and therefore, such costs should be borne by the state. This approach is consistent with the position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court regarding the impossibility of imposing costs on an individual against whom proceedings are closed due to non-exonerating circumstances. Thus, the Supreme Court independently rectified the flaw in the ruling without setting it aside in its entirety.
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court’s ruling regarding the distribution of procedural costs and ordering them to be borne by the state.
Case No. 760/21456/18 dated 08/12/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the legality of exempting the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation (probationary period) for committing theft and robbery, as well as the correctness of the courts’ application of the rules for sentencing for concurrent crimes.
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of judicial discretion, noting that the choice of punishment measure is the exclusive competence of the court considering the case on its merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had duly considered all circumstances: the long period of time that had elapsed since the commission of the crimes, the absence of new offenses during this period, the return of the stolen property, and the positive characterization of the person (participation in a religious community). The panel of judges noted that the mere fact of past convictions is not an automatic obstacle to the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine if the court has concluded that the person can be reformed without isolation from society. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as the application of a probationary period under a new sentence does not contradict the practice of the Supreme Court established in Case No. 183/6854/20. As a result, the cassation instance recognized that the appellate court provided exhaustive responses to all of the prosecutor’s arguments and complied with the requirements of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 545/3381/25 dated 08/13/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the application by the appellate court of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of a more lenient punishment than provided by law) to a person convicted of driving a vehicle while intoxicated, which caused bodily injury to a victim.
