Case №372/3496/16-ц dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of land plots from someone else’s illegal possession in favor of the state, since they are located on lands of the water fund and were illegally transferred to private ownership.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances correctly took into account the circumstances established in the previous court case regarding the affiliation of the disputed land plots to the lands of the water fund, the transfer of which to private ownership is prohibited by law, and also properly examined the evidence collected within the framework of the criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the proper way to protect the rights of the state to the lands of the water fund is a negatory action, to which the statute of limitations does not apply. At the same time, the appellate court did not take into account the changes in legislation regarding the transfer of the right to dispose of land from the state to the territorial community and did not establish whether the Kyiv Regional State Administration was the legal successor in the disputed legal relations. In addition, the appellate court did not determine the real purpose of the prosecutor’s appeal with the claim and an effective way to protect the rights of the state with an appropriate assessment of the interference with the defendant’s right to property.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of resolving the claims for the recovery of land plots and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appeal.
Case №915/102/24 dated 04/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use and disposal of a land plot of the state forest fund by recognizing illegal and canceling the orders of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre, canceling the state registration of the land plot.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, pointing out that the courts did not take into account the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the ineffectiveness of invalidating a decision of a local self-government body that has already been executed, since such a decision has exhausted its effect. The court noted that in cases where the disputed land plot partially overlaps with the lands of the state forest fund, the proper method of protection is a vindication claim for the recovery of this part of the plot. The claims for the cancellation of the orders of the State Geocadastre are ineffective, since they do not restore the violated right of the state and may lead to interference with the rights of the defendants to the part of the plot that is not disputed. The court also took into account that the appealed order of the State Geocadastre has already exhausted its effect, since on its basis the right of communal ownership of the land plot was registered.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims for the cancellation of the orders of the State Geocadastre and refused to satisfy these claims.
Case №904/246/24 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the obligation
the obligation of LLC “Management Company “Leader-Comfort” to transfer the technical and accounting documentation for the apartment building to the Condominium “Svobody 51” after the termination of the building management agreement.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the manager of an apartment building is obliged to maintain and store technical documentation, separate accounting of income and expenses, and to transfer this documentation to the new manager or the Condominium in case of termination of the agreement. The court noted that the scope of actually provided services and incurred expenses must be confirmed by primary documentation, which is stored by the manager. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances examined the submitted evidence and came to a reasonable conclusion about the defendant’s failure to fulfill the obligation to transfer complete and exhaustive information, confirmed by the relevant primary accounting documents. The court of cassation emphasized that its powers are limited to checking the courts’ compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law, and not to re-evaluating the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Management Company “Leader-Comfort”, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/3961/23 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of PJSC “Kharkivenerhozbut” regarding the recovery of debt from Individual Entrepreneur Nekhoda V.M. for electricity supplied in the period from April to June 2023 as illegal.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of the actions of the electricity supplier as illegal) is proper and effective, since the defendant, accruing the disputed debt, threatened to disconnect the electricity supply, which created legal uncertainty for the plaintiff. The court noted that the defendant did not prove the legality of accruing debt for the amount of electricity that was not actually consumed by the plaintiff during the specified period, since the meter, according to the readings of which the debt was accrued, was damaged and did not function until a certain time. The court also took into account that the defendant did not apply to the court with a demand for the recovery of debt, which deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to protect his rights within the framework of such a dispute. The court of cassation rejected the defendant’s arguments that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the legal relations in these cases are not similar to those considered in this case. The court emphasized that the evaluation of evidence and the establishment of the circumstances of the case is the prerogative of the courts of first instance and appellate instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “Kharkivenerhozbut”, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 631/268/24 dated 05/12/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict
regarding a person convicted of premeditated murder committed with particular cruelty, and illegal imprisonment.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, rejecting the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his lawyer. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments relied upon by the court, but, considering that the appellate court’s verdict was upheld, it can be assumed that the court agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the appellate court and considers the guilt of the convicted person in committing the crimes imputed to him to be proven. Also, the court likely did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the reversal or modification of the appealed verdict. For a more detailed understanding of the Supreme Court’s position, it is necessary to review the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later.
The court ruled: the verdict of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of October 08, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convicted PERSON_7 and his lawyer PERSON_8 shall be dismissed.
Case No. 712/13009/15 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 and Part 3 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (embezzlement, misappropriation of property).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the convicted person, but not on the grounds stated in the appeal. The Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing the crimes stipulated by Part 1 and Part 3 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect qualification of actions based on the “recidivism” criterion. At the same time, the Supreme Court drew attention to changes in legislation, namely Law of Ukraine No. 3886-IX, which increased the amount of petty theft, which affects the qualification of actions under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that some episodes for which the person was convicted ceased to be criminally punishable acts, since the amounts of misappropriation did not exceed the established limit. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment and ruling in the part of these episodes and closed the criminal proceedings in this part. Also, the Supreme Court reduced the punishment under Part 3 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, taking into account the reduction in the scope of the accusation.
3. The Supreme Court amended the court decisions, overturning the judgment and ruling in the part of individual episodes and closing the criminal proceedings in this part, as well as mitigating the punishment under Part 3 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 904/1891/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of “Ukrbudinzhiniring” LLC regarding the increase of the authorized capital.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff was duly notified of the meeting, the quorum was observed, and the arguments about the impossibility of participation due to being abroad and the threat of shelling were notduly confirmed. The court noted that the issue of improving the financial condition of the company and increasing the authorized capital is within the competence of the general meeting, and the court cannot interfere in the economic activity of the company. The court also took into account that the appealed decision had not been implemented, as the participants and third parties did not make contributions within the specified time limits. The appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to examine the company’s financial documents and the refusal to summon a witness were rejected, as the plaintiff did not prove obstruction in familiarizing themselves with the documents, and the court considered the available evidence sufficient to resolve the dispute.
3. The court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 922/733/24 dated 15/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid (null and void) of the transaction between LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading” and JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Kharkivgaz”, LLC “YE Enerhiya”, LLC “Tviy Gazzbut”.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “YE Enerhiya” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeal regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 4 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. In fact, the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the absence of grounds for recognizing the transaction as invalid. The court of cassation instance verified the arguments of the cassation appeal but found no grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions. The absence of violations of substantive and procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the dispute was a key factor in the decision.
The court upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.
Case No. 757/30475/24-к dated 05/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_6, canceling the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated November 28, 2024, on the return of the appeal and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance. The factual grounds for making such a decision are not specified in the operative part. The judges limited themselves only to indicating the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code that they were guided by, without disclosing the reasons for canceling the appellate court’s ruling. The full text of the постановa will be announced later, where detailed justifications will likely be provided.
The court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 759/5489/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the appeal to the defender due to failure to remedy the deficiencies.
2. The court of cassation instance canceled
regarding the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal filed by the defense counsel, emphasizing that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to addressing the deficiencies. The Court noted that the criminal procedure law does not establish a clear form for correcting deficiencies in an appeal that has been left without movement. The defense counsel, in correcting the deficiencies, changed the requests in the appeal, which was acceptable, as the appellate court did not require the submission of a new appeal. The Court also emphasized that the formulation of requests to the court of appeal is within the powers of the party to the proceedings and may be clarified during the appellate review. Considering this, the court of cassation found that the appellate court prematurely returned the appeal, violating the right to a fair trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 335/12523/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (dissemination of information about the movement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt in disseminating information about the movement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, noting that the courts properly investigated and assessed the evidence, including protocols of inspection of Internet resources, results of covert investigative actions, and other materials confirming the fact of transferring information to representatives of the aggressor state. The Court also rejected the defense’s arguments about possible falsification of evidence, as they were not supported by specific facts. At the same time, the Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s decision on special confiscation of the car, as it was not proven that the vehicle was used directly for committing the crime, but only as a means of transportation. The Court emphasized that the objective element of the crime under Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code consists precisely in disseminating information, and not in the way it is collected.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s decision in the part of special confiscation of the car and related items, and ordered their return to the owner, and in the other part, left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 912/384/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of the unused part of the advance payment, penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum under the contract for the provision of services/performance of works, as well as the recovery of a counterclaim for improper performance of the contract in terms of payment for the work performed.
2. The court refused to satisfy the initial and counterclaim claims, based on the following:
* There are no circumstances for the return of the advance payment in accordance with the terms of the contract, since the amount of work performed exceeds the amount of the transferred advance payment, which is evident
* The plaintiff failed to provide grounds to consider the advance unused.
* The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of poor-quality work performed by the defendant, particularly regarding the work completion certificate dated February 15, 2023.
* The courts assessed the available evidence, including work completion certificates, notices of contract termination, and an agreement on settling mutual obligations, and determined that the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s failure to fulfill obligations under the contract.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to disagreement with the conclusions of the previous instances’ courts and re-evaluation of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.
* The courts of previous instances considered the conclusions of the Supreme Court outlined in the decisions cited by the appellant and made decisions that do not contradict them.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances’ courts remained unchanged.
Case №127/10958/22 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the verdict of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal dated December 18, 2024, by which he was convicted of crimes under Part 1 of Article 436, Part 1 of Article 436-1, Part 1 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found certain violations committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case. In particular, the court of cassation noted the incompleteness of the investigation of the case’s circumstances and the incorrect application of substantive law. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the convicted person, which could have affected the legality and validity of the verdict. In addition, the Supreme Court took into account possible procedural violations that could have affected the fairness of the trial. Considering the identified shortcomings, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decision of the appellate court and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled to partially grant the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6, to overturn the verdict of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal dated December 18, 2024, and to order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case №910/907/24 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Kyiv City Council on the establishment of the Art Lyceum by separation from the Kyiv Academy of Arts.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances on the closure of proceedings in the case, since the dispute is not subject to resolution in the order of economic court proceedings, but belongs to administrative jurisdiction. The court proceeded from the fact that the dispute arose in connection with the decision of the local self-government body regarding the reorganization of the educational institution, which is the implementation of authoritative management functions in the field of education. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which such disputes are public-legal, since they concern ensuring the accessibility of education and the right to receive it.
tya. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s position as rector does not change the public law nature of the dispute, as the reorganization decision affects the interests of a wide range of individuals. The court indicated that it does not matter whether all the resolutions containing the legal position from which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated are listed; courts, when resolving identical disputes, must take into account the latest legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/2665/24 dated 05/13/2025
1. Subject of the dispute – invalidation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) in the part concerning LLC “COMPANY “AZOV BUSINESS CONSULTING”, by which the company was found guilty of anticompetitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of bidding results.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position of the AMCU, since LLC “COMPANY “AZOV BUSINESS CONSULTING” and another participant in the bidding agreed among themselves on the terms of participation in the bidding, which is confirmed by the totality of evidence. In particular, the use of the same IP address, synchronicity of actions during preparation and participation in the bidding, common employees, economic relations, provision of financial assistance, indication of the same telephone number, as well as identical printing defects on documents were established. The court noted that the existence of economic relations between the participants in the bidding leads to their positioning not as competitors, but as partners, and that all the above coincidences indicate the systematic nature of the coordination of behavior between the companies during participation in procurement. The court also emphasized that for the qualification of actions as anticompetitive, the existence of negative consequences is not mandatory; the very fact of agreeing on competitive behavior is sufficient.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/2542/24 dated 05/15/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation of Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway” to make changes to the personal account of PJSC “Centrenergo” in the amount of UAH 2,179,005.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railway”, which concerned the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the court did not find grounds for reviewing the decisions of the courts of previous instances based on the incorrect application of substantive law. In the other part, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were upheld. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous judicial instances regarding the validity of the claims of PJSC “Centrenergo” against JSC “Ukrainian Railway”. The court of cassation instance confirmed that there are no grounds forof decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
The Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” and left the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/4376/24 dated 05/15/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of UAH 2,597,638.28.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of LLC “ARES-S” against the decisions of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of PrJSC “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” against JSC “Commercial Industrial Bank” for the recovery of funds. The court of cassation instance checked the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, based on the evidence provided by the parties and the norms of substantive and procedural law. During the consideration of the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court heard the explanations of the representatives of the parties, examined the case materials and found that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the norms of law. There are no grounds for canceling or changing the appealed court decisions.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “ARES-S” and to leave the decision of the commercial court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 344/24485/23 dated 05/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for violating traffic rules while intoxicated, which resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of a more lenient punishment than provided by law) to the convicted person, justifying this by the fact that the circumstances mitigating the punishment do not so significantly reduce the degree of severity of the committed crime as to justify the imposition of a punishment below the minimum limit of the article’s sanction. The court took into account the severity of the crime, the consequences, the absence of claims from the victim, the sincere remorse of the accused, the presence of a minor child in his care, but recognized that correction is possible only in conditions of isolation from society. The court of cassation also noted that the pre-trial report of the probation authority is advisory in nature and is not mandatory for the court to take into account.
3. The court left the verdict of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defenders – without satisfaction.
Case No. 757/37682/23-к dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defender, found that the appellate court took a formal approach to resolving the issue of opening an appea
of criminal proceedings, without taking into account all the arguments set forth in the defense counsel’s appeal. The court of cassation emphasized the need to ensure the right to appeal a court decision as one of the guarantees of a fair trial. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court is obliged to carefully check the existence of grounds for opening appellate proceedings, taking into account all the arguments presented by the defense. The court noted that refusal to open appellate proceedings is possible only if there are clear and justified grounds provided for by the criminal procedural law, which was not observed in this case. Thus, the appellate court violated the convict’s right to have his case reviewed by a higher court.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 484/4922/19 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer, or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or their analogues).
The Supreme Court dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts. In its ruling, the full text of which will be announced later, the Supreme Court apparently found no grounds to overturn or change the previous court decisions. This may indicate that the previous instance courts properly investigated the circumstances of the case, gave them a correct legal assessment, and made legal and justified decisions. Perhaps, the cassation appeal did not contain convincing arguments regarding violations of substantive or procedural law that could affect the legality of the court decisions.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the judgment and ruling of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 904/5133/23 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on finding the company and entrepreneur guilty of anticompetitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of bidding results.
2. The court, upholding the AMCU’s decision, proceeded from the fact that the company and the entrepreneur jointly used office premises, were connected by labor relations, had financial relations through revolving financial assistance, used the same IP addresses when submitting tender proposals, simultaneously entered the auction, had common electronic properties of files, similar features when printing and scanning documents, submitted the same certificates of conformity, and created estimates in the same software package. The court noted that to qualify actions as antiNon-competitive consequences are not necessarily required; the mere fact of agreeing on competitive behavior that may have a negative impact on competition is sufficient. The court also emphasized that proving a violation in the form of anti-competitive concerted actions is based on a set of circumstances, not on a single fact. The court took into account that the Law does not require written evidence of the concerted will of the bidders, and the issue of the presence/absence of concerted anti-competitive actions should be investigated by the courts based on the totality of circumstances and evidence.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 541/2/24 dated May 1, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, indicating that the court of appeal formally considered the arguments of the defender’s appeal, without providing a proper assessment of the evidence and circumstances of the case, in particular, did not check the arguments regarding the lack of evidence of the theft of a specific amount of money, did not assess the admissibility of the protocol of inspection of the publication in the social network, and also limited itself only to listing the evidence that formed the basis of the accusatory verdict of the court of first instance, without giving reasonable reasons for their refutation. The court of cassation emphasized the obligation of the court of appeal to carefully check the arguments of the appeal and provide them with a proper assessment, since the court of appeal is actually the last instance that checks the completeness of the judicial review and the correctness of establishing the factual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court noted that the improper performance by the court of appeal of its duties is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law, which affects the validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/7488/24 dated May 15, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the concluded additional agreement between I JIH EF TRADING LLC and JSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of JSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya, overturning the decisions of previous instances and sending the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv. The court did not provide specific arguments in this operative part, but the very fact of overturning the decisions indicates that the Supreme Court found certain violations or failure to take into account important circumstances during the consideration of the case by the courts of first and appellate instances. To understand the specific reasons for the cancellation, it is necessary to analyze the full text of the resolution, which sets out the motives for the decision. Perhaps the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law
of procedural law, or other procedural violations were committed that affected the legality and validity of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/3921/21 (922/1371/22) dated April 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of Metinkom LLC against the debtor TC LLC IIF “Kharkiv-Moscow” in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances because the courts did not apply a higher standard of proof when considering the creditor’s claims based on the assignment agreement, especially when the debtor disputes the reality of the transactions underlying the monetary obligations. The court of cassation emphasized the need to investigate the reality of the economic transaction of providing a loan, compliance with the conditions of targeted use of funds, the validity of the guarantee, and the conditions of assignment of the claim, including payment under the assignment agreement. It was also pointed out the importance of judicial control in bankruptcy cases to ensure a balance of interests between creditors and the debtor, which requires the court to fully establish the objective circumstances of the case. The court noted that in the presence of objections from the debtor, it is not enough to limit oneself to a formal check of documents, but it is necessary to investigate all the circumstances related to the essence of the obligation, including the sources of origin of the funds provided as a loan.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 920/674/22 dated May 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “International Reserve Bank” against the inaction of the state enforcement officer regarding the non-completion of enforcement proceedings opened on the basis of a court decision on the recovery of debt for rent from the bank.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the bank’s complaint, motivating this by the fact that, firstly, although the bank is in the liquidation stage, the obligations for rent arose as current in the liquidation procedure, and secondly, it is impossible to deprive the claimant of the right to execute a court decision, especially if the bank’s liquidator refuses to voluntarily execute it. The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” is a special law in such disputes, but it does not exempt the bank from current obligations. In addition, the court emphasized that the defendant in the case is precisely JSC “International Reserve Bank” represented by the Authorized Person of the Individuals’ Deposit Guarantee Fund, and not just JSC “International Reserve Bank”. The court took into account the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that in the event of the bank’s liquidator’s refusal to comply with court decisions on the obligation to reimburse certain expenses as liquidation expenses
Such a mechanism for the execution of a court decision will be an effective way to protect the interests of the creditor and will not contradict the general principles of legal certainty and the state’s fulfillment of its positive obligation to ensure adequate mechanisms for the execution of court decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 908/2402/22 dated 13/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,000,254.56 between AVTOMAGISTRAL-PIVDEN LLC and the Service for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure in the Zaporizhzhia Region.
The decision does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal of the Deputy Head of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the state represented by the State Agency for Restoration and Development of Infrastructure of Ukraine was partially satisfied, the decisions of the courts of previous instances were overturned, and the case was remanded for a new trial to the court of first instance. The absence of a reasoning part in the provided excerpt makes it impossible to provide information on the arguments of the court of cassation instance.
The court decided to partially grant the cassation appeal, overturn the decisions of previous instances, and remand the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the Zaporizhzhia Region.
Case No. 908/2402/22 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a construction contract.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances because they did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in a similar case No. 908/2400/22 regarding the need to establish the actual performance of work and the justification for the customer’s refusal to sign the act of completed work, and also did not properly assess the evidence regarding the scope and quality of the performed work, compliance with the deadlines for drawing up acts, and compliance of the work with the calendar plan. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances did not establish whether the reasons for the Service’s failure to sign the primary documents were unfounded, and did not apply the conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of paying for the performed work based on an act signed unilaterally only if there is actual performance of work under the contract within the term specified in the contract, and if the customer, in violation of the requirements of Articles 853, 882 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, groundlessly evades acceptance of the work. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 908/2403/22 regarding the prematurity of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, given the lack of proper establishment of circumstances, in particular, regarding the actual performance/non-performance of work and the circumstances of the Service’s justified/unjustified refusal to sign the acts.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/3156/24 dated 15/05/2025
The subject
