**Case No. 752/7929/25 dated 14/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments. The court only stated that the drafting of a full court decision requires a significant amount of time, therefore they limited themselves to announcing the operative part. The text of the ruling does not contain any motives or justifications for the decision, which makes their analysis impossible. To understand the court’s position, it is necessary to review the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to deny the submission of the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
**Case No. 300/3005/24 dated 28/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision to refuse to grant a pension to a combat veteran and the obligation to grant a pension, as well as the appeal against the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the consideration of a complaint against the refusal to grant a pension.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the lawyer’s application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance. The court noted that, according to procedural law, evidence regarding the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be submitted before the end of the court debates or within five days after the decision is made, provided that a prior statement is made to that effect. In this case, the application for reimbursement of expenses and the relevant evidence were submitted significantly later than the established deadline, which is a violation of the requirements of the CAS of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that a timely application for the recovery of court costs is a prerequisite for the court to consider the issue of their distribution. The court took into account the previous position of the joint chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court in case No. 340/2823/21, as well as the practice 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. 520/9801/24 dated 28/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Kharkiv region regarding the formation of extracts from the technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of the land plot.
2. The court of cassation, considering the cassation appeals of the Kharkiv City Council and an individual, noted that actions to form an extract from the technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of a land plot may be the subject of judicial appeal. The court emphasized that the indexation coefficient of the normative monetary valuation of land
cumulatively, depending on the date of the regulatory monetary valuation of the land, and not on the date the council’s decision on approving the regulatory monetary valuation comes into effect. The court also pointed out the need to take into account all local factors when forming the extract, and that the formation of the extract in automatic mode cannot be the basis for establishing the sizes of coefficients that do not meet the requirements of current legislation. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of local coefficients and non-compliance with the regulatory valuation. As a result, the court of cassation concluded that the conclusions of the appellate court were premature and that it had violated procedural rules.
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. 520/20745/21 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the customs office’s decision to refuse to return funds to the company “MDK EXPRESS,” which it considers to have been mistakenly paid for customs clearance.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that “MDK EXPRESS” carried out customs formalities outside the location of the customs authorities, and therefore the payment was made lawfully, in accordance with the Customs Code of Ukraine. The court noted that a mistake or overpayment is necessary for the return of funds, and in this case, “MDK EXPRESS” was obliged to make these payments. The court also took into account that the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee on the customs’ violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition is not a basis for the return of funds for customs clearance services provided. The court rejected the arguments of “MDK EXPRESS” that the inaction of the customs office led to the erroneous payment of funds, since the company was a payer of customs formalities outside the location of the customs authorities. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” are not a basis for the return of funds for actually provided administrative services.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of “MDK EXPRESS” and to leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 380/245/20 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the controlling authority’s order to conduct a documentary unscheduled on-site inspection of the company.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the controlling authority had no grounds for appointing a documentary unscheduled on-site inspection, since the company provided answers to the tax authority’s requests with attached documents. The court noted that the controlling authority, having received the answers and documents, did not inform the payer.
taxpayer regarding what information was not provided and what additional documents need to be submitted. The court emphasized that the identified facts of possible violations can be the basis for an audit only if the doubts are not resolved by the provided explanations and documentary evidence, and the controlling body has the right to assess these explanations, and if they are unfounded, an audit may be appointed. The court also indicated that the appellant’s references to previous decisions of the Supreme Court are unfounded, as the circumstances in those cases differ from the present case, where the requirements of the requests were fulfilled by the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 620/8878/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the restriction of the maximum pension amount for the plaintiff, the reduction of the percentage of the pension, and the termination of indexation accrual.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts, indicating that the courts had incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. The court noted that the recalculation of the pension due to an increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which affects the amount of financial provision for servicemen, is the basis for terminating the payment of indexation provided for by Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 118 and No. 168. The court also took into account the provisions of Resolution No. 168, which stipulates that indexation is not applied in cases of pension recalculation due to an increase in financial provision. In addition, the Supreme Court referred to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the model case No. 400/6254/24, which confirm the lawfulness of terminating indexation when recalculating a pension due to an increase in financial provision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 990/139/25 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to dismiss a judge from office due to resignation, specifically regarding the non-inclusion of a certain period of work in the justice authorities in the judge’s length of service.
2. The court partially satisfied the claims, motivating this by the fact that at the time of the plaintiff’s appointment as a judge, legislation was in force that provided for the inclusion in the judge’s length of service, which entitles to resignation, periods of work in positions directly related to the management and control of the activities of courts in the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and its territorial bodies. The court established that the position of the head of the organizational support department for judicial activities of the justice department, held by the plaintiff, met these criteria. The court rejected the HCJ’s arguments about the plaintiff’s lack of higher legal education at the time
execution of the disputed work, as the current legislation did not contain such a requirement. The court also pointed out the inconsistency in the HJC’s position, which included the plaintiff’s period of work as acting deputy head of the justice department in her length of service, despite the absence of higher legal education at that time. The court referred to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, according to which the exclusion from the judicial service record of periods of work in the justice bodies related to the management and control of the courts’ activities is unlawful. The court also noted that the HJC’s decision does not contain a clear and understandable justification for the reasons for refusing to include the disputed period of work in the length of service, which indicates a violation of the principle of motivation of the decision of the subject of power.
3. The court declared illegal and canceled the HJC’s decision in the part of not including the disputed period of work in the judge’s length of service and obliged the HJC to re-examine the judge’s application for resignation, taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court.
Case No. 460/658/24 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Pension Fund to refuse the granting of an old-age pension with a reduced retirement age as a person who suffered as a result of the Chornobyl disaster.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff has a certificate of a person who suffered as a result of the Chornobyl disaster, which is the basis for receiving benefits established by law. The court noted that it is important to establish the fact of a person’s physical presence on the territory of radioactive contamination in connection with permanent residence or work, and not just registration. The Supreme Court took into account certificates of the plaintiff’s residence in the territory of the zone of guaranteed voluntary resettlement, as well as an inspection report, which confirm this fact. The court of appeal did not refute the arguments of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff’s residence in the contaminated territory during vacations and internships. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of a certificate is not the only basis for granting a preferential pension, but in combination with other evidence confirms the plaintiff’s right to a pension with a reduced retirement age.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized as illegal the decision to refuse the granting of a pension and obliged to grant an old-age pension with a reduced retirement age.
Case No. 420/2979/22 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the oil product supply agreement concluded between PrJSC “Sintez Oil” and PJSC “Ukrtatnafta”, based on the arguments of the tax authority about the fictitiousness of the transaction.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the tax authority’s claim. The court from
indicated that the tax authority had not proven with proper evidence the intent of the parties to conclude the agreement for the purpose of tax evasion or understatement of the tax base. The court took into account that PJSC “Ukrtransnafta” is an enterprise with a full cycle of oil refining, and according to the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine, it is obliged to form data only on the daily actual volume of fuel sold. The court also took into account that the terms of the supply agreement stipulated the possibility of leaving the goods in storage with the supplier and the conditions for its return. In addition, PJSC “Ukrtransnafta” confirmed the availability of the required amount of fuel on the date of the transfer act. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the tax authority had not refuted the presumption of legality of the transaction and had not proven a violation of the interests of the state.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 620/7686/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to take into account the indexation of monetary allowance when calculating financial assistance for health improvement, one-time financial assistance upon dismissal, and monetary compensation for unused vacation days.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, considering that the plaintiff had missed the one-month deadline for appealing to the court, established for cases regarding public service. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases related to non-compliance with labor laws, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU), as amended before July 19, 2022, should be applied, which does not limit the time for appealing to the court. The court took into account that the plaintiff was dismissed from military service before the amendments to Article 233 of the LCU, therefore, he has the right to appeal to the court without a time limit. **:** The court departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of the new version of Article 233 of the LCU to legal relations regarding the recalculation of the indexation of monetary allowance, emphasizing that changes in legislation that limit the time for appealing to the court do not apply to events that occurred before July 19, 2022.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 280/10066/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for violation of the requirements for conducting settlement operations.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. In particular, the courts did not take into account that when applying penalties for the period until January 1,
.2022, it was necessary to be guided by paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of Cash Registers in the Sphere of Trade, Public Catering and Services”, taking into account paragraph 11 of Section II of the Final Provisions of this Law, which provided for smaller fines. Also, the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the tax authority’s violation of the deadlines for making a decision, as defined by paragraph 86.8 of Article 86 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case and the active role of the court in the consideration of the case, as well as the importance of proper justification of court decisions. Considering the mentioned violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
3. The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the Vilnyansk District State Veterinary Medicine Hospital, to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and to send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 340/10367/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the tax authority’s accrual of penalties for violation of currency legislation, namely for non-compliance with the terms of settlements under a foreign economic contract.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that the plaintiff company lawfully assigned the right of claim under the foreign economic contract to another legal entity, a resident of Ukraine, before the deadline for settlements. The court emphasized that from the moment of assignment of the right of claim, the new creditor acquires all rights and obligations under the contract, including the obligation to comply with the terms of currency settlements. Accordingly, the original creditor (plaintiff) cannot be held liable for non-receipt of goods after the assignment of the right of claim. The court also emphasized that currency legislation does not prohibit the assignment of the right of claim in foreign economic transactions and that residents have the right to independently determine the forms of settlements that do not contradict the legislation. The court took into account the previous legal positions of the Supreme Court, which confirm the possibility of termination of obligations under foreign economic agreements by assigning the right of claim, and noted that these conclusions remain relevant and are subject to application to the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 450/2221/22 dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegality of the order on the declaration of downtime and the recovery of the difference in wages for the period of forced downtime.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances
The courts of previous instances stated that Ukrtransbezpeka did not prove the existence of grounds for declaring a downtime specifically for the plaintiff, since the downtime was not declared for all employees, and the challenged order did not specify any specific circumstances that would indicate the impossibility of providing the plaintiff with work. The court emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence to confirm the impossibility of providing the plaintiff with work specifically due to the introduction of martial law. Also, the court noted that there are no references to the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. Considering the violation of the plaintiff’s right to receive wages, the court found it reasonable to recover from the defendant the difference between the plaintiff’s average salary and the amounts paid to him during the downtime. The court of cassation dismissed the arguments of the cassation appeal, as they amounted to a revaluation of evidence and their own interpretation of legal norms.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Ukrtransbezpeka and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 320/18485/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notifications-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv regarding AKS Motors LLC.
2. The Supreme Court granted the tax authority’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open appellate proceedings, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court, indicating violations of procedural law. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the tax service paid the court fee when re-applying with an appeal, which indicates an intention to exercise the right to appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the return of the initial appeal does not deprive the right to re-apply to the court if the appellant acted in good faith and took all possible measures to eliminate the shortcomings. The Supreme Court pointed to the need to assess the circumstances that prevented timely appeal to the court, in conjunction with the time intervals between different stages of appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court committed excessive formalism, which led to a violation of the appellant’s right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case to the appellate court to continue the proceedings.
Case No. 380/11576/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the improper accrual of financial assistance for health improvement and compensation for unused vacation.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to the missed deadline for applying to the court. The court noted that in this case, the courts of previous instances і
Courts of previous instances erroneously applied the provisions of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the LC), as amended, which came into force on July 19, 2022, since the disputed legal relations arose and terminated before the entry into force of these amendments. **** The court departed from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 233 of the LC of Ukraine as amended on July 19, 2022, to legal relations regarding the recalculation of indexation of monetary allowance for previous periods. The Supreme Court indicated that the version of Article 233 of the LC of Ukraine, which was in effect before this date and did not limit the term of appeal to the court in cases of recovery of due wages (monetary allowance), applies to legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for further consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 120/4221/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the customs decision to reduce the term of the permit for processing goods outside the customs territory of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of Plazol Company, since the customs authorities rightfully reduced the term of the permit for processing goods outside the customs territory. The courts established that Plazol Company provided unreliable data that were important for extending the term of the permit, in particular, regarding the location of processed precious metals and the reasons for the impossibility of their return to Ukraine. The court also took into account the information of the Security Service of Ukraine and Ukrtatnafta Company, which confirmed that the processing of the catalyst was completed, and the precious metals are stored abroad, which causes losses to Ukrtatnafta. The court noted that Plazol Company did not provide reasonable explanations why it does not use other proposed options for delivering goods, except for air transport, and references to force majeure circumstances are insufficient.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Plazol LLC and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 454/1032/24 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 to the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office for compensation for property and moral damage caused, in his opinion, by unlawful actions of officials of the prosecutor’s office during the consideration of his report of a criminal offense.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that in order to resolve the issue of compensation for damage, it is necessary to establish a number of important circumstances. In particular, the court of appeal did not clarify in whose interests PERSON_1 acted when applying to the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and did not check the jurisdiction within which this case should be considered. The court emphasized that it is the court’s responsibility
determine the nature of the disputed legal relationship, the content of the legal claim, the substantive law that regulates them, as well as the facts to be established and underlying the claims and objections. In addition, the appellate court needs to establish whether Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Bodies Engaged in Operative-Search Activity, Bodies of Pre-trial Investigation, Prosecutor’s Office and Court” apply to the disputed legal relations, taking into account the established circumstances of the case. Also, the Supreme Court refused to grant the motion to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as it does not see grounds for interpreting Article 56 of the Constitution of Ukraine or verifying the constitutionality of the resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in this case.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 280/13174/21 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the issuance by the Department of Environmental Protection of the Zaporizhzhia Regional State Administration of a permit to a private enterprise for the special use of natural resources within the boundaries of the Pryazovsky National Nature Park.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts regarding the illegality of issuing the permit, but changed the reasoning part of the decision. The Court emphasized that within the economic zone of national nature parks, only activities aimed at fulfilling the tasks of the park are permitted, with the exception of certain territories (settlements, communal facilities, lands of other landowners). The Court also emphasized that the permit for the special use of natural resources does not change the legislative restrictions regarding national nature parks, since the procedure for using natural resources is determined by the regime of territories and their intended purpose. In addition, the court pointed out that the permit was issued by an unauthorized body, since according to the law, the permit must be issued by the regional state administration, and not its structural subdivision. The court rejected the appellate court’s reference to the regulations on the Department of Environmental Protection, as it does not meet the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine”.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous courts, but left the decisions themselves unchanged.
Case No. 757/17853/23-ц dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order to suspend the employment contract, the renewal of the employment contract, and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
conclusions, which recognized as illegal the order of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” to suspend the employment contract with the plaintiff, since the defendant did not prove the impossibility of providing work to the plaintiff due to military aggression, considering her job responsibilities as an auditor, and also did not provide evidence that the Department of Internal Audit and Control, where the plaintiff worked, did not carry out its activities. The court emphasized that the very fact of military aggression is not an unconditional basis for suspending the employment contract, but the simultaneous impossibility of the employer providing work and the employee performing it is necessary. The court also noted that there is no rule of law that directly regulates the issue of payment of average earnings for the period of illegal suspension of the employment contract, but the most similar (analogous) to this situation is the application of parts one, two of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court recognized them as reasonable and proportional to the amount of work performed by the lawyer and the circumstances of the case, reducing only the amount for participation in court sessions.
4. The cassation court left the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 520/9801/24 dated May 28, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Kharkiv region regarding the formation of extracts from the technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of the land plot.
2. The Supreme Court, considering cassation appeals, noted that actions to form an extract from the technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of a land plot may be the subject of judicial appeal. The court emphasized that the indexation coefficient of the normative monetary valuation of land is applied cumulatively, depending on the date of the normative monetary valuation of land, and not on the date of entry into force of the council’s decision on the approval of this valuation. Also, the court indicated that the appellate court did not substantiate why different local factors and coefficients were applied when the properties of the land plot remained unchanged in 2019 and 2021. The court emphasized that the formation of an extract in automatic mode cannot be the basis for establishing the sizes of coefficients that do not meet the requirements of current legislation. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary for the appellate court to re-examine the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 600/1257/24-a dated May 28, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the payment of a one-time financial aid for the Independence Day of Ukraine in the amount provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans”.
, guarantees of their social protection.”
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that the plaintiff was paid financial assistance in the amount established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the basis of the Law of Ukraine No. 2983-IX, which came into force on April 15, 2023, which changed the procedure for paying one-time financial assistance for the Independence Day of Ukraine. The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in model case No. 440/12216/23 of May 14, 2025, which stated that the establishment of the procedure and amount of payment by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is lawful, as it corresponds to the powers of the government defined by the Constitution of Ukraine, and the changes made do not narrow the rights of war veterans. The court also noted that the one-time cash payment for the Independence Day of Ukraine is not a new type of social security, but a modified form of annual assistance, the procedure for payment of which may change taking into account the financial capabilities of the state.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 918/74/24 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the return of the appeal filed by the enterprise “Rivneoblvodokanal” in the case of debt collection for consumed electricity.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, stating that “Rivneoblvodokanal” did not eliminate the deficiencies of the appeal within the established period, namely, it did not provide evidence of payment of the court fee and sending a copy of the complaint to a third party. The court noted that the submission of a motion for deferral of payment of the court fee does not stop the running of the term for eliminating deficiencies. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the submission of two identical appeals with minor differences is not a basis for canceling the decision if it did not affect the correctness of the resolution of the dispute on the merits. The court emphasized that formal violations are not a basis for canceling a decision that is correct on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 336/7062/21 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to open proceedings on an application for review of a default judgment and the decision of the appellate court upholding this ruling.
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, as the courts of previous instances correctly established that the decision of the court of first instance was not a default judgment, since the defendant participated in court hearings and submitted a response to the claim, which excludes the possibility of reviewing the decision in the procedure provided for default proceedings; the error of the court of first instance regarding the pos
Reliance on paragraph 1 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine is not a basis for overturning a decision that is correct in substance; the appellate court reasonably considered the case in the absence of the defendant, since she was duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing, but did not connect via video conference. The court also took into account that the defendant had the right to appeal the decision of the court of first instance, which she did.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 758/2776/21 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of an easement on non-residential premises to ensure access to the plaintiff’s own real estate.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, partially satisfying the claim, based on the following: the plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute out of court regarding all the premises for which she requested the establishment of an easement, as her proposal to the defendant did not contain a clear identification of the easement objects and the conditions for its exercise. The court considered the expert’s opinion on the existence of a separate entrance to the plaintiff’s premises through staircase No. 147, which makes the establishment of an easement in another way excessively burdensome for the defendant. The court emphasized that the easement should be established in a way that is least burdensome for the owner of the property in respect of which it is established. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the plaintiff had not proven the impossibility of using her property without establishing an easement on all the claimed premises, and also did not provide evidence of the impossibility of arranging additional bathrooms in her premises.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claim for the establishment of an easement, limiting it to staircase No. 147.
Case No. 909/224/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of a land plot and its return to state ownership, as the prosecutor’s office believed that the defendant was using the land without legal grounds.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the right of permanent use of a land plot, acquired in the established procedure, does not terminate automatically upon a change in the organizational and legal form of the enterprise during privatization. The court emphasized that the right of permanent use remains valid until it is re-registered as ownership or lease. The court also took into account that the obligation to re-register the right of use, provided for by the transitional provisions of the Land Code, was declared unconstitutional. The court noted that the deprivation of the defendant’s land
that he lawfully uses, will lead to a review of the privatization results in a manner not provided by law. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which emphasized the preservation of the right of permanent land use during the reorganization of the enterprise.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 904/1357/24 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of members of the Service Cooperative “Housing Cooperative No. 8 Vesna”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, as it found that the cooperative violated the procedure for convening the general meeting, failing to properly notify the plaintiff, a member of the cooperative, of the date, time, and agenda of the meeting, which deprived him of the opportunity to participate in it. In addition, the court established the absence of a necessary quorum for making decisions at the meeting, as the number of members present did not meet the requirements of the cooperative’s charter. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff is not a member of the cooperative due to non-payment of contributions, as it was established that the plaintiff owns an apartment in the building, which, according to the charter, makes him a member of the cooperative. The court also disagreed with the defendant’s arguments regarding the need to suspend proceedings in the case until the resolution of another case in the administrative court, as it did not see an objective impossibility of considering this case without a decision of the administrative court. Regarding the additional decision on reimbursement of legal aid expenses, the court found it justified, considering the proportionality of the expenses to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 910/11335/23 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a main line diesel locomotive and the termination of the encumbrance in the form of a pledge.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances regarding the termination of the encumbrance, since the pledge agreement, on the basis of which this encumbrance arose, is valid and was not признаний invalid in another case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the previous courts did not take into account the need to protect the rights of a bona fide pledgee. The court noted that a valid pledge agreement is the basis for the existence of an encumbrance, and the termination of the encumbrance in the absence of invalidity of the pledge agreement is unlawful. At the same time, the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts regarding the recognition of ownership by the plaintiff, since the defendants did not признавать the plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed property, which is sufficias a basis for protecting the right of ownership in court. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to apply the doctrine of prohibition of contradictory behavior and the violation of Article 75 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part concerning the termination of the encumbrance, refusing to satisfy the claim in this part, but upheld the decision recognizing the plaintiff’s right of ownership.
Case No. 908/252/24 dated May 29, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by INFINITY GROUP LLC in connection with the consideration of a cassation appeal in a case regarding the recovery of debt from the Department of Education and Science of the Zaporizhzhia City Council.
The court of cassation instance, when considering the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the rule of law, as well as the provisions of Articles 123-130 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that it is not obliged to award the party in whose favor the decision was made all of its expenses for an attorney if it determines that the amount of the fee is inflated in relation to the other party to the dispute, considering the complexity of the case, the time spent by the attorney, and market prices for similar services. The court took into account that the plaintiff’s legal position in this category of disputes is established, the case is not complex, and the response to the cassation appeal did not require a significant amount of analytical work. Considering the above, the court concluded that the claimed expenses for professional legal assistance are inflated and do not meet the criteria of reality and reasonableness.
The court partially satisfied the application of INFINITY GROUP LLC and recovered UAH 5,000.00 from the Department of Education and Science of the Zaporizhzhia City Council for expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 748/25/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the dismissal of an employee for absenteeism as illegal, when the employee believes that they had the right not to come to work due to violations of labor legislation by the employer.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the employee’s claim for recognition of their dismissal for absenteeism as illegal. The court noted that for the dismissal of an employee on the basis of the third part of Article 38 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (in connection with the employer’s violation of labor legislation), it is necessary that the violations exist at the time of submitting the application for dismissal. The mere fact of previous violations that have been eliminated does not give the employee the right not to come to work if the employer did not agree to the dismissal under Article 38 of the Labor Code. Since the employee did not prove the existence of ongoing violations of labor legislation at the time of submitting the application for dismissal, their absence from work was recognized as absenteeism, which is the basis for dismissal under paragraph 4 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the submission
notification of resignation does not release the employee from the obligation to perform their labor duties until the moment of actual dismissal.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 420/11582/21 dated 05/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the SSU’s refusal to grant access to state secrets to the Deputy Prosecutor General, as well as the appeal of orders issued as a result of this refusal.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, noted that failure to report information about part-time work during the оформлення (processing) of access to state secrets may be regarded as providing unreliable information, which is grounds for refusal to grant such access. The court emphasized that the assessment of the completeness of the information provided belongs exclusively to the SSU, as the authorized body. At the same time, the court agreed that receiving a notification from the SSU about the refusal to grant access is not an automatic basis for terminating the existing access to state secrets, since a separate decision to cancel such access is necessary. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the orders to reduce the position and redistribute duties were illegal, since they related to the internal organization of the Office of the Prosecutor General and did not directly violate the plaintiff’s rights. The court pointed out that the powers of the head of the institution regarding the re- оформлення (re-processing) of documents for granting access to state secrets are discretionary.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of recognizing as unlawful the SSU’s conclusion on the refusal to grant access to state secrets, but left unchanged the decision on the unlawfulness of the order to terminate access to state secrets.
**Case No. 520/12906/23 dated 05/29/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration to the serviceman, who, in his opinion, was entitled to payments in the amount of up to UAH 100,000 for the period of participation in combat operations.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of direct participation in combat operations during the disputed period, as provided for by CMU Resolution No. 168 and relevant internal orders. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with this approach, pointing out that the courts did not clarify all the circumstances of the case, in particular, what tasks the plaintiff performed during the disputed period, where exactly he served, and whether these tasks fell under the criteria that give the right to receive additional remuneration. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination of all evidence, as well as the court’s obligation to actively clarify all the circumstances of the case, and not to shift the burden of proof exclusively to the plaintiff.
the case, taking into account the specific tasks performed by the serviceman, to resolve the issue of additional remuneration payment.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back to the court of first instance for a full examination of all the circumstances.
Case No. 640/11509/21 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Office of the Prosecutor General in favor of the plaintiff of the average earnings for the period of non-execution of the court decision on reinstatement.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 236 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of this norm, and also violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. The court emphasized that the cancellation of a court decision on the reinstatement of an employee does not release the employer from the obligation to pay the average earnings for the delay in the execution of this decision. The court indicated that the appellate court had to establish the period of delay in the execution of the reinstatement decision and verify the correctness of the calculation of the average earnings for this period, which was not done. The court also noted that the appellate court ignored the conclusions set out in the previous decision of the Supreme Court in the same case, which is unacceptable. The court emphasized that the principle of binding nature of a court decision is key, and its violation entails responsibility.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new trial.
Case No. 522/12238/22 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for attempted robbery, committed repeatedly, under martial law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it found that the local court reasonably found the person’s guilt proven on the basis of the testimony of the victim and the witness, which are consistent with each other and other evidence, such as identification protocols and inspection of material evidence; the court of first instance properly assessed the testimony of the convicted person, concluding that he had chosen a method of defense in order to avoid responsibility; the convicted person’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to defense are unfounded, since he was provided with a defender, and the procedure for replacing a lawyer providing free legal aid was not violated; also, the court noted that the convicted person did not file petitions for familiarization with the case materials during the trial, and the investigator informed him about the completion of the pre-trial investigation and the provision of access to the materials, which the latter refused. The appellate court
properly verified the arguments of the appeal and reasonably upheld the verdict.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 591/3946/20 of 29/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership by inheritance and the invalidation of certificates of the right to inheritance by law regarding a share in the authorized capital of the LLC.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance on the invalidation of certificates of the right to inheritance, since the plaintiff did not prove how the disputed certificates violate her rights to inherit a share in the authorized capital of the LLC, and did not substantiate how the invalidation of the certificates would protect her rights, especially considering the presence of other participants in the company whose shares were not the subject of the dispute. The court of cassation noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence collected in the case, and agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a violated right that requires protection in the manner chosen by her. Also, the Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the appellant’s reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 243/2499/20, since the legal relations in this case are not similar to those under consideration.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/5187/24 of 29/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the notification of rejection of the order for the payment of dividends and the obligation to perform actions for the payment of these dividends.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff’s company tried to pay dividends not to all shareholders at the same time, but only to those to whom sanctions are not applied, which contradicts the Law of Ukraine “On Joint Stock Companies” and the terms of the agreement with the depository; the court also noted that there is no evidence of the application of sanctions directly to the company “SMART HOLDING (CYPRUS) LTD”, and the application of sanctions to the beneficial owner is not a basis for non-payment of dividends to the company. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part referring to the failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/268/23, since the legal relations in this case are not similar to those under consideration. The court also noted that the appellant did not substantiate the need to form a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of specific legal norms to which he refers, and his arguments amount to disagreement with the assessment of evidence by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the ev> а його завдання полягає у перевірці правильності застосування норм права.
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №176/1626/23 dated 05/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the recovery from a state enterprise in favor of an individual for compensation for moral damage caused by health impairment.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute arose within the scope of consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combine the enforcement of decisions of courts of different jurisdictions. The Supreme Court emphasized that appeals against the actions of a state enforcement officer in consolidated enforcement proceedings, which include decisions of courts of different jurisdictions, should be considered by an administrative court, not a civil court. The court took into account previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of such disputes. The court emphasized that courts must verify compliance with jurisdictional rules regardless of the parties’ arguments. The court noted that an erroneous determination of jurisdiction is an unconditional ground for the reversal of court decisions. The court pointed out the need to explain to the person the right to appeal to the administrative court.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case in the procedure of administrative proceedings.
**Case №523/16115/22 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property by evicting the defendants from the residential premises owned by the plaintiff.
2. The court granted the claim because it found that the plaintiff owns 60/100 shares of the residential building based on a court decision, and the defendants (relatives of the previous owner of another part of the house) are unauthorizedly residing in the part of the house belonging to the plaintiff, thereby preventing her from using her property. The court took into account that the defendants have no legal grounds for residing in this part of the house, as they are not owners, do not have registration, and did not obtain the plaintiff’s consent to reside. The court also took into account previous court decisions that established the fact that the previous owner (relative of the defendants) obstructed the plaintiff in the use of her property. The court noted that the eviction of the defendants is a proportionate measure, as it protects the plaintiff’s property right, guaranteed by both national legislation and international acts. The court also took into account that the disputed housing is not the only one for the defendant, as she has the right to use another part of the same house.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 201/5492/25 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Dnipro Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings against PERSON_5 and PERSON_7, accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 28, Part 1 of Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as it states that the full text of the ruling will be announced later. Accordingly, it is impossible to analyze the court’s reasoning based solely on this part of the decision. The full text of the ruling is necessary for analysis, as it will contain the grounds for the decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the submission of the Dnipro Court of Appeal.
Case No. 920/1481/23 dated May 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by the “Lan” Peasant (Farm) Enterprise against the Buryn City Council for the renewal of a land lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the farm enterprise’s claim. The courts found that the lessee duly notified the lessor of its intention to renew the lease agreement, but the city council did not provide any justified objections within the time period established by law. The court took into account that the lessee continued to use the land plot and pay rent after the expiration of the agreement, and the city council did not request the release of the plot. The court also noted that the city council evaded consideration of the lessee’s proposals for the renewal of the agreement, which indicates a lack of good faith in fulfilling the obligation to respond to the lessee’s proposal. The court rejected the city council’s arguments that the lessee had applied for amendments to the agreement, as these applications were ignored and no reasoned refusal was provided. The court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” establishes a clear procedure for the parties’ actions when renewing a lease agreement, and in this case, the city council did not comply with this procedure.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 907/408/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
2. The court granted the motion of LLC “Eurotranstelecom”, as the right to legal assistance is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and one of the principles of commercial court proceedings is the reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made. The court took into account that the defendant complied with the requirements regarding the submission of a preliminary calculation of expenses and an application for an additional decision with evidence of incurred expenses.
The evidence provided by the defendant (contract, additional agreement, act of acceptance and transfer of services, payment instruction) confirms the actual provision of legal assistance. The court rejected the plaintiff’s objections because each court instance decides on the distribution of court costs separately, and the plaintiff did not prove the disproportion of the defendant’s costs to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided.
3. The court decided to grant the motion of LLC “Eurotranstelecom” and recover UAH 14,500 from JSC “Ukrainian Railways” in favor of LLC “Eurotranstelecom” for professional legal assistance expenses.
Case №176/1013/22 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of funds from SE “SkhidHZK” in favor of an individual as compensation for moral damage caused by health impairment.
2. The court of cassation established that the enforcement proceeding was joined to the consolidated enforcement proceeding, which combines the execution of court decisions rendered by courts of different jurisdictions. The Supreme Court emphasized that in such cases, according to the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the relevant disputes fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts and are subject to consideration under the rules of administrative procedure. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take this fact into account and erroneously considered the case under the rules of civil procedure, violating the rules of jurisdiction. Also, the court took into account that the courts must check compliance with the rules of jurisdiction regardless of the parties’ arguments.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case under the rules of administrative procedure.
Case №279/4120/23 dated 05/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against JSC “Ukrainian Railways” for reinstatement to work and recovery of average earnings due to the illegal suspension of the employment contract.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the suspension of the employment contract was illegal, since JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” did not prove the impossibility of providing the plaintiff with work due to military aggression, in particular, did not substantiate why it was impossible to transfer the plaintiff to another job or involve them in remote work. The court noted that the mere decrease in the volume of economic activity is not a basis for suspending employment contracts. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that in this case, since the disputed relations are not directly regulated by the norms of the Labor Code, the analogy of the law is applicable, namely part two of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which provides for the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence in case of illegal dismissal.
