Case No. 755/2054/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Apartment Purchase and Sale Agreement and Recovery of Property from Unlawful Possession.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_2 did not follow the procedure for satisfying the mortgagee’s requirements, as stipulated in Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage”, specifically by not sending an appropriate written demand to remedy the breach of obligation.
2. Non-compliance with the legally established procedure deprives the mortgagee of the right to foreclose on the mortgaged property through out-of-court settlement.
3. The Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the statute of limitations, failing to investigate circumstances that could be recognized as valid reasons for reinstating the time limit for court appeal.
Court Decision: Revoke the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and remand the case for a new hearing to the appellate court for additional investigation of case circumstances and reasons for statute of limitations expiration.
Case No. 757/14103/21-c dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining an Additional Term for Inheritance Acceptance after Aunt’s Death.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff did not provide unequivocal evidence of valid reasons for missing the inheritance acceptance deadline.
2. Reasons such as legal unawareness, advanced age, residence in the Russian Federation, and quarantine restrictions are not considered objective obstacles.
3. The plaintiff was aware of the testator’s death and had the opportunity to timely submit an inheritance acceptance application.
Court Decision: Reject the claim for determining an additional term for inheritance acceptance.
Case No. 916/2789/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Property Rights to Non-Residential Premises in a Housing Construction Cooperative.
Main Court Arguments:
– An associate member of the cooperative does not have the full scope of corporate rights
– The disputed legal relations are civil rather than corporate
– The personal memorandum is aimed at obtaining property rights to real estate
– After Law No. 2518-IX came into effect, associate members automatically became full cooperative members
Court Decision: Close the proceedings and refer the case for consideration to a civil jurisdiction court.
Case No. 461/3537/20 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of Cassation Complaints against the Judgment of the Galytskyi District Court of Lviv and the Ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal in a Criminal Case under Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The court identified procedural violations in previous instances that could have affected the correctness of the judicial decision. The panel of judges considers it necessary to return the case for a new appellate review for more thorough examination of criminal proceedings circumstances.
Court Decision: Cassation complaints partially satisfied, the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal revoked, a new review in the appellate court ordered.
Case No. 917/892/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Advance Payment Amount under a Petroleum Products Supply Agreement for 1,623,484,058.65 UAH due to improper contract execution.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court noted that previous instances did not properly investigate all contract terms, particularly force majeure provisions.
2. It was established that the paid amount is an advance payment.Translation:
1. The court pointed out the need for a complete investigation of evidence regarding force majeure circumstances and their impact on the contract performance terms.
Court decision: Annul the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 922/1655/24 dated 29/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition as illegal of the religious community’s ownership right to the Pokrovska Church – a national architectural monument.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The disputed building is state property and a cultural heritage site
– The religious community did not have the right to change the ownership form of the temple
– The prosecutor legitimately appealed to the court to protect state interests
– The method of protection in the form of a negatory claim is correct
3. Court decision: Uphold the previous court decisions and reject the religious community’s cassation appeal.
The court decision demonstrates the state’s principled position on protecting cultural heritage and the impossibility of privatizing unique architectural objects.
Case No. 359/6062/19 dated 15/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the appellate court.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court incorrectly refused to satisfy the petition for recovery of court expenses. The plaintiff’s representative timely declared the intention to submit evidence of expenses within five days after the decision was made, which fully complies with procedural legislation. The appellate instance court did not provide proper assessment of the submitted evidence and prematurely refused to satisfy the petition.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court, and referred the petition for recovery of professional legal assistance expenses for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 758/8438/21 dated 12/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Challenging contract terms and allegations of discrimination in hiring for the position of associate professor at the National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Academic Council had the right to make proposals regarding the contract term, and the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to a two-year contract and signed it.
2. There is no evidence of discrimination, as the established requirements for candidates were general and did not have a discriminatory nature.
3. The plaintiff did not prove the fact of moral damage or dissemination of false information.
Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 569/8770/22 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_7’s participation in the terrorist organization “DPR” in the temporarily occupied territory of Donetsk region.
Main arguments of the court: The court established irrefutable evidence of PERSON_7’s participation in the illegal armed formation “DPR”, in particular through telephone calls, video recording, voice expertise, and testimony. The court proved that PERSON_7 intentionally joined the terrorist organization, wore military uniform, received orders from commanders, and directly participated in illegal activities against Ukrainian military. All procedural norms were observed during the case review, including special court proceedings in the absence of the defendant.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and the punishment assigned to PERSON_7 of 14 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 147/277/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Deprivation of parental rights of PERSON_2 regarding the child PERSON_3.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that previous judicial instances incorrectly assessed the evidence and circumstances of the case regarding the father’s behavior. The court took into account evidence indicating improper performance of parental duties and negative impact on the child’s upbringing. The panel of judges concluded that the child’s interests require immediate protection by depriving the father of parental rights.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation complaint and deprived PERSON_2 of parental rights regarding the child PERSON_3.
Case No. 903/665/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a natural gas purchase and sale agreement, including principal debt, penalties, fines, and other charges.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances, particularly the financial condition of the defendant – JSC “Volyn Gas”, which is a critical infrastructure object and provided gas supply during martial law.
2. It was established that the defendant partially paid the debt (189,324,984.14 UAH out of 223,385,103.90 UAH), and late payment was caused by difficult financial circumstances.
3. The court considered that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of material damages due to late contract execution, therefore found it possible to reduce the penalty by 50%.
Court Decision: Maintain the previous instances’ decision to reduce the penalty from 3,487,923.78 UAH to 1,743,961.89 UAH and refuse full penalty recovery.
Case No. 752/23669/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of secret theft of someone else’s property and bank card appropriation during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed legislative changes regarding petty theft qualification, particularly Law No. 3886-IX, which changed the threshold for distinguishing administrative and criminal liability. The court established that the value of stolen property (less than 2,684 UAH) does not reach the criminal liability level, therefore these theft episodes must be excluded from the accusation. Meanwhile, the person’s actions qualification under Article 185 Part 4 of the Criminal Code remains unchanged.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, excluding court decisions’ episodes of secret property theft for amounts below the legally established threshold.
Case No. 953/6709/22 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal liability of Ukrainian citizen PERSON_7 for voluntarily taking a position as an investigator in an illegal law enforcement agency created in the temporarily occupied territory of Kharkiv Oblast during Russian occupation.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Indisputable evidence established that PERSON_7 voluntarily worked as an investigator in “Police Point No. 2” of the occupation administration in Shevchenkove village in August-September 2022.
2. Witnesses confirmed the voluntariness of PERSON_7’s actions, with no evidence of coercion or physical pressure provided.
3. Collected evidence (protocols, testimonies, examinations) fully confirm the person’s guilt and meet relevance and admissibility requirements.
Court Decision: Maintain the verdict unchanged – 13 years of imprisonment for collaborative activities.
Case No. 991/545/25 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of PERSON_2’s appeal against the High Anti-Corruption Court’s ruling on securing a claim before filing a statement of claim.
Main arguments of the court: The court carefully analyzed the appeal and found no grounds for its satisfaction. The panel of judges concluded that the previous ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated 24.01.2025 is lawful and well-founded. The court considered all provided evidence and arguments of the parties but found no grounds for changing or canceling the previous decision.
Court decision: To leave PERSON_2’s appeal unsatisfied and the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated 24.01.2025 unchanged.
Case No. 301/2577/18 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court in a criminal case on violation of road traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutor’s complaint and found that the previous appellate court ruling requires review. The court believes that the previous decision contained procedural or material errors affecting the correctness of the judicial decision. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new appellate review for more detailed examination of the circumstances.
Court decision: To partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court, and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 914/619/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for electricity supply between Limited Liability Company “SK ENERGY GROUP” and the State Customs Service of Ukraine represented by Lviv Customs.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The parties concluded a contract with a formula-based price calculation, which provides for monthly changes in electricity prices depending on the weighted average price in the “day ahead” market.
2. Changes in the weighted average price do not require additional agreements, as the calculation procedure was agreed upon by the parties in the contract.
3. Grounds for changing contract terms are provided in paragraph 19 of the Specifics of Public Procurement, particularly regarding changes in weighted average electricity prices.
Court decision: To leave unchanged the previous instances’ decisions on recovering debt of 3,387,131.83 UAH from the State Customs Service of Ukraine in favor of the Company.
Case No. 906/124/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of work acceptance and dismantling acts between the Korostyshiv District Consumer Society “Cooperative Market” enterprise and two individual entrepreneurs.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the wrongfulness of the challenged acts. The court established that the acts were drawn up in accordance with the contract terms and have proper documentation. Moreover, the panel of judges paid attention to the procedural aspects of the case and concluded that there are no grounds for canceling previous court decisions.
The Supreme Court left the cassation aTranslation:
The cassation appeal was dismissed, confirming the legitimacy of the decisions of previous instances.
Case No. 346/1308/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Rights to Immovable Property (Stable) and Recovery of Property from Illegal Possession.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of acquiring ownership rights to the stable, specifically lacking a property transfer acceptance act and a mark in the certificate of property allocation in kind.
2. The purchase and sale agreement of the property share only confirms the acquisition of a share worth 3,420 UAH, but does not establish ownership rights to specific immovable property.
3. The meeting protocol was signed only by the company’s director without following the established procedure for property allocation in kind.
Court Decision: Reject the claim for recognition of ownership and recovery of the stable, as the plaintiff did not prove the existence of property rights to the disputed property.
Case No. 910/5857/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Kyiv Regional Council’s Decision on Assigning Hunting Grounds to LLC “Zeleny Hay Farm” and Related Agreements.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court pointed out the need to clearly establish the boundaries of hunting grounds and obtain approvals from all landowners included in these grounds.
2. Previous instance courts did not properly examine evidence and did not establish whether all necessary approvals from landowners were actually obtained.
3. The prosecutor legitimately filed a lawsuit as an independent plaintiff, as the State Forestry Agency was defined as the defendant in the case.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 910/2990/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt under a Contract for Performing a Complex of Works on the Topic “South Ukrainian NPP. Power Units No. 1 and 2. Complex of Engineering and Technical Means of Physical Protection System”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed documents confirming the provision of legal assistance and concluded that they meet the requirements of procedural legislation.
2. When determining the amount of legal assistance expenses, the court was guided by criteria of reality, reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness.
3. The court took into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer on performing the work.
Court Decision: Dismiss the cassation appeal, recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 1,000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 917/1823/23 dated 12/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a contractor agreement for construction work totaling 3,911,454.24 UAH.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The contractor agreement provided for phased payment within 60 days after signing the work completion certificates
– Work completion certificates were signed by the customer’s director, confirmed by forensic examination
– The customer did not provide any evidence of improper work performance or overstatement of costs
– Signing of certificates is grounds for payment obligation, even if works are not fully completed
3. Court Decision: Fully satisfy the contractor’s claim and recover debt from the customer in the amount of 3,911,454.24 UAH.
Key Thesis: Phased payment for work under a contractor agreement is legitimate if work completion certificates are properly signed.
Case No. 524/464/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – murder by husband (PERSON_6) of anothTranslation:
of the person (PERSON_9) by inflicting numerous blows with wooden sticks to the head.
Main arguments of the court: First, the evidence unequivocally indicates the defendant’s intent to kill the victim, as he delivered more than 22 blows to the head with great force. Second, the court did not recognize the defense’s version of necessary self-defense, as the case materials do not contain data about a socially dangerous encroachment by the victim. Third, all examinations and testimonies confirm that PERSON_6 initiated the conflict and acted aggressively.
Court decision – to leave the district court’s verdict unchanged, sentencing PERSON_6 to 10 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 904/3016/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under the contract for electric energy transmission services and accrual of inflation losses and 3% per annum.
Main arguments of the court:
The court established that the rules on exemption from liability due to force majeure do not apply to accessory monetary obligations, particularly to the accrual of inflation losses and 3% per annum. Force majeure does not exempt from fulfilling the main monetary obligation, but only temporarily suspends liability for its non-performance. Despite the martial law, the defendant had to continue making payments, and therefore the accrual of inflation losses and interest is legitimate.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover 3% per annum and inflation losses, and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 925/889/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of additional agreements to the electric energy supply contract and recovery of funds from the supplier in the amount of 211,596.57 UAH.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The supplier unreasonably increased the electricity price by 147.38% instead of the allowed 10%
– Additional agreements violate the principles of public procurement and efficient use of budget funds
– Price increase occurred without proper justification and documentary confirmation of market price fluctuations
– The prosecutor correctly appealed to the court in the interests of the local council to protect budget funds
3. Court decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances on invalidating the additional agreements and recovering 211,596.57 UAH from the supplier in favor of the local budget.
Case No. 591/3739/22 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging orders on imposing disciplinary penalties in the form of reprimand and dismissal of the school director.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The order of reprimand is unlawful, as it does not contain specific circumstances of labor discipline violation and references to specific legislative norms.
2. Dismissal for systematic non-performance of duties is illegal, as the established violation is not systematic.
3. Since the educational institution was subject to liquidation, the employee should have been dismissed under paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (enterprise liquidation).
Court decision: Cancel the orders of reprimand and dismissal, oblige to change the wording of dismissal reasons and recover average salary for the period of forced absence.
Case No. 673/295/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of family relations between PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 to obtain inheritance.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court determined that the plaintiff’s chosen method of protection (establishing the fact of family relations) is ineffective, as it does not lead to real restoration of her rights.
2. Establishing such a fact makes sense only if other inheritance-related claims are filed.3. The plaintiff did not prove that the chosen method of protection would ensure real restoration of her rights.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 631/977/21 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of a will made on behalf of PERSON_4 in March 2021.
Main arguments of the court: The appellate court erroneously closed the appellate proceedings, believing that the appeal was filed by an improper representative. In fact, the complaint contained a personal signature of PERSON_2, therefore, there were no grounds for closing the proceedings. The appellate court violated procedural norms, applied a formal approach, and actually deprived the applicant of the right to appeal.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court and referred the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.
Case No. 205/13352/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of termination of mortgage and cancellation of registration records on the prohibition of alienation of immovable property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Liquidation of the debtor (LLC “Sigma”) does not terminate the mortgage if the creditor exercised the right to foreclose on the property before liquidation.
2. In 2012, the bank filed a lawsuit for debt recovery and foreclosure on the mortgaged property, that is, before the debtor’s liquidation, it exercised its right.
3. The mortgage agreement provides that in the event of the debtor’s liquidation, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the subject of the mortgage.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 686/32632/19 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case of intentional infliction of serious bodily injuries during a conflict.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court established that PERSON_7 intentionally struck the victim PERSON_9 on the head with a shovel handle, causing serious bodily injuries.
2. The court did not recognize the defendant’s actions as necessary defense, as he had a physical advantage and could have avoided the conflict, but struck deliberately.
3. Evidence, including testimony of the victim, witness, and expertise, confirmed the defendant’s intent to cause harm.
Court decision: Leave the appellate court verdict unchanged, which found PERSON_7 guilty of intentional serious bodily injuries under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 755/14759/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute – criminal proceedings against a person accused of theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and attempted theft (Part 2 of Article 15 Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The panel of judges found procedural violations in previous court instances that could have affected the objectivity and fairness of the verdict. In particular, the court considers it necessary to return the case for a new hearing to more thoroughly examine the circumstances of the criminal offense.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous court decisions and appoint a new hearing in the court of first instance, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 344/385/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation of a people’s deputy regarding refutation of information about alleged non-participation in addressing the deprivation of powers of deputies from pro-Russian parties.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court clearly distinguished factualStatements and value judgments, emphasizing that the disputed article contains specific facts that can be verified for accuracy.
2. The Court of Appeal prematurely recognized the information as a value judgment without verifying the factual circumstances of the case and evidence.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to freedom of expression and protection of a person’s reputation, especially when it concerns a public figure.
Court decision: Revoke the resolution of the Court of Appeal and send the case for a new review to thoroughly examine the circumstances and evidence.
Case No. 712/1080/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of a lawsuit by PERSON_1 against the corporation “Zhytlobudinvest-Ch” regarding termination of a shared construction participation agreement, recovery of damages, penalties, and moral damages.
Main arguments of the court: First, the contract did not come into force since the plaintiff paid funds 5 days after the contractually established deadline, which automatically leads to its invalidity. Second, the plaintiff did not prove the presence of all conditions for bringing the defendant to civil liability. Third, the statute of limitations has already expired, as the plaintiff could have learned about the violation of her rights back in 2017 when the building was put into operation.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal by PERSON_1 unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous court instances to reject the claim.
Case No. 461/3537/20 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings against a woman who allegedly bit a district police officer while he was performing his official duties.
Main arguments of the court: The Court of Appeal formally approached the case review, not properly verifying the arguments of the defense regarding unlawful actions by the police. In particular, the court did not pay attention to a copy of the court ruling that cancels the closure of criminal proceedings regarding unlawful actions of police officers towards the defendant. The cassation instance court believes that the Court of Appeal did not comply with the requirements of procedural legislation and did not provide a motivated assessment of all arguments of the defense.
Court decision: Revoke the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 182/3090/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: A grandfather’s lawsuit to deprive the mother of parental rights regarding a minor daughter.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure applied only in exceptional cases.
2. The child’s mother PERSON_2 has not lost interest in her daughter, plans to return to Ukraine and live together with her.
3. Temporary absence of the mother due to the birth of a second child and war is not sufficient grounds for depriving parental rights.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, warning the mother about the need to change her attitude towards fulfilling parental responsibilities.
Case No. 910/15474/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recognition of invalidity of the contract and recovery of 31,988.94 UAH, which was considered based on a lawsuit by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state and military unit against a limited liability company.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that previous court instances (Economic Court of Kyiv Region and Northern Commercial Court of Appeal) correctly assessed the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that there are no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal of the limited liability company, as the case materials do not contain violations provided for in paragraphs 1-4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
Court decision – to leave unchanged the decisions of previous court instances.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Sanctions and Closure of Cassation Proceedings.
Case No. 756/2521/17 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Apartment Purchase and Sale Agreement and Cancellation of Registration Actions Performed During Foreclosure Proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The mortgage agreement contained a provision on the possibility of the mortgagee acquiring ownership of the mortgaged property in case of the debtor’s failure to fulfill obligations.
2. The plaintiff was properly notified about the change of creditor and received a demand to remedy the breach of the mortgage-secured obligation.
3. The court deviated from previous practice and recognized that a separate agreement on satisfying the mortgagee’s claims is not mandatory if the mortgage agreement contains the corresponding provision.
Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court’s resolution and uphold the first instance court’s decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 741/1755/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation Appeal of the Verdict in a Criminal Case of Murder (Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions of the district and appellate courts are lawful and well-founded. The court found no grounds to satisfy the cassation complaints of the convicted person and her defender, as there are indisputable evidence of the criminal offense in the case materials. The panel of judges believes that the courts of previous instances correctly established all circumstances of the case and rendered a fair decision.
Court Decision: Uphold the verdict of the Nosivka District Court and the resolution of the Chernihiv Appellate Court without changes, and reject the cassation complaints.
Case No. 922/941/21 dated 14/01/2025
Brief Analysis of the Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the land lease agreement concluded by the Kharkiv City Council and LLC “Aklor” without conducting land auctions.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The land plot was not provided for servicing existing buildings, but for new construction
– Existing non-residential buildings were planned to be demolished
– Obtaining a land plot for new construction requires mandatory land auctions
– The prosecutor had the right to apply to court in the interests of the state, as the local self-government body violated the interests of the territorial community
3. Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on invalidating the lease agreement and returning the land plot.
Case No. 490/1331/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of three percent per annum under a credit agreement from an individual entrepreneur after completing bankruptcy proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The bank has already exercised its right to receive debt by presenting claims in the bankruptcy case and receiving partial compensation.
2. The Commercial Court recognized the remaining claims as extinguished due to the absence of assets of the bankrupt.
3. Since the claims against the borrower are considered discharged, there are no grounds to accrue additional interest under Article 625 of the Civil Code.
Court Decision: Reject the bank’s cassation complaint, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/16244/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for maintenance contributions for a multi-apartment building from a limited liability company for the period when ownership of the premises was registered to other persons.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Despite the fact that ownership of the premises was temporarily registered1. In relation to other societies, LLC “Fantaun” did not lose the status of property owner.
2. Cancellation of property ownership registration for LLC “Fantaun Invest” and LLC “Yurfan Invest” means that these registrations did not create legal consequences.
3. The owner is obliged to maintain the property, even if they are temporarily deprived of actual possession due to illegal actions of third parties.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal of the OSBB and recover from LLC “Fantaun” 265,100.96 UAH of debt for maintenance of a multi-apartment building.
Case No. 168/1083/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Evasion from military service during mobilization.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The accused PERSON_6 received an official summons on July 24, 2023, requiring them to appear on July 25, 2023, at 10:00 at the military commissariat.
2. During the medical examination on March 30, 2023, they were deemed fit for military service and did not provide any documents for deferment.
3. The accused deliberately did not appear at the military commissariat without valid reasons, which is confirmed by the collected evidence.
Court Decision: Leave the district court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 127/18082/19 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for illegal sale of psychotropic substances (amphetamine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence in the case and established that the accused indeed lived at the address where the psychotropic substance was found, as evidenced by material evidence (toothbrush with the accused’s genetic traces, personal belongings). The court also confirmed the legality of the search, as the prosecutor who conducted it was officially included in the group of prosecutors in the criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: Leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 296/278/12-к dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal on the ruling of the Zhytomyr Appellate Court regarding the criminal case of PERSON_2.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that there are no obstacles to assigning the criminal case for cassation review. The court is guided by the transitional provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, part 4 of Article 389 of the 1960 CPC and paragraph 15 of section XI “Transitional Provisions” of the 2012 CPC.
Court Decision: Assign the criminal case for cassation review on August 28, 2025, at 11:30, and notify the participants of the court proceedings.
Case No. 531/438/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim for compensation of damages caused by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecution, amounting to 2,040,000 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff’s previous case No. 415/7800/18 in the Lysychansk City Court was not completed due to military actions and complete destruction of the court premises. The court believes that the plaintiff has the right to re-apply to the court, as the previous proceedings were lost before completion, and this should not limit the person’s right to access to justice.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case to the local court to resolve the issue of opening proceedings.
Case No. 373/779/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of a land plot with an area of 0.95 hectares, located within the coastal protection zone of the Dnipro River, which was illegally transferred to private ownership.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The disputed land plot
