Case No. 725/8795/25 dated 08/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to establish through judicial proceedings the fact of independent upbringing and maintenance of a child in order to subsequently use this decision to obtain a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilization.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that the use of civil law instruments to avoid public duties (in particular, military service) constitutes an abuse of rights. The court noted that the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCR and SS) has the right to file an appeal against such decisions, as they directly concern the interests of the state and the performance of military duty. The appellate court reasonably determined that the mere fact of parents living apart is not evidence of the mother’s evasion of child upbringing if her parental rights have not been restricted. Furthermore, the court of first instance committed a procedural error by considering the case without the mandatory participation of the guardianship and custody authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that a court decision cannot be an instrument for creating artificial grounds for exemption from mobilization. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s cassation arguments were found to be groundless, as they amounted to a reassessment of evidence, which falls outside the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court, by which the application to establish the fact of independent child upbringing was denied, remained unchanged.
Case No. 346/2047/24 dated 07/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Division of property of former spouses, namely, determining the legal status of an apartment purchased during the marriage and resolving the issue of recognizing it as the personal private property of one of the spouses.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court was guided by the presumption of joint community property of spouses for property acquired during marriage, as enshrined in Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
* The burden of refuting this presumption lies with the spouse who claims that the property is personal property (in this case, the defendant).
* The court found the receipts provided by the defendant regarding the receipt of funds from her mother to be insufficient evidence, as they do not confirm the intended purpose of these funds exclusively for the daughter’s personal needs, rather than for the needs of the family.
* The fact of a relative transferring funds for the purchase of real estate does not automatically transition the property into the status of personal property unless it is proven that it was a gift agreement specifically for money for specific personal purposes.
* The court noted that the referencereferences to the Supreme Court practice in the cassation appeal are groundless, since the actual circumstances in the cases cited by the applicant differed significantly from the circumstances of this case.
* Regarding legal aid expenses, the court applied the criteria of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness, reducing the recovery amount to UAH 10,000, which corresponds to the scope of work performed by the attorney.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the plaintiff’s right to a 1/2 share of the apartment as joint marital property.
Case No. 766/1309/19 dated 07/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to recover insurance indemnity from an insurance company for a vehicle damaged in a road traffic accident, citing new circumstances regarding the failure of a service station to perform repair works.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court was guided by the fundamental principle of civil procedure — *res judicata*, which prohibits the re-adjudication of identical disputes if a final court decision already exists.
* It was established that the parties, the subject (recovery of insurance indemnity), and the grounds for the claim (road traffic accident and non-performance of obligations under the contract) in this case fully coincide with those that had already been the subject of consideration in two previous court cases in 2015-2016.
* The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s submission of new evidence (a letter from the service station stating that repairs were not performed) does not change the grounds for the claim, but is merely an attempt to re-evaluate circumstances that had already been established earlier.
* A plaintiff cannot initiate a new process simply because they have received new information regarding a dispute that has already been resolved.
* In accordance with procedural legislation, if a dispute between the same parties, regarding the same subject, and on the same grounds has already been resolved, the proceedings in the case are subject to mandatory closure.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate instance correctly applied the rules of law, as it is impossible to review the same legal relations indefinitely.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of proceedings in the case unchanged.
Case No. 753/12239/25 dated 10/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the procedural actions of the appellate court regarding the cancellation of a ruling on the return of a statement of claim and the refusal to correct clerical errors in a court decision.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the plaintiff had rectified the deficiencies of the statement of claim within the established time limit, as the application was submitted through the “Electronic Court” system on time, and the delay in registration was a technical matter of the court.
– Regarding the refusal to correct the clericlerical error, the Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of correcting clerical errors concerns only technical mistakes (grammatical, typographical), and not a change in the content of the decision or established circumstances; therefore, the appellate court acted lawfully.
– The Court noted that the attorney’s authority was duly confirmed, and the use of the same warrant number in different instances does not constitute a violation if the attorney acts on the basis of a valid agreement on the provision of legal assistance.
– Regarding the extension of a procedural time limit, the Court pointed out that this is a discretionary power of the court, aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the law rather than providing unlawful advantages to a party.
– Regarding the recusal of the panel of judges, the Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, as the motion for recusal was filed in violation of the time limits established by procedural law, without providing exceptional circumstances for their reinstatement.
– The Court emphasized that a party’s disagreement with a judge’s procedural decisions does not constitute grounds for recusal, and the contested decisions are lawful and well-founded.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the contested resolution and rulings of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 213/2966/25 dated 09/10/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact that a woman and a man resided as a single family without registering a marriage for the purpose of receiving a one-time financial allowance in connection with the death of a serviceman.
2. The Court concluded that the applicant provided sufficient evidence to confirm family relations, in particular, condominium association records and witness testimonies, which confirmed a shared household, budget, and mutual rights and obligations. The Supreme Court emphasized that for persons to be recognized as family members, the key factor is not only the fact of cohabitation but also the existence of shared expenses, mutual care, and actual family relations. The Court stressed that the assessment of evidence is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, therefore the court of cassation does not have the authority to re-evaluate them. The arguments of the Ministry of Defense regarding the impropriety of the evidence were rejected, as the courts of lower instances had already provided them with a proper legal assessment. The Court also noted that differences in the results of evidence assessment in this case compared to other cases do not indicate an incorrect application of legal norms. Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed that the decisions of the lower instances are based on a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/9598/25 dated 09/10/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by an individual entrepreneur to invalidate certain clauses of a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court reached the conclusion that the courts of prethe lower courts did not fully examine all the circumstances of the case that are of significance for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the cassation court pointed out the need for a more detailed analysis of the evidence upon which the challenged decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) was based. The Court noted that during the consideration of the case, compliance with the procedural norms provided for by the legislation on the protection of economic competition was not properly verified. It was also emphasized that it is important to establish the objective truth regarding the lawfulness of the Committee’s actions when imposing sanctions on the entrepreneur. Since the courts of first and appellate instances committed violations of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to make a decision on the merits independently. Therefore, to ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, it must be returned for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee, cancelled the decisions of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the claim, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.
Case No. 732/1388/25 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of proper jurisdiction (civil or commercial) in a case based on a claim by an individual against a lessee (LLC “Selit Mash”) regarding the early termination of a land lease agreement, the right to which was acquired by the respondent at an auction within the framework of the bankruptcy procedure of the previous lessee.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that after the sale of the lease right at auction, this right was removed from the liquidation estate of the debtor (APK “Starosilske”), therefore, the dispute no longer directly relates to the bankruptcy procedure.
– The Court emphasized that since the plaintiff did not declare property claims against the debtor (bankrupt) itself and did not challenge the results of the auction, there are no grounds for considering the case within the framework of the commercial bankruptcy proceeding.
– The key factor was that the lease right had already passed to the new lessee (LLC “Selit Mash”), who became a full participant in the lease legal relations with the landowner.
– The Court emphasized that the decision in this case will not affect the size of the debtor’s liquidation estate, as the funds from the sale of the lease right had already been received and directed toward satisfying the claims of creditors.
– The Supreme Court noted that the involvement of the debtor’s liquidator in this situation is not mandatory, as the dispute arose between the landowner and the new lessee.
– Thus, the court concluded that the nature of the legal relations is civil, and therefore, the case is subject to consideration under civil procedure.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Selit Mash” and left the resolution of the appellate court, by which the case was…referred for consideration on the merits to a court of civil jurisdiction, — unchanged.
Case No. 902/847/24 dated 03/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Resolution of the issue regarding the transition to the debt repayment procedure for an individual in an insolvency case or the closure of proceedings due to the lack of a restructuring plan approved by the creditor.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the restructuring procedure is a priority; however, if the plan is not approved within three months, the court has the discretionary power to choose between closing the case or transitioning to the debt repayment procedure.
* The key criterion for selecting the procedure is the debtor’s good faith, which the court assesses through the completeness of the disclosure of information about assets and income, as well as the absence of any intent to evade the fulfillment of obligations.
* The court established that the debtor provided complete and accurate information about her financial status, and her restructuring proposals are economically justified and realistic to implement.
* Conversely, the terms proposed by the bank were found to fail to consider the balance of the parties’ interests and violated legal requirements regarding leaving the debtor with funds at the level of the subsistence minimum for herself and her children.
* The court emphasized that the absence of an approved plan does not always indicate the debtor’s bad faith, as the reason may also be the unconstructive position of the creditor.
* Considering that the debtor is taking measures to improve her financial condition (employment), the court concluded that transitioning to the debt repayment procedure is the most optimal mechanism for rehabilitation.
* The court also rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous Supreme Court practice, noting that they refer to other factual circumstances or bankruptcy cases involving legal entities.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the debtor was declared bankrupt and a debt repayment procedure was initiated.
Case No. 910/6310/24 (369/2813/24) dated 26/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (debtor) filed a lawsuit for the recovery of a residential house and a land plot from another’s illegal possession, which were alienated by the mortgagee in favor of a third party as part of the foreclosure on the mortgage asset.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial due to violations of procedural law and the incomplete examination of evidence. The court noted that the appellate instance had taken a selective approach to the evaluation of evidence, ignoring contradictions regarding the date of the conclusion of the assignment of claim agreement, which are reflected in the title documents. Furthermore,the appellate court failed to provide a proper assessment of the arguments regarding the absence of primary financial documents confirming payment under the purchase and sale agreements, limiting itself only to the company’s internal documents. The court emphasized that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to errors in notarial documents without verifying whether the procedure for registering ownership rights to the mortgage object had been followed. The Supreme Court underscored that for the reclamation of property (vindication), it is critically important to establish the fact that the property was disposed of against the owner’s will, which the appellate court did not properly do. Consequently, due to an incomplete clarification of the circumstances relevant to the case, the appellate decision was deemed unfounded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate commercial court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 911/1005/23 (910/19228/23) dated 06/17/2026**
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff (Mercury LLC) attempted to have the state registrar’s decision on the transfer of ownership rights to real estate (a restaurant) to the mortgage-holding bank declared unlawful and canceled, claiming that the debt had been settled earlier by foreclosing on another object (a hotel), the value of which allegedly exceeded the debt amount.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the bank acted within the framework of the extrajudicial settlement procedure provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages” and the terms of the agreements, providing the state registrar with a full package of documents, including property valuation reports.
– The key issue was the reliability of the valuation: although the initial reports had certain deficiencies, they were not recognized as “low-quality” (unusable), but were classified as requiring revision.
– The bank corrected the deficiencies identified by the State Property Fund’s reviews, and a subsequent review confirmed that the updated reports complied with the requirements of regulatory acts and that the valuation was reliable.
– The appellate court reasonably rejected the findings of forensic examinations that were based on retrospective valuation, giving preference to reports that reflected the value of the property specifically at the time of foreclosure.
– Since the value of the first object (the hotel) did not cover the entire debt amount, the bank had the legal right to foreclose on the second object (the restaurant) to settle the remaining debt.
– The court emphasized that formal defects in a report, which were corrected and did not affect the final market value, are not grounds for canceling a registration action.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which denied the claim of Mercury LLC regarding the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision.
**Case No. 686/2**7873/25 dated 25/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the appellate court’s refusal to declare a serviceman, who went missing during hostilities, as deceased.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that when resolving the issue of declaring a person deceased, courts should be guided by the principle of legal certainty and social justice, rather than solely by the formal status of a territory in departmental lists.
– The Court noted that the six-month period for declaring a person deceased, provided for by Article 46 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, cannot be “frozen” indefinitely simply because a settlement formally remains in a zone of active hostilities.
– It is important to consider the specific circumstances of the case: the existence of an official investigation report, the fact of the destruction of the building where the serviceman was located, the discovery of human remains, and the impossibility of their identification due to DNA degradation.
– The Court emphasized that delaying the recognition of a person as deceased in the presence of a high degree of probability of death is unjustified and violates the rights of family members to receive social benefits and settle inheritance.
– The appellate court made an error by limiting itself only to a formal reference to the Ministry of Reintegration’s List of Territories, without assessing the totality of evidence confirming the fact of probable death.
– The Supreme Court indicated that courts have the right to commence the countdown of the six-month period from the moment of the event that caused the death, even if the territory formally has the status of a zone of active hostilities, provided that the circumstances indicate the obviousness of the tragedy.
– The Court also drew attention to the need to avoid contradictory decisions regarding servicemen who were in the same place during the same event, in order to ensure equality before the law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to declare the serviceman deceased.
Case No. 705/2159/19 dated 26/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenging of the inaction of the head of the State Executive Service department, who, in the applicant’s opinion, improperly considered the complaint regarding the actions of a state executor within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the head of the SES department has the right, but not an unconditional obligation, to issue a separate resolution based on the results of the consideration of a complaint if they do not see any violations of the law in the actions of the subordinate executor. The Court noted that if the head of the department checked the executor’s actions and determined their compliance with the law, then providing a written response to the complaint is an appropriate method of response. At the same time, the Supreme Court undernoted that the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals” is not applicable to legal relations in the sphere of enforcement proceedings, as the special law (the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”) takes precedence. The courts of previous instances reached the correct conclusion regarding the lack of grounds to satisfy the complaint; however, they committed errors in their reasoning, in particular, by groundlessly referring to the provisions on citizens’ appeals. The Supreme Court corrected these motives, confirming that the head of the department acted within the scope of their authority, and that formal defects in the text of the court decisions (clerical errors) did not affect the legality of the result.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the motivational parts of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, while leaving their operative parts regarding the refusal to satisfy the complaint unchanged.
Case No. 568/428/24 dated 08/26/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate a mortgage agreement on real estate, claiming that he, as a co-owner, did not provide his consent to pledge the joint property of the spouses as collateral.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court established that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of consent are refuted by the materials of the notarial file, in particular, data from the register of notarial acts.
* It was confirmed that at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage agreement in 2008, the plaintiff was personally present at the notary’s office and signed a statement of consent to pledge the property.
* The court emphasized that the absence of the original of this statement in the bank’s archive does not mean that it did not exist at the time of the transaction, as the fact of its certification is confirmed by the notary’s documents.
* Regarding the admission of the claim by the wife (co-defendant), the court noted that such an admission is not unconditional if it contradicts established facts or violates the rights of other persons (the bank as a creditor).
* The Supreme Court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid the fulfillment of obligations under a loan agreement.
* The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the bank’s bad faith, and his actions are aimed at delaying the fulfillment of obligations.
* Ultimately, the court of cassation indicated that the appellant’s arguments amount to an attempt to reassess evidence, which is outside the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the claim to invalidate the mortgage agreement.
Case No. 924/36/26 dated 09/10/2026
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 dispute concerns the legality of taking measures to secure a claim by imposing an attachment on the real estate of the defendants in a case regarding the collection of creddebt obligations.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the asserted demands; however, their implementation must not violate the right to effective judicial protection.
– The court of appeal committed a procedural error by accepting as evidence “property value conclusions” created after the court of first instance had already rendered its decision, which directly contradicts Article 269 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
– Furthermore, the documents provided by the defendant were not proper evidence, as a “value conclusion” does not substitute for a property valuation report, and the status of the person who prepared it as a subject of valuation activity was not confirmed by certificates or licenses.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the appellate court had no right to re-evaluate evidence that did not physically exist at the time the case was heard in the court of first instance, as this violates the principle of legal certainty.
– At the same time, the Court clarified that the defendant is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a separate motion to lift the measures to secure the claim (pursuant to Art. 145 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine) if they consider them disproportionate, while providing proper and admissible evidence of the property’s value.
– Thus, the Supreme Court recognized that the appellate court exceeded its authority by groundlessly overturning a lawful ruling of the court of first instance based on improper and inadmissible evidence.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the bank’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the court of first instance’s ruling on the attachment of property.
**Case No. 524/3592/15-k dated 03/09/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against a judgment of the appellate court, which overturned the acquittal of the court of first instance and convicted an individual for intentional homicide committed repeatedly (Clause 13, Part 2 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, which found the acquittal of the court of first instance to be unlawful due to a superficial and selective assessment of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance rightfully conducted a re-examination of the evidence, in particular, the crime scene investigation reports and the investigative experiment, which had previously been groundlessly declared inadmissible. The Supreme Court confirmed that the absence of a specialist’s signature on photo tables or technical errors in the names of recording devices are not significant violations that entail the inadmissibility of evidence. The court also recognized the detention of the individual as lawful, noting that a detention report does not necessarily have to be drawn up instantly, and a personal search is an integral part of the detention procedure. Regarding the defense’s version concerning the involvement of another person, the court pointed to its complete refutation by the totality of expert opinions and consistent witness testimonies. [Incomplete text continues]the court emphasized that the arguments regarding the use of prohibited investigative methods had already been subject to verification and were not confirmed.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Poltava Court of Appeal, leaving the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the defense attorney unsatisfied.
Case No. 554/5489/22 dated 03/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the issue of the legality and fairness of the sentencing of a person convicted of theft under martial law, specifically the possibility of their rehabilitation without actual service of imprisonment.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of individualization of punishment and the discretionary powers of the court. The panel of judges took into account that the convicted person had not previously been held criminally liable, fully admitted their guilt, and expressed sincere remorse. An important argument was that the crime was committed under conditions of occupation, and the stolen property was voluntarily returned to the victim, who had no claims. The court also noted that for a long time after the first-instance verdict, the convicted person had not committed any new offenses and had been engaged in socially useful work, restoring the housing of those affected. The appellate court, in the opinion of the cassation instance, took a formalistic approach to the issue, failing to provide a proper assessment of these mitigating circumstances. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that actual isolation of the convicted person from society is not necessary to achieve the purpose of punishment.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, amended the appellate court’s verdict, and released the convicted person from serving the sentence on probation, establishing a probation period of 1 year.
Case No. 752/2262/17 dated 03/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of a former deputy head of the Kyiv Regional State Administration and his accomplice for receiving an unlawful benefit for approving the dismissal of a subordinate (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the convicted persons acted as officials who used their authority to create artificial obstacles to the dismissal of a subordinate, demanding money for the removal of these obstacles, which is fully covered by the corpus delicti of “receiving an unlawful benefit.”
– Regarding the arguments about the violation of investigative jurisdiction, the court noted that the prosecutor’s resolution on changing the investigative jurisdiction was reasoned and adopted within the powers provided for by Part 5 of Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the very fact of changing the investigating body did not affect the quality of the evidence.
– The court rejected the arguments regarding entrapment, pointing out that law enforcement agencies acted passibut merely recording criminal activity after the victim had filed a complaint, which complies with ECHR practice.
– Regarding the inconsistency in the title of the covert investigative (search) action (simulating a crime situation instead of a special investigative experiment), the court recognized this as a technical error that does not affect the admissibility of the evidence, since the actual actions corresponded to the authorization granted by the prosecutor.
– The correction of the date in the protocol of inspection and handing over of money was recognized by the court as a technical clerical error that does not refute the reliability of the evidence itself, which was confirmed by witness testimony during the court hearing.
– The court emphasized the inconsistency of the defense’s position, which simultaneously denies the fact of the crime and alleges provocation, which, according to ECHR practice, renders such arguments unfounded.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defense counsel unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/14602/25 dated 09/10/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the executive body of the Kyiv City Council (KSCA) for the invalidation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that public authorities and local self-government bodies are required to strictly comply with the requirements of legislation on the protection of economic competition when adopting their acts. The panel of judges established that the challenged decision of the Antimonopoly Committee was adopted within the powers granted to it by law and on the basis of a proper assessment of the evidence. The court concluded that the arguments of the KSCA regarding the violation of the case consideration procedure or the incorrect application of legal norms were not confirmed during the cassation proceedings. It was also emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, giving them a correct legal assessment. The Supreme Court did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged judicial acts. Thus, the position of the AMC was recognized as justified and consistent with the principles of legality.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the KSCA unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/2345/24 dated 09/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by the debtor the actions of the state executor regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings after the previous court decisions on canceling the executor’s actions were themselves overturned by the Supreme Court.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that to recognize the inaction or actions of an executor as unlawful, a formal violation is not sufficient; it is necessary to prove a real violation of the complainant’s rights.
– The court established that the provisions of Article 41 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” regarding the obligationprovisions regarding the mandatory “resumption” of proceedings are not applicable in this situation, as there was no fact of unlawful termination of proceedings or return of a document that would necessitate such resumption.
– The enforcement agent’s actions regarding the continued execution of the decision were aimed at implementing a mandatory judicial decision, which complies with the requirements of Article 129-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
– The court noted that the debtor was effectively attempting to use the complaint against the enforcement agent’s actions as a means for extra-procedural review of a previous Supreme Court ruling, which is impermissible.
– Since the debtor had already fully complied with the judicial decision at the time the complaint was considered, satisfying the complaint would not have restored any of their rights, but would have merely created artificial legal facts.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of judicial oversight is to protect violated rights, not to create obstacles to the execution of final judicial decisions.
– Considering the above, the cassation instance concluded that the courts of lower instances incorrectly qualified the enforcement agent’s actions as unlawful.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision denying the complaint of LLC “Donetsk Energy Services” regarding the actions of the state enforcement agent.
Case No. 643/8971/24 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Establishing the fact of a woman cohabiting with a decedent as a single family without a registered marriage for at least five years prior to the opening of the inheritance, in order to acquire the status of a fourth-priority heir.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that for inheritance purposes under Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the key factor is proving the maintenance of a joint household, the existence of shared domestic life, and the mutual rights and duties inherent to spouses.
– The Court of Appeal correctly adjusted the period of cohabitation, limiting it to the effective date of the Family Code of Ukraine (from January 1, 2004), as prior to this date, legislation did not provide for the establishment of such a legal fact.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of evidence (witness testimony, receipts, medical records, photographs) is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation has no authority to re-evaluate them.
– The City Council’s arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence were rejected, as the lower courts examined the provided materials in their entirety and reached a conclusion regarding the reality of the family relationship.
– The court noted that the heir’s possession of the deceased’s documents and participation in funeral expenses serve as additional confirmations of the close bond between the individuals.
– The Supreme Court also confirmed that in each case, the legal assessment depends on specific circumstances; therefore, the appellant’s references to other Supreme Court rulings do not indicate a violation.of the law in this case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv City Council and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 518/1257/24 dated 09/09/2026
Here is a detailed legal analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional period for filing an application for the acceptance of an inheritance by will, due to the fact that the heir was unaware of the existence of the will in their favor.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for the acceptance of an inheritance must be assessed individually, taking into account the principle of freedom of testation and objective circumstances that prevented the heir from timely contacting a notary. The key argument was that the plaintiff is not an heir by law, and therefore could not have known about the emergence of their right to inheritance without information about the will. The court noted that being unaware of a will is a valid reason if the person did not have an objective possibility to learn about the testator’s expression of will. The fact that the plaintiff received the testator’s death certificate earlier does not prove that they were specifically aware of the existence of a will in their favor. The lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence, finding no confirmation that the plaintiff had intentionally delayed the acceptance of the inheritance. Refusing to grant an additional period under such conditions would be a violation of the right to inheritance and the principle of justice.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, finding the lawsuit for granting an additional period for the acceptance of the inheritance to be well-founded.
Case No. 399/786/23 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit with the court to invalidate the decisions of the settlement council, the lease agreement, and to recover a land plot from illegal possession in favor of the state.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously left the lawsuit without consideration because the prosecutor did not deposit the value of the land plot with the court, as required by the new amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the protection of bona fide purchasers.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that these new procedural requirements (depositing funds) apply exclusively to cases of recovering property from a **bona fide** purchaser.
* The issue of the purchaser’s good or bad faith is key, but it cannot be resolved at the stage of initiating proceedings or leaving a lawsuit without motion.
* The court emphasized that determining the status of a purchaser is possible only after a full examination of the evidence during the consideration of the case on its merits.
* Since the prosecutor in the lawsuit asserted the bad faith of the purchasers, the application of the requirements for advance deposit of funds to them is inand the deposit was premature and unlawful.
* Thus, the courts of lower instances committed a violation of procedural law, which hindered access to justice.
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 to the court of first instance for further consideration on the merits.
Case No. 464/6640/25 dated 08/25/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** An employee challenged their dismissal from the position of a security guard due to health conditions (Clause 2, Part 1, Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine), demanding reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for dismissal based on health conditions, a formal medical report alone is insufficient; the employer is obliged to prove the impossibility of the employee performing specific work duties. The lower courts committed a procedural error, as they failed to properly evaluate the plaintiff’s arguments that they were effectively capable of performing the work, supporting this with other medical certificates. The appellate court took a formalistic approach to the case review, failing to refute the appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of facts concerning improper performance of duties or threats to the health of the collective. The Supreme Court underscored that unfitness for the occupied position is a documented impossibility to continue work, rather than simply a conclusion regarding the existence of a diagnosis. Consequently, the appellate court was obligated to examine in detail and provide a reasoned rejection of each of the plaintiff’s arguments, which was not done.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, set aside the resolution of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 314/242/24 dated 08/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your interview:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A father’s lawsuit to terminate the mother’s parental rights regarding their minor child due to her prolonged residence abroad and self-removal from upbringing.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the termination of parental rights is an exceptional and extreme measure, applied only in the presence of culpable behavior and conscious neglect of duties, which cannot be changed by other methods. The court underscored that mere residence of one of the parents abroad or the existence of alimony arrears does not automatically indicate intentional evasion of upbringing. At the same time, the appellate court committed serious procedural violations, as it ignored the plaintiff’s motion to admit new evidence and failed to take measures to hear the opinion of the child, who has reached the age of 13. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate courtit is obliged to provide a reasoned response to every argument of the parties, which was not done in this case. Since these violations made it impossible to establish the objective truth and to consider the best interests of the child, the case requires a retrial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the resolution of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 638/2607/22 dated 08/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to invalidate the results of electronic auctions for the sale of his real estate, claiming that the enforcement officer had illegally levied execution against the heir’s personal property that was not part of the inheritance and had undervalued its appraised value.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that an heir’s liability for the debts of the testator is limited to the value of the inherited property; however, the enforcement of the decision may be carried out at the expense of any of the heir’s property, provided that the total value of the sold property does not exceed the value of the inheritance.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the enforcement officer’s actions regarding the valuation, inventory, and seizure of property are preparatory actions that have an independent method of appeal (via a complaint against the actions of the enforcement officer), rather than through a lawsuit to invalidate the auction.
* The court established that the plaintiff did not prove procedural violations in the conduct of the auction itself that could have affected its outcome, and his disagreement with the valuation of the property was not properly implemented within the time limits and procedures established by law.
* It was taken into account that the value of the sold apartment (UAH 1,764,470) does not exceed the value of the inherited property (UAH 1,770,000), therefore the limits of the heir’s liability were not breached.
* The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence indicating a violation of the rules for conducting electronic auctions by the organizer (State Enterprise “SETAM”), which is a mandatory condition for satisfying such a claim.
* It was also taken into account that the plaintiff had previously attempted to challenge the enforcement officer’s actions in court, but missed the deadlines, which deprived him of the possibility of effective protection within the framework of the enforcement proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the court of appeal, which had denied the claim.
Case No. 921/481/20 dated 09/04/2026
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:** Consideration of an application for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the distribution of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to reimbursement of expenses forlegal aid is derivative of the results of the case consideration on its merits. The court verified the applicant’s compliance with procedural time limits and the existence of evidence confirming the reality of the services rendered (the agreement, the certificate of work performed). When assessing the amount of the fee, the court was guided by the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality to the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the attorney. An important factor was that the applicant provided a detailed description of the services, and the other party did not express objections regarding the amount of expenses. The court emphasized that a fixed-amount fee is a lawful form of remuneration, provided it meets the criteria of justification. In conclusion, the court reached the decision that the claimed amount of 7,000 UAH is proportionate and is subject to recovery from the opponent.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the motion and ordered LLC “PMK 121” to pay 7,000 UAH in professional legal aid expenses to Municipal Enterprise “Capital Construction Management”.
Case No. 910/4632/25 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your publication:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of debt under an international carriage of goods by road agreement, which the customer contested due to cargo damage during transportation.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that contractual obligations regarding the payment for transport services and liability for cargo damage are separate legal institutions. The Supreme Court emphasized that current legislation and the terms of the agreement do not provide for the automatic release of the customer from paying for transport services actually rendered in the event of cargo damage. The issue of compensation for damages to the damaged cargo must be resolved within the framework of a separate lawsuit, which, in fact, was done by the parties in another case. The court also noted that there were no grounds for staying the proceedings in this case, as the circumstances regarding the payment for transport did not depend on the results of the consideration of the case on damages. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove the objective impossibility of considering the case without awaiting a decision in another proceeding. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds for applying the provisions of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) as a tool for refusing to pay freight.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of debt unchanged.
Case No. 167/1442/17 dated 03/09/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for committing a criminal offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (offering, promising, or providing an undue advantage to a public official).
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that during the consideration of the cassation appeal, no significant violations of the requirements of criminal proceduralof the law that would have prevented the courts of lower instances from rendering lawful and reasoned decisions. The panel of judges reviewed the case files and concluded that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 3 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the evidence relied upon for the indictment was examined and assessed by the courts in accordance with the requirements of the law. The Court also noted that the arguments presented by the convicted person in the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proven guilt of the person. The imposed sentence was deemed to be commensurate with the gravity of the committed crime and the personality of the convicted person, and is necessary and sufficient for correction and the prevention of new offenses. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judgment, as it did not identify any violations that would have affected the correctness of the court decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person and upheld the judgment of the Ternopil Court of Appeal.
Case No. 158/1264/25 dated 03/09/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the deadline for filing an appeal against a ruling of an investigating judge, which was issued without the participation of the parties.
In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the right to appeal is a fundamental guarantee of access to justice, enshrined both in national legislation and in the case law of the ECHR. The Court emphasized that even if a person has filed a motion to have the case considered in their absence, this does not deprive them of the right to have the deadline reinstated if they were objectively not informed of the reasoning behind the court’s decision in a timely manner. The appellate court committed a significant error by taking a formalistic approach to the issue of calculating deadlines and ignoring the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the receipt of a copy of the decision only through the “Electronic Court” system. The Supreme Court emphasized that lack of awareness of the full text of a decision is a valid reason for missing a deadline if the person was not present when it was pronounced. Therefore, the appellate court was obligated to analyze these circumstances in detail, which was not done. As a result, the decision of the appellate instance was deemed insufficiently reasoned and in violation of the applicant’s procedural rights.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new consideration by the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 953/405/23 dated 07/09/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the lawfulness of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for collaboration activities, as provided for in Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, while reviewing the criminal proceedings within the scope of the cassation appeal, analyzed the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Court established that during the consideration of the case, no significant violations were committedviolations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law that would have prevented the adoption of a lawful and reasoned decision. The panel of judges concluded that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed sentence corresponds to the degree of gravity of the committed offense and the personality of the offender. The arguments of the convicted person regarding the groundlessness of the conviction or the inconsistency of the court’s findings with the actual circumstances of the case were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Court confirmed that the evidence used as the basis for the verdict was properly examined and is sufficient to prove the person’s guilt. Thus, there are no legal grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judicial decisions.
The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 643/6360/23 dated 08/25/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of an heir’s permanent residence together with the testator at the time of the opening of the inheritance to confirm the fact of acceptance of the inheritance by will.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper assessment of all collected evidence in its entirety, which constitutes a violation of the procedural law.
– The appellate court erroneously rejected evidence (in particular, the certificate of cohabitation), focusing on formal defects (a clerical error in the date, lack of notarized signatures) without assessing them in the context of other evidence.
– The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the defendant’s side did not actually contest the fact of the plaintiff’s residence with the testator after 2018 during the consideration of the case, which is confirmed by the case materials, including video recordings of court hearings.
– The court emphasized that witness testimony confirming shared household and care must be evaluated in conjunction with other data, rather than being dismissed as insufficient.
– The appellate court reached a premature conclusion regarding the lack of proof of the claims without properly analyzing the relationship between witness testimony and other written evidence.
– Since the decision on the merits was overturned, the court also overturned the additional decisions regarding the allocation of court costs, as they are derivative of the main decision.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the resolution, the additional resolution, and the ruling of the appellate court, remanding the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 945/1784/25 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishment of the fact of a serviceman’s death while performing combat missions and recognition of the connectionin this death involving the repulsion of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the establishment of a causal link between a serviceman’s death and the performance of his combat missions falls within the exclusive competence of medical-military commissions (MMC), rather than the court; therefore, such claims are not subject to consideration in civil proceedings.
– Regarding the fact of death itself, the court noted that the available evidence (notifications, official investigation reports) confirms only the person’s disappearance, not their indisputable death.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of a body or other indisputable evidence of death, the applicant has the right to apply to the court with an application to declare the person dead, which is a separate procedure with different legal consequences.
– The court rejected the arguments regarding improper assessment of evidence, noting that the courts of lower instances rightfully assessed eyewitness testimonies as giving grounds only for an assumption of death, not for establishing the legal fact of death.
– It was also acknowledged that the applicant’s procedural rights were not violated, as she had the opportunity to ensure the questioning of witnesses but did not properly avail herself of it.
– In summary, the Supreme Court pointed out that the distinction between extrajudicial (MMC) and judicial procedures for establishing facts is necessary to ensure legal certainty.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims to establish the link between the death and combat operations, and closed the proceedings in that part, while upholding the rest of the decisions (regarding the establishment of the fact of death).
Case No. 297/3419/24 dated 09/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is a review of the legality of the first-instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment, or sale of narcotic drugs).
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the defense’s arguments set out in the appeals, which is a violation of the right to a fair trial. In particular, the requirements regarding the completeness and comprehensiveness of the examination of the circumstances of the criminal offense, which are of crucial importance for the correct qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the imposition of punishment, were ignored. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court’s ruling does not meet the requirements of being reasoned, as it lacks exhaustive responses to the key arguments of the parties. As a result of the identified deficiencies, which cannot be eliminated directly in the cassation procedure, a decision was made on the necessity of a rehearing of the case in the appellate instance. The court also took into account the risks of the convicted person evading justicethe judge, having selected a pre-trial restraint in the form of detention for the duration of the new proceedings.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new consideration in the court of appeal, having selected a pre-trial restraint in the form of detention for the convicted person.
Case No. 904/4749/24 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Collection of debt under a contract for the supply of batteries, payment for which the buyer refused due to the alleged non-compliance of the goods with technical specifications.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court indicated that the court of appeal erroneously classified the non-compliance of the battery capacity as a violation of the terms regarding “assortment,” as this is a matter of “quality” of goods, which is governed by other legal provisions. The Court emphasized that in order to withdraw from a contract due to improper quality, it is necessary to prove the “materiality” of the defects, which the court of appeal failed to do. The Court also drew attention to the fact that the conclusion regarding the non-compliance of the entire batch of goods (904 units) was made solely based on the examination of 10 items, which is a violation of the principle of completeness and comprehensive consideration. Furthermore, the court of appeal did not provide a proper assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments that the buyer evaded a joint examination. The Supreme Court emphasized that a court cannot substitute legal categories (quality instead of assortment), as this leads to the incorrect application of the consequences of a breach of contract. As a result, due to the incomplete establishment of the circumstances of the case, the decision of the court of appeal was deemed premature.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the commercial court of appeal and remanded the case for a new consideration to the same court of appeal.
Case No. 911/1370/24 dated 10/09/2026
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region for the invalidation of the contract concluded between LLC “NERIDON” and LLC “LUXION TRADE”.
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of legal grounds for invalidating the disputed transaction, as no proper and admissible evidence of a violation of legal requirements during its conclusion was provided. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, which established the absence of circumstances indicating the fictitious nature of the contract or the presence of intent by the parties aimed at evading tax obligations. The panel of judges emphasized that the mere fact of the plaintiff’s tax status does not entitle it to interfere in the economic activities of business entities without proving specific facts of their actions violating public order or the interests of the state. The Court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal boil down to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the courtin the cassation instance, as defined by Article 300 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the courts of the first and appellate instances correctly applied the rules of substantive and procedural law, having fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, and upheld the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 910/1471/25 dated 09/10/2026
The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Elektroperspektyva” to invalidate and cancel the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the sanctions applied to the plaintiff.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of legality and the verification of compliance by the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court analyzed the case files and concluded that the appellate court had correctly established the circumstances of the case, having provided a proper assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. The Court emphasized that the AMCU’s powers to impose fines and make decisions within its competence were not violated, and the case review procedure complied with the requirements of the legislation. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect application of the rules of law were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Supreme Court also took into account that there are no grounds for canceling the decision of the appellate court as provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Thus, the Court concluded that there were no legal grounds for satisfying the plaintiff’s claims.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court without changes.
Case No. 405/1316/25 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of common marital property, namely the recognition of ownership rights to a 1/2 share of a residential house and a land plot acquired during the marriage.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the presumption of common joint ownership of spouses over property acquired during marriage, in accordance with Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
* The defendant did not provide proper evidence that the construction of the house was carried out exclusively with his personal funds or on grounds that exclude this property from common ownership.
* Case materials, in particular the declaration of the facility’s readiness for operation, confirmed that the house is a newly created object, not a reconstruction of the defendant’s personal property.
* The court emphasized that the registration of ownership rights to only one of the spouses does not refute the presumption of common property if it was built or acquired during the marriage.
* Regarding the procedural aspect, the court noted that the claim for recognition of property as common ownership is not an independent method of protection; therefore, the appellate court correctly canceled the decision inin this part, while upholding the division of property.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the recognition of the right of ownership to a 1/2 share in immovable property is an effective method of protecting the rights of former spouses during the division of joint property.
* The cassation appeal was dismissed, as the applicant’s arguments amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged (in the part not overturned by the appellate court), confirming the plaintiff’s right to a 1/2 share of the disputed house and land plot.
Case No. 686/22231/25 dated 09/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 686/22231/25:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State of Ukraine represented by the State Migration Service Administration for compensation for moral damages caused by the prolonged non-execution of a 2011 court decision regarding the affixing of a photograph to a passport.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff had already exercised his right to compensation for the specified violation, having received compensation for moral damages pursuant to a court decision in 2020.
* In accordance with Article 23 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, moral damages are compensated once, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.
* The plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence to prove the fact that he suffered new moral damages specifically during the period indicated in the claim (from October 24 to November 4, 2024).
* The court emphasized that the mere fact of prolonged non-execution of a court decision is not an automatic ground for claiming damages without proving a causal link between the inaction of the authority and the specific suffering of the individual.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that proving the circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff is his procedural duty; however, in this case, the plaintiff only attempted to re-evaluate evidence that had already been the subject of consideration in other cases.
* The panel of judges also noted that the decisions of the courts of lower instances fully comply with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding similar disputes, and therefore there are no grounds for their cancellation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the satisfaction of the lawsuit unchanged.
Case No. 914/2811/25 dated 09/09/2026
The subject of this dispute is the landlord’s demand to amend the municipal property lease agreement regarding the establishment of monetary rent instead of the previously agreed-upon in-kind form of payment.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that at the time of concluding the agreement in 1998, the legislation in force allowed the parties to determine rent in-kind, in particular, by the tenant performing capital repairs and restoration of the object. Since the tenant fully fulfilled th[…their] obligations regarding the restoration and reconstruction of the emergency building before 2002, these obligations are considered to be fulfilled in full. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Part 3 of Article 632 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a change in the price in a contract after its execution is not permitted, as this violates the stability of contractual relations. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s reference to new legislative norms prohibiting the gratuitous use of property has no legal significance, as the contract was executed by the parties long before the initiation of the dispute. The appellant’s arguments regarding the necessity of revising the price were deemed declarative and failing to refute the fact of the lessee’s proper fulfillment of the contract terms. Therefore, there are no grounds for the court to intervene in the contractual relationship or to forcibly change the contract price.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 522/22094/23-E dated 09/10/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The applicant attempted to have her sister declared dead through judicial proceedings in order to process an inheritance, citing her prolonged absence and previous status as a missing person.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that declaring a person dead is a legal fiction based on the presumption of death; therefore, it requires compelling evidence, not merely the fact of a prolonged absence.
– The Supreme Court noted that the mere fact of a person being declared missing in 2016 is not an automatic basis for declaring them dead after 9 or 15 years.
– The applicant failed to provide evidence that the sister disappeared under circumstances that threatened her life, or that there are other grounds to presume her death.
– The Court emphasized that the burden of proving circumstances lies with the applicant, and proof cannot be based solely on assumptions.
– It was also established that the applicant did not exhaust all out-of-court measures to determine the sister’s whereabouts, which indicates insufficient efforts to confirm the fact of death.
– The Court pointed out the need to maintain a balance: declaring a person dead has serious legal consequences, so it is possible only if there is a likelihood of death, and not simply for the convenience of processing an inheritance.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts to deny the request to declare the person dead.
Case No. 910/11681/25 dated 09/10/2026
The subject of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to invalidate an additional agreement concluded between two other business entities.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a violated right or
