Case №910/2571/24 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Wog Resource” against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, thus supporting the decision of the AMCU. Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand the specific arguments of the court from the provided part of the ruling, as the reasoning part is missing. However, it can be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the legality of the AMCU’s decision, possibly regarding compliance with the decision-making procedure, the existence of evidence of violation of competition law, or the validity of the imposed sanctions. A full text of the court decision is required for a more accurate analysis.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Wog Resource” and to leave the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case №916/3517/24 dated 04/16/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appeal.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating that the appellate court did not take into account all the circumstances of the case in their entirety, namely: a significant amount of damages, the defendant’s non-participation in the court of first instance, the transfer of employees to remote work due to hostilities in the region, shelling of the territory where the company director lives, and the filing of an appeal by the defendant’s representative after reviewing the court decision within a 20-day period. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not assess the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal in their entirety through the prism of part three of Article 256 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and also did not take into account the court’s obligation to assist parties in the exercise of their procedural rights. The court also noted that the appellate court did not provide reasonable grounds for the impossibility of renewing the missed procedural deadline, taking into account the provisions of part three of Article 256 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court reached premature conclusions in refusing to open appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the court of appeal to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case №732/750/24 dated 04/16/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the early termination of the land lease agreement, initiated by the new owner of the land plot on the basis of a clause in the agreement that provides for such a possibility.
liability in the event of a change of owner.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the proceedings in the case, since a bankruptcy case was opened against the defendant (tenant), and all property disputes involving the debtor must be considered within this case by the commercial court. The court took into account changes in legislation that allow the tenant to alienate the lease right without the consent of the land owner, which makes the lease right an asset that can be included in the liquidation estate of the bankrupt. The court also noted that the termination of the lease agreement may affect the debtor’s liquidation estate, as it will reduce the assets from which the creditors’ claims are satisfied. The court of cassation emphasized that the consideration of the case by a court not authorized to do so by law is a violation of the right to a fair trial.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged, confirming that the dispute is subject to consideration within the bankruptcy case in the commercial court.
Case No. 398/1655/19 dated 04/14/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict regarding the qualification of the actions of PERSON_8, who was convicted of murder (Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), but the appellate court reclassified his actions as manslaughter (Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and released him from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The court of first instance found PERSON_8 guilty of intentional murder, taking into account the nature and location of the bodily injuries, traces of dragging the victim’s body, and the absence of evidence of the termination of unlawful actions. The appellate court reclassified the actions as manslaughter, considering that the death occurred as a result of a complex of injuries after falling from a height, and it is impossible to accurately distinguish which injuries were caused by the actions of PERSON_8 and which were caused by the fall. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, indicating that it did not properly assess the totality of evidence indicating a possible intent to kill, in particular, the number and nature of bodily injuries, traces of blood, and the absence of injuries in the convict. Also, the Supreme Court rejected the defense’s arguments about extreme necessity, as it does not apply to cases where the danger is created by the socially dangerous encroachment of another person.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 944/447/22 dated 04/15/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the amount of compensation for moral damage caused to the victims as a result of a traffic accident caused by a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied
regarding civil claims of victims for compensation of moral damages. The court noted that the amount of compensation for moral damages is determined by the court depending on the nature of the offense, the depth of physical and mental suffering, the deterioration of the victim’s abilities or deprivation of the opportunity to realize them, the degree of guilt of the person who caused the moral damage, as well as taking into account other circumstances that are relevant. The court also took into account that the victims sustained bodily injuries of varying severity, which caused them physical pain and mental suffering. The court rejected the arguments of the representative of the civil defendant that the amount of compensation for moral damages is disproportionate to the damage caused, since all expenses for the treatment and rehabilitation of the victims were borne by the state, they were paid monetary support during treatment, and also about the possibility of the victims receiving a one-time financial assistance. The court also rejected the argument about the lack of funds in the military unit to compensate for moral damages.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the representative of the civil defendant – without satisfaction.
Case No. 612/3/20 dated 04/01/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_7, accused of embezzlement of property and abuse of office.
The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of PERSON_7 beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the appellate court carefully examined the evidence provided by the prosecution, in particular, the testimony of witnesses and written evidence, and came to a reasonable conclusion that PERSON_7’s actions lacked a selfish motive and intent to cause damage. The court also emphasized that disagreement with the assessment of evidence is not a basis for their re-examination, and the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution. In addition, the court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the violation of the rights of victims, as they were duly notified of the court hearing and did not express complaints.
The court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the acquittal of PERSON_7 – without changes.
Case No. 127/15521/24 dated 04/15/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 on charges of bribery (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code) due to the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the criminal proceedings, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not properly assess the prosecutor’s objections to the legality of the ruling.
investigative judge on the cancellation of the decision to suspend the pre-trial investigation. The court emphasized that according to Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the party has the right to file objections to the rulings of the investigative judge that are not subject to appeal during the preparatory proceedings, and the court is obliged to consider them. The court noted that the conclusions of the investigative judge are not of a prejudicial nature, and the court considering the case on its merits has full discretion in assessing the circumstances of the case, including the legality of the investigative judge’s rulings. Also, the court indicated that the appellate court did not examine the prosecutor’s arguments and did not provide reasoned responses to them, which is a violation of the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the rulings of the courts of previous instances, and order a new trial in the court of first instance.
[**Case No. 369/2256/20 dated 04/02/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126718586)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a certificate of inheritance by will for a part of a land plot as invalid.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by considering the case in the absence of the plaintiff and his representative, who did not appear in court due to the announcement of an “Air Raid Alert” signal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have taken into account the objective obstacles to appearing in court, ensured the comprehensiveness, completeness and fairness of the judicial review, and facilitated the realization of the procedural rights of the participants. The court of cassation emphasized that when deciding on the adjournment of the case, in which an “Air Raid Alert” signal has been announced, the priority is the preservation of human life and health. Also, the court took into account that the circumstances of the announcement of the “Air Raid Alert” signal are generally known and do not require proof.
3. The Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
[**Case No. 607/9021/22 dated 04/16/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126718600)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the state of inflation losses and 3% per annum for delay in the execution of a court decision on compensation for moral damage caused by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the court.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, was guided by the fact that the court decision to recover funds is a confirmation of a monetary obligation that arose from the state as a result of causing damage. The court noted that in the event of a delay by the state in fulfilling this obligation, the provisions of the second part of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which provides for liability for delay in a monetary obligation in the form of inflation losses, should be applied to legal relations.
at the rate of 3% per annum. The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the state’s obligation to compensate for damages is calculated from the day following the expiration of three months from the submission of the writ of execution to the State Treasury Service. The appellate court found that the STS had delayed the monetary obligation, and therefore the plaintiff had the right to recover inflation losses and 3% per annum. The court of first instance mistakenly believed that the claim was filed prematurely, since at the time of applying to the court, the three-month period from the date of receipt by the STS of all necessary documents had not yet expired.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the legitimacy of recovering inflation losses and 3% per annum from the state for delaying the execution of the court decision.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126716235](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126716235) **Case No. 916/1664/22 dated 04/16/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation of the non-residential building of the Planetarium and Lecture Hall from the illegal possession of the All-Ukrainian Public Organization Society “Znannia” of Ukraine in favor of the state represented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the registration of ownership of real estate by a certain person creates a presumption that this person is the owner of the property, even if they do not actually use it. The court emphasized that the reclamation of property is a proper way to protect the state’s right, since the previous owner (the state) lost the ability to possess the property due to the illegal registration of ownership by the defendant. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the claim for reclamation of property is non-property, since it is aimed at obtaining a title document, confirming that such claims are of a property nature, since they are related to the value of the disputed property. The court refused to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of court fees in such cases, emphasizing the importance of the uniformity of judicial practice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126693792](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126693792) **Case No. 405/8493/21 dated 04/16/2025**
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the accusation of PERSON_10 of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the representative of the victims and the prosecutor, overturning the rulings of the Leninsky District Court of Kirovohrad and the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal. The decision is motivated by the need for a new trial in the court of first instance.
first instance court. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the operative part, but it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances committed certain procedural violations or incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, which became the basis for the annulment of their decisions. To fully understand the motives of the court, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the decision.
3. The court decided to cancel the rulings of the previous instances and order a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 202/8160/22 dated 04/14/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from an individual under a loan agreement in the amount of UAH 856,854.82 in favor of the bank.
2. The court dismissed the bank’s claim because it was not properly proven that the defendant agreed to the terms of the loan, in particular regarding the interest rate. The court noted that the application form for joining the terms of banking services did not contain specific lending conditions, and the “Terms and Rules for the Provision of Banking Services” provided by the bank are changeable, and it was not confirmed that the defendant was familiar with and agreed to these terms. Also, the appellate court did not accept the new evidence submitted by the bank, as it was not proven that it was impossible to submit it to the court of first instance. The court indicated that the bank did not prove the circumstances regarding the defendant’s consent to pay interest for the use of loan funds and regarding the amount of such interest. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, noting that the bank did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s agreement to the terms of the loan, in particular regarding the interest rate.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal.
**Case No. 289/808/24 dated 04/14/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as promised:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the punishment for illegal purchase, storage and sale of weapons, ammunition and explosives (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of the defender, who asked to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation) to the convicted person. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that it is impossible to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the court took into account the severity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, data on the identity of the guilty person and concluded that it was impossible to correct the convicted person without actual imprisonment. The court noted that the mere fact that a person has an elderly dependent is not an unconditional basis for release from serving a sentence with probation. At the same time, the Supreme Court признав помилковим посилання апеляційного суду на відсутність судимостand of the convicted person “by virtue of Article 89 of the Criminal Code”, since a spent conviction should not be taken into account when characterizing a person.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, excluding from the reasoning part of the appellate court’s judgment the mention of the absence of a criminal record “by virtue of Article 89 of the Criminal Code”, but left the judgment unchanged in the rest.
**Case No. 695/1780/24 dated 04/17/2025**
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the rulings of the courts of previous instances regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_6, overturning the decisions of the first instance and appellate courts, and ordered a new trial in the first instance court. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the Supreme Court relied on from the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the decision will be announced later. Typically, such decisions are made in connection with significant violations of procedural law, incorrect application of the law on criminal liability, or inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case. For a more accurate understanding of the grounds for annulment, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the decision.
3. The court overturned the rulings of the courts of previous instances regarding PERSON_6 and ordered a new trial in the first instance court.
**Case No. 623/1555/20 dated 04/17/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in serious consequences).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, amending the decision of the appellate court. The court took into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person, and concluded that it was possible to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, releasing PERSON_7 from serving the sentence with probation. This decision was made taking into account the purpose of the punishment, which consists not only in retribution, but also in correcting the convicted person and preventing new crimes. The court imposed on PERSON_7 the obligations provided for in Article 76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, to periodically appear for registration at the authorized probation agency, to report changes in place of residence, work or study, and not to travel outside of Ukraine without the consent of this agency. In other respects, the judgment of the appellate court was left unchanged.
3. The court decided to amend the judgment of the appellate court and release PERSON_7 from serving the sentence with probation, establishing a probationary period and imposing certain obligations on him.
**Case No. 910/6863/24 dated 04/17/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, I
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of Bayer’s intellectual property rights to an invention protected by a patent, from possible infringement by KRKA through the state registration of a medicinal product using this invention.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to secure the claim. The cassation court emphasized that securing a claim is an important tool for protecting the plaintiff’s rights against unfair actions by the defendant. The court noted that the appellate court did not take into account the specifics of the dispute, since the registration of a medicinal product is part of the process of putting it into circulation, and therefore a ban on issuing conclusions regarding registration is a reasonable measure to secure the claim. The court also emphasized that such measures are aimed at preventing a likely infringement of intellectual property rights, which is in line with Ukraine’s international obligations. In addition, the Supreme Court referred to its previous practice, according to which the submission of documents for registration of a medicinal product using someone else’s invention is already a prerequisite for putting this product into civil circulation, which is a violation of the patent holder’s rights.
3. The cassation court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to secure the claim.
Case No. 824/150/24 dated 04/17/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of public joint-stock company “A+SO” to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery of debt and compensation for the costs of paying the arbitration fee in favor of limited liability company “New Products Ukraine”.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the application to set aside the decision of the ICAC at the UCCI. The court noted that the party filing an application to set aside an arbitration award must prove the existence of grounds for doing so as provided by law. In this case, the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence that it had not been duly notified of the arbitration proceedings, as notifications were sent to the e-mail address specified in the contract, as well as by courier service to the address indicated in the registration documents. The court also rejected the arguments about violation of public order, as the applicant did not prove that the arbitration decision affects the public, economic or social foundations of the state of Ukraine. The court emphasized that reviewing the correctness of the application of substantive law and re-evaluating evidence are not within the competence of the national court when considering an application to set aside a decision of an international commercial arbitration.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the appeal of public joint-stock company
“A+SO” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 729/685/21 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the dismissal of the automatic subway checkpoint controller, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, cancellation of reprimands, recovery of funds for the period of forced downtime, seniority allowance, payment of illegally withheld bonuses, and additional accrual of vacation pay.
2. The appellate court partially satisfied the employee’s claim, justifying it on the grounds that:
* During the quarantine period, the employee did not perform трудові duties through no fault of their own, so this time must be paid for.
* The calculation of vacation pay was made incorrectly, without taking into account the downtime period.
* The employer did not prove the employee’s violation of трудові discipline with proper evidence, in particular, using video surveillance records without the employee’s consent.
* The removal of warning slips and referral for unscheduled certification were unfounded.
* There is no systematic failure by the employee to perform трудові duties, which makes the dismissal illegal.
* The court took into account the evidence provided to both the court of first instance and the appellate instance, as it was relevant to the resolution of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 766/6644/23 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of wage arrears, average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal, and recognition of the right to receive wages for a certain period.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which partially overturned the decision of the court of first instance. The appellate court justified this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the claimed amount of wage arrears for the period from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, therefore, the amount of recovery was reduced. In addition, the appellate court noted that from August 16, 2022, the трудові agreement with the plaintiff was suspended due to the occupation of the city of Kherson, and the plaintiff did not prove that they continued to perform work during this period, therefore, the claim for recovery of wages for the period from July 1, 2022, to June 16, 2023, was rejected. The court also emphasized that compensation for wages during the suspension of the трудові agreement is the responsibility of the aggressor state. Regarding the average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal, the court agreed with the application of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the version in force at the time of the plaintiff’s dismissal.
The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal.
I, and the decision of the court of first instance in the unchanged part and the decision of the appellate court – without changes.
**Case No. 463/5991/20 dated 17/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Lviv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of PERSON_6 against the ruling of the investigating judge.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeal of PERSON_6. The judges referred to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely: Article 376, Articles 433, 434, 436, 441, 442 of the CPC. The operative part of the decision does not contain any arguments on which the court relied when making the decision. It only states that the full text of the ruling will be announced later. Given that the drafting of the ruling requires considerable time, the Court, based on Part 2 of Article 376 and Part 4 of Article 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – CPC), considers it necessary to limit itself to drafting and announcing the operative part of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_6 and upheld the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 922/1190/24 dated 16/04/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for the distribution of court costs, namely the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The court partially granted the application, motivating it as follows: firstly, the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance claimed for recovery (UAH 1,462,173.53) significantly exceeded the amount previously stated in the response to the cassation appeal (UAH 100,000), and the applicant did not provide proper justification for such a significant excess. Secondly, the court, taking into account the criteria of validity, proportionality and reasonableness of expenses, as well as the objections of the other party, concluded that there were grounds for reducing the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, since certain expenses, in particular, for the arrival of a lawyer at a court hearing that was not mandatory, were not justified. The court also took into account that a significant part of the response to the cassation appeal duplicated previous documents in the case. The court emphasized that when determining the amount of compensation, one should proceed from the criterion of the reality of attorney’s fees and the reasonableness of their amount, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
The court decided to recover from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 20,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance, refusing to satisfy the rest of the claims.
**Case No. 161/12508/24 dated 16/04/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the deprivation of parental rights of the father in relation to his minor son.
with disability.
The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the father had not been involved in the upbringing of his son for a long time, was not interested in his health and development, and did not provide sufficient material support, especially considering the child’s disability. The court took into account the conclusion of the guardianship authority on the expediency of depriving parental rights, as well as the fact that the father did not provide evidence that would indicate his real interest in the child’s life and desire to change his behavior. The court emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure, but in this case, it is justified because it is in the best interests of the child. The court also noted that the mere fact of objecting to the claim does not indicate the father’s sincere interest in the child. The court took into account that the father had not communicated with his son since 2020 and had not taken any action to exercise his parental rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, confirming the deprivation of the father’s parental rights.
Case No. 295/6717/24 dated 04/16/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence in Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, for the purpose of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which granted the application of PERSON_1, establishing the fact of her permanent residence in Ukraine as of August 24, 1991, which is legally relevant for the registration of belonging to Ukrainian citizenship. The courts took into account the evidence provided by the applicant, including copies of diplomas, work record books, grade books, and other documents confirming her studies and residence in Crimea until 1991. The court also took into account medical documents confirming the applicant’s stay for treatment in a psychiatric hospital, which explains her loss of documents. The court of cassation noted that establishing the fact of permanent residence in Ukraine at the time of the declaration of independence is the basis for registering belonging to Ukrainian citizenship in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine”. The court also emphasized that the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation has no authority to interfere in this evaluation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Zhytomyr region, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/2217/23 (910/7486/23) dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a preliminary contract for the sale of a share of real estate, concluded between “Vip Building Trade” LLC and individual PERSON_1, since m
1. The property that was the subject of the preliminary agreement belonged to the plaintiff, LLC “VTK Kashtan”.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate commercial court had violated the norms of procedural law, namely: the full text of the appellate court’s decision does not contain the signature of one of the judges who participated in the consideration of the case, although the introductory and operative parts of the decision are signed by all the judges of the panel. According to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, this is a mandatory ground for the cancellation of the court decision and referral of the case for a new consideration. The court of cassation noted that the existence of this ground is independent and sufficient for the cancellation of the appellate court’s decision, therefore it did not assess other arguments of the cassation appeal and circumstances established by the courts during the consideration of the case on the merits. Also, the court of cassation referred to similar conclusions set out in previous decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 126/846/19 dated 04/16/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for illegal purchase, possession of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale and illegal purchase, possession of ammunition without the permission provided by law.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the court decisions, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances reasonably found PERSON_7 guilty of committing the crimes imputed to him. The court of cassation noted that the conclusion about the guilt of PERSON_7 is based on the testimony of a witness, the search protocol, the conclusions of experts and other written evidence examined in court. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal about the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular the ruling on the permission for a search, the conclusions of experts and the decision on the consolidation of pre-trial investigation materials. The court indicated that the search warrant meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the criminal procedure law does not require the examination of physical evidence before the appointment of an examination. The Supreme Court also noted that the decision to combine pre-trial investigation materials is not evidence and cannot be assessed for admissibility. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided a comprehensive response to them.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
**Case No. 824/150/24 dated 04/17/2025**
Here is translation of the provided legal texts:
**Case No. 553/2690/22 dated 04/17/2025**
Good day! Let’s review the court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the open joint-stock company “A+SO” to cancel the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery of debt in favor of LLC “Novi Produkty Ukraine.”
2. Unfortunately, this ruling lacks the court’s arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision were announced. The full text will be prepared later. Therefore, it is currently impossible to understand exactly why the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal and leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged. The full text of the decision is necessary for analysis.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the appeal of the open joint-stock company “A+SO” and leave the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated January 20, 2025, unchanged.
**Case No. 553/2690/22 dated 04/17/2025**
Good day! Let’s review the court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of mobilization).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments that it relied upon when making the decision. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, and then it will be possible to understand the court’s motivation. Currently, it is only known that the court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling. This may indicate that the court found certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court, or disagreed with its conclusions regarding the application of substantive law. For a complete understanding, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 756/12421/19 dated 04/14/2025**
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding leaving unchanged the verdict of the court of first instance regarding PERSON_10 and PERSON_9, convicted of hooliganism committed by a group of persons, with the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on exemption from serving a sentence with probation.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that the appellate court duly considered the severity of the crime, data on the personalities of the convicts (absence of convictions at the time of the verdict, positive characteristics), their sincere repentance, as well as the position of the victim, who did not object to the exemption from serving the sentence with probation. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court reasonably took into account all the circumstances of the case, including those that arose after the verdict was rendered by the court of first instance, such as the volunteer activity of PERSON_9, the birth of a child to him, etc.
Positive references from the place of residence and a low risk of committing repeat offenses. The court of cassation emphasized that the court’s discretionary powers regarding sentencing have their limits, and in this case, no significant disproportion was established between the imposed sentence and the circumstances of the case that would indicate manifest injustice. In addition, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that PERSON_10, at the time of the cassation review, was already serving a sentence under another verdict, to which the sentence in this case was partially added, which effectively terminated the operation of the institution of release from serving the sentence on probation.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and to leave the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_10 and PERSON_9 unchanged.
Case No. 916/1092/24 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the Savran settlement council on the renewal of the land lease agreement as illegal and the recognition of the concluded additional agreement on the renewal of this agreement on the terms proposed by the lessee.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, indicating that the lessee properly notified the lessor of the intention to renew the lease agreement, attaching a draft additional agreement. The Savran settlement council, in turn, decided to renew the agreement on other terms, in particular, regarding the term of validity and the amount of rent, which contradicts Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease.” The court also noted that the decision of the settlement council was made outside the one-month period established for consideration of the lessee’s application. In addition, the court took into account that the conditions of the additional agreement proposed by the lessee do not contradict the law, in particular, regarding the minimum term of lease of agricultural land. The court also drew attention to the fact that the contract for the provision of legal assistance is proper confirmation of the lawyer’s powers, even if there are certain deficiencies in the execution of the warrant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Savran settlement council, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 640/22081/22 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the plaintiff’s dismissal from her position in the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine (BES) in connection with a change in the structure of the state body.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim to declare illegal the dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of chief specialist of the testing and career department of the Personnel Department of the BES. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff was appointed to the position during the period of validity of
of martial law without competitive selection, as stipulated by the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law.” This law, in particular, restricts the possibility of transferring such civil servants to other positions. The court also noted that although generally, in the event of a staff reduction, a civil servant should be offered another equivalent position, in this case, such a possibility was excluded due to the restrictions imposed by martial law. The court took into account that there was a change in the structure of the BEB, which led to a reduction in the number of employees.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 344/5006/16-ц dated 16/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the cancellation of city council decisions, recognition of ownership of land, termination of the validity of an order, removal of obstacles to the use of a house, and compensation for damages.
The court of cassation considered the plaintiff’s application for the distribution of court costs, as this issue was not resolved in the previous ruling. The court, guided by the principle of proportionality in the distribution of court costs, took into account that the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, namely, the decisions of the courts of previous instances were overturned in the part of one of the non-property claims, and a new decision was made in her favor. The court also took into account that it was the defendants who obstructed the plaintiff’s use of the apartment. Based on this, the court decided to recover from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff a portion of the court fee paid by her for filing the cassation appeal.
The court issued an additional decision, ordering the defendants PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 to pay PERSON_1 UAH 384.20 each to compensate for the court fee paid for filing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 560/18034/23 dated 16/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions in determining the amount of allowance for the peculiarities of service and bonus in the certificate of the amount of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance for pension recalculation.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not clarify whether the amount of the bonus paid for the relevant position held by the plaintiff at the time of pension assignment was correctly determined as of January 1, 2022. The courts did not verify the basis of the information contained in the documents provided by the parties, in particular, the reason for the defendant’s obligation to issue a new certificate of the amount of monetary allowance. Also, the courts did not clarify for which position the amount of the bonus of PERSON_1 was set and for which tariff category. The Supreme Court emphasized
that the amount of the bonus depends on the position category and the specifics of military service. Since the courts of previous instances did not take all the measures defined by law to establish the factual circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the court decisions should be overturned and the case should be sent for a new trial.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 300/2393/22 dated 04/17/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against an order to revoke a license for wholesale trade in alcoholic beverages.
2. The court of cassation established that the tax authority revoked the license for wholesale trade in alcoholic beverages, citing the fact of trading in alcoholic beverages without excise tax stamps. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, did not properly assess the proof of the fact of trading in alcoholic beverages without excise tax stamps, limiting itself to a general reference to violation of tax legislation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not properly investigate whether the plaintiff actually traded in alcoholic beverages without proper labeling, which is key to the validity of the decision to revoke the license. Since the court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case, the case was returned to the appellate court for a new trial for a full and comprehensive investigation of all the circumstances, in particular, the fact of trading in unlabeled products. The court also emphasized the need to assess all the evidence in the case and make a decision in accordance with the requirements of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 760/18377/20 dated 04/16/2025
Good afternoon! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PERSON_2 in favor of the “Haponenko Roman and Partners” Association of expenses for legal assistance in the amount of UAH 24,000.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which granted the application for an additional decision on the recovery of legal assistance costs, since the criteria of reality of legal costs, their validity and necessity, as well as the criteria of reasonableness of their amount, were met. The court took into account that the “Haponenko Roman and Partners” Association provided evidence to confirm the costs incurred, in particular, a contract for the provision of legal assistance, an act of services provided, and an additional agreement on the assignment of the right of claim. The court also rejected the debtor’s arguments that the contract for the provision
