**Case No. 545/3264/20 dated 05/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on releasing a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for charges of fraud.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which closed the criminal proceedings against a person accused of fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) based on the expiration of the statute of limitations provided for in Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; The Court took into account that the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability for crimes under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine had expired at the time the case was considered by the appellate court, and there is no evidence that the person evaded investigation or committed new crimes that would suspend or interrupt the course of these terms; The Court noted that the inaction of the prosecution during the pre-trial investigation, which led to the expiration of the statute of limitations, is not a basis for refusing to grant a motion for release from criminal liability; The Court emphasized that a person’s non-recognition of guilt is not an obstacle to release from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, as this is a right of the person, not an obligation; The Court also indicated that the appellate court rightfully refused to re-examine the evidence, as the court of first instance examined all possible evidence in compliance with the principle of immediacy, and the appellate court agreed with them.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and the cassation appeals of the victims and the prosecutor were dismissed.
**Case No. 161/5016/21 dated 05/27/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of a verdict against a person convicted of distributing child pornography and committing lewd acts against a minor.
The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, emphasizing that changes in criminal law did not decriminalize the convict’s actions, but only transferred responsibility to another article, increasing the punishment, therefore the courts correctly applied the law in force at the time of the crime. The Court also noted that digital images can be the subject of a crime under Article 301 of the Criminal Code, and sending them on different days indicates repeated actions with separate intent. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the objective aspect of the debauchery of a minor was proven, as the images were sent to an account used by the victim. The Court rejected the version about the actions of artificial intelligence, taking into account other actions of the convict that could not be the result of the program’s activity. The Supreme Court also recognized the punishment as fair, taking into account the severity of the crime and the lack of remorse.
The Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling.
court of appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 465/4824/21 dated May 28, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is an application for the distribution of court costs, namely the recovery from the plaintiff of the costs of professional legal assistance incurred by the private enforcement officer in the court of cassation.
The court of cassation, granting the application, proceeded from the fact that the representative of the private enforcement officer in the cassation appeal requested the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 40,000.00, in support of which he provided an agreement on the provision of legal aid. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not object to the amount of these expenses. Also, the court took into account the nature of the legal relations in the case, the scope of services provided by the lawyer, the complexity of the case and the necessary procedural actions of the party. The court noted that the specified amount of expenses corresponds to the criterion of reality of the provided legal services and their scope. The court refers to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court regarding the criteria for determining and distributing court costs, in particular, their validity, necessity and reasonableness of the amount.
The court decided to grant the application of the representative of the private enforcement officer and recover from PERSON_1 in favor of the private enforcement officer UAH 40,000.00 of court costs for professional legal assistance.
**Case No. 148/949/21 dated May 28, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in serious consequences).
2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, took into account that the appellate court, worsening the position of the convicted person, did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances, namely sincere repentance, full compensation for damages to the victims, positive characteristics, charitable activities and family circumstances. The court of cassation took into account the petitions of the victims, who asked to release the convicted person from serving the sentence on probation, since he fully compensated for the damage caused. Also, the court of cassation took into account that sincere repentance is possible at any stage of the criminal process if a person expresses regret about the committed act and wishes to settle the guilt. Based on these factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the correction of the convicted person is possible without isolation from society.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the appellate court’s verdict in the part of the imposed punishment, and released PERSON_8 from serving the main sentence with probation for three years.
**Case No. 522/16735/17 dated May 28, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage, the obligation to perform certain actions, and in
Recognition of a person as having lost the right to use premises.
3. The court of cassation instance, satisfying the defendant’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by recovering court fee from the defendant, since the claim was dismissed, and the defendant is a person with II group disability, who is exempt from paying court fee in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”. The court of cassation instance emphasized that imposing the obligation to pay court fee on the defendant in whose favor the decision was made contradicts the norms of procedural law, and the defendant’s exemption from paying court fee as a person with disability was not taken into account. Considering that the appellate court refused to satisfy the claim, the costs of paying the court fee for filing the appeal are imposed on the plaintiff.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part of recovery of court fee for filing the appeal from the defendant in favor of the bank.
Case No. 902/333/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of an individual to recognize a tax debt as hopeless and write it off within the insolvency case.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the debtor’s motion to write off the tax debt, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the tax debt occurrence, in particular, whether the tax assessment notices, on the basis of which the debt arose, were appealed, and whether there are court decisions regarding the recovery of this debt. The court noted that in order to determine whether the tax debt falls under the criteria of hopeless (that is, arose within three years before the opening of proceedings in the insolvency case), it is necessary to establish the date when the monetary obligations acquired the status of tax debt, taking into account the possible appeal of tax assessment notices. The court also pointed out the prematurity of the conclusion about the impossibility of submitting a debt restructuring plan, since the issue of writing off the tax debt has not yet been finally resolved. The court emphasized that the purpose of restructuring is to restore the debtor’s solvency, and not a formal write-off of debts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 750/12323/23 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for the recovery of 3% per annum and inflation losses accrued on the amount of pension that was paid with a delay in execution of the decision of the administrative court.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate
regarding the closure of proceedings in the case, as the dispute is not subject to consideration under civil procedure. The court noted that the claim for recovery of 3% per annum and inflation losses is derived from the main obligation, which arose from the decision of the administrative court regarding the recalculation of the pension. Considering the accessory nature of these claims, the dispute must be considered under the rules of the jurisdiction to which the main dispute belongs, i.e., under the rules of administrative procedure. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirms this approach to determining jurisdiction in similar cases. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of procedural law and incorrect interpretation of the conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected, as they do not affect the correctness of the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of proceedings in the case.
Case No. 757/14963/23-ц dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the bank to reimburse the client for funds unauthorizedly debited from his card account as a result of fraudulent actions.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff, while communicating with unknown persons, did not question the presence of confidential information in them, confirmed the last digits of his bank card and followed their instructions, which indicates facilitating fraudsters in initiating payment transactions. The court took into account that the entry into the bank’s mobile application and the execution of transactions were confirmed by access codes that were sent to the plaintiff’s financial telephone number. The appellate court also referred to the terms of the banking service agreement, according to which the client is obliged to ensure that third parties cannot obtain information about the login, password, PIN code, etc., and bears the risk of transferring the mobile phone to which bank notifications are received. Considering the plaintiff’s violation of the terms of the agreement, the court concluded that it was his actions that led to the loss of funds.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 216/3696/20 dated May 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for reinstatement, recognition of dismissal orders as illegal, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, and compensation for moral damages, related to the plaintiff’s dismissal on the basis of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (refusal to continue working due to changes in essential working conditions).
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that changes occurred in JSC “Ukrposhta”.
innovations in the organization of production and labor, which was the basis for changing the essential terms of the plaintiff’s employment. The court noted that the plaintiff was properly notified of the change in essential terms of employment and offered a position that corresponds to her specialty, qualifications, and position. Since the plaintiff did not consent to the continuation of labor relations under the new conditions, her dismissal is lawful. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that her dismissal was illegal due to being on sick leave, as the date of dismissal was changed after the submission of the certificate of incapacity for work. In addition, the court emphasized that there are no grounds for obtaining the consent of the trade union body for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not a member of the elected body of the trade union organization.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №420/4737/21 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the prosecutor’s office’s refusal to compensate for damages caused by illegal prosecution, namely, unpaid monetary allowance and moral damages.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff was not removed from office within the framework of the criminal proceedings, but was dismissed on the basis of a disciplinary sanction, the assessment of which had already been given by the court in a previous case. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that he did not have the opportunity to find employment in another period of time and lost earnings due to the actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies. Also, the courts did not establish the illegality of the actions of the prosecutor’s office when issuing a decision to refuse compensation for damages, and the plaintiff’s disagreement with this decision is not a basis for recognizing it as illegal. Considering the lack of evidence of moral damages, the courts also refused to compensate for them.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case №369/4881/19 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the contract for the provision of legal assistance and the contract for the assignment of the right of claim.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the plaintiff was not duly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing in the court of first instance, which is a violation of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court emphasized that the court’s obligation to notify the parties to the case of the court hearing is one of the basic principles of civil procedure, and its non-fulfillment leads to a violation not only of the right of the party to the case, but also of the principles of civil procedure.
twa. The appellate court failed to consider that the examination of the case in the absence of a duly notified participant is an unconditional ground for the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes the importance of notifying a party about a hearing in such a way that it has the opportunity to participate in it.
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. 922/3066/20 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the local self-government body regarding the alienation of a communal property object, the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement of this object, and the obligation to return it to the territorial community.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court on the partial satisfaction of the application for the distribution of court costs, since the appellate court, when distributing court costs for professional legal assistance, rightfully followed the criteria defined by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), in particular, took into account the validity of the prosecutor’s appeal arguments regarding the illegality of the alienation of property, the lack of reputational significance for the defendant of the outcome of the case review, and the fact that a significant part of the costs consisted of the costs of preparing additional explanations, the position in which was refuted by the court. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence and establish the circumstances of the case, and its task is only to verify compliance by the courts of previous instances with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court also noted that the available conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of the CPC of Ukraine, which regulate the distribution of court costs, are relevant to this dispute.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the additional decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 357/10437/22 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of a garden house and land plot as jointly acquired property, and recognition of ownership of a 1/2 share of this property.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claims for recognition of property as jointly acquired property, since the plaintiff did not prove the fact of cohabitation with the defendant at the time she acquired ownership of the disputed property, which she received as a gift. The court noted that the decisive factor is not the fact of an increase in the value of the property during cohabitation, but the legal nature of such an increase, namely joint labor or financial costs, which the plaintiff did not prove. The court also
took into account that the plaintiff did not file any motions to determine the value of the property at the time of the commencement of cohabitation and its improvement during this period. The court emphasized that the burden of proving a significant increase in the value of the property as a result of joint expenses lies with the plaintiff, as he is not the owner of the property. In addition, the court took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of establishing the fact of cohabitation, common household, and mutual rights and obligations for recognizing property as jointly owned property.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 456/3589/23 dated May 29, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without providing detailed arguments in the operative part. It can be assumed that the court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_7 in committing the criminal offense under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as with the correct application of the norms of substantive and procedural law. Since the full text of the ruling will be announced later, a more detailed analysis of the court’s motives is currently impossible. The defense counsel likely filed a cassation appeal, considering the verdict unfounded or illegal, but the Supreme Court found no grounds for its satisfaction.
The court ruled: to leave the verdict of the Stryi City District Court of Lviv Oblast dated November 2, 2023, and the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeal dated February 1, 2024, regarding PERSON_7 unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of defense counsel PERSON_6.
Case No. 761/31121/14-ц dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the Kyiv City Council on the transfer of a land plot to private ownership as illegal, the recognition of state acts on the right of ownership of land and the sale and purchase agreement as invalid, and the return of the land plot to the disposal of the Kyiv City Council.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with the conclusion of the appellate court that the prosecutor missed the statute of limitations. The court noted that the prosecutor’s office was aware of the violation of state interests as early as May 2006, when the Deputy Prosecutor General filed protests against the decisions of the Kyiv City Council, while the prosecutor filed a lawsuit only in January 2013. The court rejected the prosecutor’s arguments that the violation became known only in December 2012, as these arguments do not refute the fact of prior awareness.
prosecution authorities. The court also took into account that the defendants had declared the application of the statute of limitations, and there were no grounds to consider the reasons for missing the deadline as valid. The court of cassation emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to re-evaluate the evidence.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 916/4912/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of one measure to secure a claim with another in a case regarding the recovery of damages in the amount of UAH 38,775,051.78, caused by the refusal to accept goods (tomatoes) under a supply contract.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to deny the motion of VITMARK AGRO LLC to replace the measure to secure the claim, as the defendant had not proven the necessity of such a replacement. The court noted that the seizure of funds and property of the defendant within the amount of the claim is an adequate measure to secure the claim in disputes regarding the recovery of funds, as it guarantees the real execution of the court decision in case the claim is satisfied. The court also took into account that the defendant did not exercise the right provided for in Part 4 of Article 143 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the deposit of funds into the court’s escrow account or the provision of a bank guarantee for the amount of the claim, which would be an indisputable basis for canceling the applied measures to secure the claim. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the seizure of funds negatively affects its business activities, as such seizure was imposed within the amount of the claim.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of VITMARK AGRO LLC and upheld the ruling of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 201/8212/18 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for material and moral damages caused by a traffic accident, in particular, the recovery from the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU) of expenses for the treatment of the victim.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the MTIBU’s representative, indicating that the courts of previous instances did not properly substantiate the decision to recover the costs of the victim’s treatment from the MTIBU, as there was not sufficient evidence to confirm the necessity and justification of these costs, namely the causal relationship between the traffic accident and the treatment, which includes not only payment documents but also extracts from the medical history, prescriptions for medications, etc. The court noted that in order to receive insurance compensation, the injured person must provide not only payment documents certifying the purchase of medicines or other
costs, but also documents confirming the necessity of their purchase (extract from the medical history, prescriptions for medicines, etc.), that is, to prove the existence of a causal relationship between the traffic accident and the treatment. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments about the need to deviate from the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the established legal position regarding the procedure for obtaining insurance compensation. Since the court of cassation instance does not have the right to examine evidence, the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance in the part of recovery of treatment costs.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of recovery of treatment costs from the MTSBU in favor of the victim and ordered a new trial in this part in the court of first instance in the order of civil procedure, and left the rest of the decision unchanged.
Case No. 643/4662/23 dated May 28, 2025
Case No. 161/5016/21 dated May 27, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 and his defense attorney against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding criminal proceedings, the details of which are not disclosed in the operative part.
Since only the operative part of the judgment is provided, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court. However, considering that the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, it can be assumed that the court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proof of the convict’s guilt, the correctness of the qualification of his actions, and the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the cancellation of court decisions. Also, the court could have taken into account the arguments of the convict and the defense attorney, but found them unfounded or not affecting the legality and validity of the appealed decisions. The lack of detailed information about the circumstances of the case and the motives of the court does not allow for a more specific analysis.
The Supreme Court ruled: the judgment of the Lutsk City District Court of the Volyn Region dated December 12, 2022, and the ruling of the Rivne Court of Appeal dated July 30, 2024, regarding PERSON_6, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convict and the defense attorney shall be dismissed.
Case No. 910/18632/23 (910/8585/24) dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the property action of the debtor, namely the transfer of funds to a related party during a suspicious period, as one that caused damage to creditors.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, noting that bankruptcy law has priority over general norms of civil law in bankruptcy cases, and the institution of challengingof property actions is an effective means of protecting the rights of creditors. The court emphasized that for the application of Art. 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Proceedings, the date of opening the bankruptcy case is important, not the date of the transaction, therefore, the version of the article in effect at the time of opening the proceedings is subject to application. The court also took into account that the transfer of funds to a related party during the suspect period, in the presence of significant accounts payable, contradicts the principles of reasonableness and good faith. The court emphasized that the purpose of refuting a property action is to return assets to the liquidation estate to satisfy the claims of creditors, and this is justified even without invalidating the contract on the basis of which the payment was made.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 461/7077/21 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the act of special investigation of a fatal accident at work and the obligation to conduct a repeated investigation.
2. The court agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that the investigation act is incomplete, unreliable and illegal, since the commission did not investigate important circumstances, namely: the journals of issuing personal protective equipment were not obtained and investigated, the act does not fully state the list of violations committed by the foreman, the persons responsible for the labor protection service at the enterprise were not identified, Section 10 of the act was not completed and none of the appendices to the act were provided, the information in the “Date of safety briefings” section is false, and the commission did not provide an appropriate assessment of the actions (inaction) of officials of “MK Garant” LLC. The court noted that since work at height is classified as work of increased danger, it was necessary to establish whether appropriate safety briefings and training were conducted, and whether the employee was provided with the necessary personal protective equipment. The court also took into account that the act incorrectly indicates the absence of harmful or dangerous factors in the workplace. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defendant’s cassation appeal that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since the factual circumstances in these cases differ.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову [resolution, ruling] of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/675/24 dated 04/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the right to lease land plots and their return, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, supporting the position of the court of
of the court of first instance on the nullity of lease agreements, since the individual received land plots for farming repeatedly, after the registration of the farm, which contradicts the requirements of land legislation, which allows free receipt of land for these purposes only once; the court emphasized that such agreements violate public order, as they are aimed at illegal seizure of land, and are null and void under the Civil Code of Ukraine; the court also noted that the requirement to return land plots is a proper way to protect the right, as it aims to remove obstacles to the owner’s use of the property, but rejected the requirement to cancel the state registration of the lease right, considering it an improper way to protect, since registration only certifies the ownership of the property to a certain person, and its cancellation does not restore the violated right. The court deviated from the conclusions of the Supreme Court, stated in the resolution of March 12, 2024 in case No. 922/3953/21 and the resolution of April 09, 2024 in case No. 629/6198/21.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part of the refusal to return land plots, leaving the decision of the court of first instance in force, and changed the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling in the part of the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right.
Case No. 203/3356/20 dated May 27, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the owner of real estate to the adjacent land user to eliminate obstacles in the use of her property by dismantling temporary structures.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the fact that the defendant created obstacles in the use of her property, taking into account the terms of the land lease agreement, which mentions partial restriction of access, the expert’s opinion on the compliance of the defendant’s structures with building and fire regulations, and the letter from the city council on the legality of the placement of structures. The court noted that the plaintiff’s buildings are located inside the market area, surrounded by the defendant’s land and торговельними рядами. The arguments of the cassation appeal come down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence by the courts of previous instances, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation court. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the legal relations in those cases differ from this case.
3. The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 473/4906/23 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property by evicting the defendants from a residential building, the owner of which is the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court
regarding the suspension of proceedings in the case, as one of the defendants, PERSON_3, was conscripted into military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine in connection with mobilization and sent to undergo military service in a military unit participating in combat operations. The court noted that, according to paragraph 2 of part one of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court is obliged to suspend proceedings in the case if a party is in the Armed Forces of Ukraine that have been transferred to martial law. The court indicated that this norm is of an imperative nature and imposes an obligation on the court to suspend proceedings regardless of any other factors. The court also took into account that the defendant is indeed undergoing military service, as confirmed by relevant documents. The court emphasized that the suspension of proceedings in the case does not violate the right to a fair trial, as it is due to the objective impossibility of hearing the case in the absence of a party performing the constitutional duty of defending the state.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case remained unchanged.
Case No. 461/10178/21 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the meeting of co-owners of an apartment building, the cancellation of the minutes of this meeting, the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement with the manager, and the obligation to restore the previous tariff for the maintenance of the building.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the rejection of the claims, but changed the reasons for the rejection. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protecting their rights, since the demand to recognize the invalidity of the meeting itself and the cancellation of the minutes is not a proper method of protection. The court indicated that it is the decision of the meeting of co-owners that can be recognized as invalid in court, and not the meeting itself or the minutes, which only record the fact of the decision. Since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, the claim should be rejected on these grounds, but the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to apply to the court with a claim for recognizing the decision of the meeting as invalid. Regarding the additional decision on the distribution of court costs, the Supreme Court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation by the court of first instance of the norms of procedural law during its adoption are not accepted, since these arguments are not covered by the limits of the cassation review of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part concerning the reasons for rejecting the claim, setting them out in its ruling, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 903/753/22 dated 05/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is compensation for professional f
Legal aid expenses incurred by Individual Entrepreneur (FOP) Dunaichuk O.S. in connection with the review of the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Kovelagrospecpostach.”
The court granted the application of FOP Dunaichuk O.S. for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal aid, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made, and the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the distribution of such expenses. The court took into account the evidence provided by the plaintiff confirming the expenses incurred, the scope of services provided by the attorney, and the absence of objections from the defendant regarding the amount of these expenses. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal aid should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the attorney, and also assessed the criterion of reasonable necessity of these expenses. The court also took into account that the defendant did not exercise the right to file an application for a reduction of expenses for legal aid.
The court decided to recover from PrJSC “Kovelagrospecpostach” in favor of FOP Dunaichuk O.S. UAH 15,000 for expenses for professional legal aid.
Case No. 922/2985/24 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Novobavarskyi Beton” (supplier) in favor of LLC “Budivelna Kompaniya “Yevrobudkompleks” (buyer) of the amount of prepayment under the supply agreement, penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses due to the allegedly improper performance by the supplier of the obligation to supply the paid goods.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that LLC “Novobavarskyi Beton” proved with proper evidence the fact of delivery of goods to LLC “Budivelna Kompaniya “Yevrobudkompleks” for the amount of prepayment, providing expenditure and commodity-transport invoices, as well as a witness statement. The court rejected the arguments of LLC “Budivelna Kompaniya “Yevrobudkompleks” about the falsification of documents provided by the defendant, since the plaintiff did not prove the absence of the fact of delivery of goods under these invoices. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s failure to contact the defendant regarding the non-delivery of the paid goods was not the only basis for refusing the claim, but the main thing was proving the fact of delivery. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out the error of the courts of previous instances in recovering expenses for professional legal aid in favor of LLC “Novobavarskyi Beton,” since the latter did not submit evidence of the amount of these expenses before the end of the judicial debates and did not declare its intention to submit them later.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the additional decision on the recovery of expenses for professional legal aid, and in the rest, left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 904/5059/23 dated 05/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of the creditor against the b
Debtor in a bankruptcy case of an individual, arising from a loan agreement and a receipt.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and first instance courts, as the appellate court did not properly assess the creditor’s evidence regarding the origin of the funds, and the first instance court did not consider the Supreme Court’s conclusions regarding the need for a thorough examination of the validity of creditor claims in bankruptcy cases, and also did not take into account the provisions regarding exemption from liability for overdue monetary obligations during martial law. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of a comprehensive examination of evidence, assessment of the creditor’s financial capacity, and consideration of legislative restrictions introduced in connection with martial law when calculating interest for the use of the loan. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, which makes it impossible to make a lawful and justified decision. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out the need to apply a higher standard of proof in cases of bankruptcy of individuals, especially when there are doubts about the reality of the debt.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/333/24 dated 05/21/2025
5. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decisions of previous instances on declaring an individual bankrupt and initiating a debt repayment procedure.
6. The courts of previous instances declared the individual bankrupt, motivating this by the fact that a debt restructuring plan was not submitted, the debtor’s financial condition is characterized by signs of insolvency, there are no property assets to satisfy the creditors’ claims, and the satisfaction of claims is possible only through the debt repayment procedure; the Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, pointing out that the courts formally approached the case, did not properly examine the report of the restructuring manager regarding the verification of the debtor’s property status, did not assess the tax authority’s arguments about the debtor’s bad faith and incomplete information in the property declarations; Also, the Supreme Court noted that the cancellation of court decisions on writing off the tax debt makes the conclusion about the impossibility of submitting a restructuring plan premature.
7. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 757/13201/24-ц dated 06/04/2025
8. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of acting director of a state-owned enterprise and reinstatement to this position.
9. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that from
