Case No. 910/9868/24 dated 06/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the auction for the sale of a special permit for the use of mineral resources as invalid and the recovery of the guarantee fee.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine (Derzhgeonadra) provided inaccurate information about the subsoil plot put up for auction, in particular regarding its location, intended purpose, and the existence of restrictions related to the environmental status of the territory and private ownership of land plots, which makes the extraction of minerals impossible. The court emphasized that the auction participant has the right to expect reliable information about the object, and shortcomings in the information provided by Derzhgeonadra violate the plaintiff’s rights. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide all the necessary documentation for holding the auction for the sale of a special permit for the use of mineral resources, in particular, as provided for by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund”, the Regulations “Rika Limnytsia”, and, in addition, the documentation for holding the auction incorrectly indicated the administrative-territorial unit to which the land plot of the special permit (part of it) belongs. Since the auction was declared invalid, the court agreed with the return to the plaintiff of the guarantee fee paid by him, referring to the provisions of Articles 216, 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the arguments of Derzhgeonadra’s cassation appeal regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of certain norms, since other motives and conclusions of the courts were key in the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed Derzhgeonadra’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/127/21 dated 04/17/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the right to use land plots and the obligation to take actions to return these plots in proper condition.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, indicating that the National Academy of Internal Affairs (NAIA), having received land plots for permanent use for the maintenance of a recreation center, concluded an agreement with “Rezon” Firm LLC on the construction of a residential and recreational complex, which contradicts the intended purpose of the land and creates preconditions for its disposal from state ownership. The court emphasized that the permanent land user has no right to dispose of the land, and its use for purposes other than the intended purpose is a basis for termination of the right to use. At the same time, the availability of urban planning conditions and a permit for construction works
works does not confirm the legality of land use, as there is no consent from the owner (Kyiv City State Administration) to change the designated purpose. The court also noted that the expert’s opinion on the compliance of land use with the designated purpose is legal, not factual, and cannot be taken into account.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the claim to terminate the right to use land plots and obligating their return in proper condition.
Case No. 910/18632/23 (910/8819/24) dated 06/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refutation of the property action of “Deivest” LLC regarding the transfer of funds to “Fastiv Agro” LLC within the framework of the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing the priority of special bankruptcy legislation over general norms of civil and commercial law, as well as the fact that Article 42 of the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine is applied in the version in force at the time of the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court noted that the purpose of bankruptcy legislation is to protect the interests of creditors, and actions of the debtor aimed at reducing its solvency in favor of a related party in the “suspicious period” are unfair. The court indicated that the refutation of a property action, rather than declaring a contract invalid, is an effective method of protection, as it allows the funds to be returned to the liquidation estate of the debtor to satisfy the claims of creditors. The court also took into account that the transfer of funds occurred during a period of the company’s unprofitability and the existence of significant accounts payable, which indicates the debtor’s unfair actions. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the necessity of applying the norms in force at the time of the property action and regarding the choice of an ineffective method of protection.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Fastiv Agro” LLC and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 911/2308/23 (369/4028/23) dated 06/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of a cassation appeal in the insolvency case.
The court partially granted the application, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made, and taking into account the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of costs. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the timem spent by the attorney. The court also took into account that the service of legal analysis of the cassation appeal and the formation of a legal position is actually covered by the service of preparing a response. The court took into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the distribution of expenses for legal assistance, regardless of the fact of their payment, however, taking into account the circumstances of the case, it concluded that the declared amount of expenses is excessive and does not meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. The court referred to the practice of the ECHR, according to which agreements between a lawyer and a client are not binding on the court when assessing legal costs.
The court ordered to recover from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 1650 of expenses for professional legal assistance, refusing to satisfy the application in other part.
Case No. 916/4914/23 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage due to the debtor’s failure to fulfill obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that LLC “Credit Investment Group” is the legal successor of the original creditor, and LLC “Universal Direct” is the legal successor of the property guarantor. The court noted that the very fact of the destruction of the real estate object is not an obstacle to foreclosure on it, since the rights to both use the land plot and reconstruct and restore the real estate object pass to the buyer. Also, the court took into account that in cases established by law, the owner is not only entitled, but also obliged to carry out the restoration of the destroyed object, especially when it comes to cultural heritage objects. The court emphasized that the purpose of the foreclosure is to sell the property to satisfy the mortgagee’s claims, and the destruction of the object does not make this process impossible.
3. The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the decisions of previous instances and make a new decision to satisfy the claim, foreclosing on the subject of the mortgage.
Case No. 910/6822/24 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Lizard Soft” in favor of JSC “Ukrtelecom” of UAH 9,383,582.50 of the paid advance due to the termination of the contract due to LLC “Lizard Soft” violating the terms of providing services.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that LLC “Lizard Soft” violated the terms of providing services under the contract, which gave JSC “Ukrtelecom” the right to unilaterally terminate the contract. The court noted that a change in the terms of service provision is possible only if there is a significant change in circumstances and the correspondingof a relevant additional agreement, which was not done in this case. The court rejected Lizard Soft LLC’s arguments that the terms were changed by another document signed between Ukrtelecom JSC and the subcontractor, since Lizard Soft LLC was not a party to this document. The court also emphasized that since the contract was lawfully terminated due to a breach by Lizard Soft LLC, Ukrtelecom JSC is entitled to a refund of the advance payment for the uncompleted stages of work based on Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court indicated that partial performance of the contract does not preclude the possibility of a refund of the advance payment if the counter-provision was not made in full.
2. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of Lizard Soft LLC and to uphold the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 756/59/20 dated 12/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts for the sale and purchase of securities (shares) as invalid due to their conclusion without the consent of one of the spouses.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the contracts for the sale and purchase of shares as invalid, based on the fact that the shares were acquired during the marriage and are the joint common property of the spouses, and the alienation of the shares occurred without the written consent of the other spouse, which is a violation of the requirements of the Family Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the presumption of consent of one of the spouses to dispose of joint property applies in favor of a bona fide acquirer, however, the courts of previous instances established that the buyers of the shares could not have been unaware that the property belonged to the spouses as joint common property, and that consent to the sale of the shares had not been obtained. Also, the court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts of previous instances did not examine the evidence collected in the case, since the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination of evidence and the provision of a legal assessment of this evidence are the powers of the courts of first and appellate instances. The court of cassation also rejected the appellant’s reference to the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of paragraph 4 of part one of Article 20 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the Supreme Court has already stated conclusions regarding the application of this norm in similar legal relations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 910/3667/24 dated 12/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on violation of legislation on protection against unfaircompetition and imposition of a fine on Vinal LLC.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the following:
* The arguments of Vinal LLC’s cassation appeal regarding the failure of the previous courts to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations are unfounded, since the cases cited by the appellant are not similar to the present case in terms of legal regulation, grounds for the claim, factual circumstances, and evidentiary basis.
* The appellant’s reference to the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection Against Unfair Competition” is groundless, since the previous courts correctly applied this norm, taking into account the ongoing nature of the violation committed by Vinal LLC.
* The appellant’s assertion that the courts established circumstances based on inadmissible evidence (consumer survey materials) is unfounded, since the plaintiff did not prove the inadmissibility of this evidence, and the AMCU has the right to collect and analyze any information that is evidence in the case.
* The court of cassation does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the previous courts.
* The court of cassation is guided by the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for the final court decision and provides that a review of the decision cannot be carried out solely for the purpose of obtaining a retrial of the case.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of Vinal LLC and to uphold the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 915/1231/17 dated 06/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the imposition of subsidiary liability on the founders of a bankrupt company for its obligations due to bringing the company to bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which imposed subsidiary liability on the founders, reasoning that the founders did not take sufficient measures to prevent the company’s bankruptcy, did not cooperate with the liquidator, did not ensure the preservation of the company’s property, which led to the impossibility of satisfying the creditors’ claims; the court also took into account that one of the founders, PERSON_1, owned a sufficient share in the authorized capital to convene a meeting, but did not exercise this right properly; at the same time, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments that she could not influence the company’s activities, since she had the right to initiate a meeting of participants, but did not prove the commission of sufficient actions to prevent bankruptcy; the court also noted that the liquidator took all necessary measures to identify assets.
regarding the companies, but they were unsuccessful.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 904/1271/23 (904/2092/24) of May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the agency agreement concluded between the farm enterprise and an individual as invalid due to signs of fraudulence.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which recognized the agency agreement as invalid, qualifying it as fraudulent, since the agreement had signs of being concluded with the aim of evading obligations to creditors, which violates the principles of good faith and reasonableness. The courts found that the individual did not provide evidence of the purchase of agricultural products on behalf of the farm enterprise, as provided for in the agreement, and also did not confirm the transfer of ownership of these products to the farm enterprise, while the farm enterprise transferred funds to the individual. The court emphasized that any transaction made by the debtor during the period of the obligation to repay the debt, as a result of which the debtor becomes insolvent, may be recognized as fraudulent. The court also noted that a violation of the general principles of civil law may be an independent basis for declaring a transaction invalid.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 914/1425/21 of June 4, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by the Department of Communal Property of the Department of Economic Development of the Lviv City Council in connection with the filing of a cassation appeal.
The court of cassation granted the cassation appeal of the Department of Communal Property, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the Lviv City Council. At the same time, the court did not resolve the issue of the distribution of court costs, which became the basis for filing a motion for an additional decision. The court of cassation was guided by the fact that in case of satisfaction of the claim, court costs are imposed on the defendant. Since the cassation appeal of the Department of Communal Property was granted, and the Department incurred expenses for the payment of court fees, the court decided that these expenses should be reimbursed by the defendant. The court of cassation refers to Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that in case of a change of the decision by the court of cassation, this court accordingly changes the distribution of court costs. Also, the court of cassation
instance refers to Article 244 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that the court may issue an additional decision if the issue of court costs has not been resolved.
The court ruled to recover from Limited Liability Company “B37” in favor of the Municipal Property Department of the Economic Development Department of the Lviv City Council 4540 hryvnias 00 kopecks of court fee expenses.
Case №908/2123/23(904/4140/21) dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession and the recognition of the termination of the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recover property from someone else’s illegal possession, since LLC “Paxton” acquired the property under a compensated agreement from a person who acquired it legally by the will of the alienator, and also recognized the termination of the mortgage, since the obligations under the loan agreement were fulfilled, and the term of the mortgage expired. The court of cassation rejected the applicant’s arguments about the unauthorized composition of the court of appeal, since the replacement of the judge took place in accordance with the requirements of the procedural law and the internal regulations of the court. The court also noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the court of cassation has no authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. The court of cassation also rejected the applicant’s arguments about the failure of the courts of previous instances to comply with the instructions of the Supreme Court, since the courts properly examined the circumstances and evidence regarding the existence of the will of LLC “Zee Technologies” to alienate the Real Estate.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case №922/1675/24 dated 04/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of an individual against a limited liability company in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of an individual against the bankrupt, since the courts correctly established that a preliminary agreement for the sale of an apartment was concluded between the parties, according to which the individual paid the company a security payment, which in essence is an advance payment. Since the main purchase and sale agreement was never concluded, and the company did not return the amount of the advance payment, the individual had the right to claim from the company for the return of the advance payment. The court also noted that from the moment the proceedings are opened
