**Case No. 755\/19631\/21 dated 24\/07\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the new owner’s claim for the eviction of the former owner of the apartment, who is a guarantor under a loan agreement.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for eviction of the guarantor, based on the following:
\n * Evicting the guarantor from the apartment purchased by the plaintiff at auction would be a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her home, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
\n * The court took into account that the obligations under the loan agreement for which the defendant acted as guarantor had ceased even before the plaintiff purchased the apartment.
\n * The plaintiff, when buying the apartment at electronic auctions, could and should have exercised reasonable care and found out about the existing encumbrances, in particular, about the former owner’s right to reside.
\n * The court also took into account that the guarantor has no other housing, and her eviction may lead to a violation of her right to private life.
\n * The court emphasized the need to maintain a fair balance between protecting the plaintiff’s property rights and ensuring the guarantor’s right to housing, believing that in this case eviction would be an excessive burden for the defendant.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim for eviction of the guarantor.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 761\/4664\/21 dated 05\/08\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of gift and sale agreements for an apartment as invalid, as well as the cancellation of records of ownership of it.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of canceling the state registration of the right of ownership of the apartment by the defendant, since the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his right. The court noted that in the event that property left the possession of the owner on the basis of an unexecuted agreement, the proper method of protection is a vindication claim, that is, reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession. Since the plaintiff did not claim the return of property, but only the cancellation of state registration, the court of cassation decided that in this part the claim is not subject to satisfaction. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of a vindication claim as a proper method of protection in similar legal relations. The court of cassation emphasized that the heir who accepted the inheritance has the rights of possession and use of the inherited property from the moment of the opening of the inheritance, and he can protect his rights, in particular, by claiming the property from a bona fide purchaser, if he
\nbut was disposed of from the possession of the testator against his will.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of canceling the state registration of the right of ownership of the apartment by the defendant, and refused to satisfy the claim in this part, emphasizing the need to apply a vindication claim as a proper method of protection.<\/p>\n
Case No. 991\/9618\/24 dated 08\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the refusal to review the decision on the application of sanctions based on the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” on newly discovered circumstances.<\/p>\n 2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the defendant’s lawyer did not prove the existence of newly discovered circumstances that would be essential for the review of the case. The court noted that the evidence presented by the lawyer does not meet the criteria of newly discovered circumstances, since they were not unknown to the court at the time of the decision and do not refute the facts established by the court. The court also took into account that the defendant did not provide convincing arguments that would indicate that these circumstances could affect the legality and validity of the previous court decision. The court emphasized that the review of a court decision on newly discovered circumstances is an exceptional procedure that is applied only in the event of the discovery of truly important and previously unknown circumstances.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to leave the appeal of the defendant’s representative without satisfaction, and the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/4379\/25 dated 08\/04\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue in a case initiated by the prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office against the deputy of the Kyiv City Council PERSON_1 and his wife PERSON_2.<\/p>\n 2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the seizure of the defendants’ property, since there are risks of alienation of the property, part of the assets has already been sold, and the other remains in the possession of the defendants. The court noted that PERSON_2 is a proper defendant, since the law allows filing a claim not only against a person authorized to perform state functions, but also against an individual who acquired assets on behalf of such a person. The court also emphasized that consideration of the application for securing the claim without notifying the defendants is justified, as this could jeopardize the effectiveness of the measure to secure the claim. The arguments of the appeal regarding the inconsistency of the value of the property, the study of the defendants’ expenses, the lack of evidence 3. The court ruled to leave the appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/20154\/23 dated 08\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax authority, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation concluded that the courts of the first and appellate instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the issues regarding the validity of the additional tax liabilities and the legality of applying penalties to the taxpayer remained unexamined. Also, the courts did not take into account the specifics of the enterprise’s activities and the peculiarities of the tax legislation governing the disputed legal relations. Considering the above, the Supreme Court decided that for a comprehensive, complete, and objective consideration of the case, it is necessary to send it for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court.<\/p>\n Case No. 676\/2526\/21 dated 08\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for privatization of the apartment, since the plaintiffs had no legal grounds for moving into the disputed residential premises, which was confirmed by the court’s decision to invalidate the warrant for this apartment. The court noted that only persons who legally moved into the residential premises have the right to privatize state housing. The purchase and sale agreement, to which the plaintiffs referred, is not a basis for privatization, since the apartment was reclaimed from the previous owner (one of the plaintiffs) in favor of the state, as property that left state ownership against its will. The absence of a dispute regarding eviction 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 280\/10167\/23 dated 08\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the court of appeal, was guided by the fact that the one-time cash payment for the Independence Day of Ukraine is not a new type of social security, but an annual one-time cash assistance, the change in the date of payment and the procedure for determining its amount does not change its essence as a type of social assistance. The court also noted that temporary restriction of certain social benefits is possible provided that amendments are made to a special law, which is the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans, Guarantees of Their Social Protection”. The Supreme Court emphasized that the one-time cash payment does not belong to the components of the constitutional right of citizens to social protection, which cannot be canceled by law, therefore, the Verkhovna Rada may change the conditions of its payment. The court took into account that the amendments to the law were made for the purpose of economical and rational use of state funds under martial law. The Court noted that it departs from the previous position stated in the decision of the Supreme Court of March 05, 2024 in model case No. 440\/14216\/23, and refers to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of May 14, 2025 in the same model case.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia region, to cancel the resolution of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, and to uphold the decision of the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court.<\/p>\n Case No. 501\/5346\/23 dated 08\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the suspension of the employment contract was illegal, since the employer did not prove the absolute impossibility of providing the employee with work due to hostilities. The court noted that the employer’s right to suspend the employment contract is not absolute and must be justified by the impossibility of providing work and itsemployee. The court also took into account that the enterprise continued its activities, and the suspension of labor relations was applied selectively to individual employees, which was not properly justified by the employer. The court emphasized that compensation for wages during the suspension of the employment contract is the responsibility of the aggressor state, but this does not relieve the employer of the obligation to justify the legality of such suspension. The court also noted that the conclusions of the courts do not contradict the previous practice of the Supreme Court, as they are based on other factual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 909\/459\/24 dated 08\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court, when considering the motion, was guided by the fact that the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent, and the significance of the case for the party. The court took into account the evidence provided regarding the scope of services provided and their cost, but also took into account the objections of Ukrzaliznytsia JSC regarding the disproportionality of the claimed expenses. The court noted that the obligations that have arisen between the attorney and the client are not binding on the court, and when resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs, the court must assess the costs that must be compensated at the expense of the other party, taking into account both whether they were actually incurred and assessing their necessity. Taking into account the criteria of commensurability, reality, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court concluded that the claimed amount of expenses for professional legal assistance should be reduced.<\/p>\n 3. The court partially granted the motion of Eurotranstelecom LLC and ordered Ukrainian Railway JSC to recover UAH 5,500.00 in favor of Eurotranstelecom LLC to reimburse legal costs for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/4835\/25 dated 08\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> In the decision, the court granted the claim of the SAP prosecutor and ordered the recovery to the state revenue of seven land plots belonging to the defendant, recognizing them as unjustified assets, since the value of these assets exceeded the defendant’s income, and the sources of funds for their acquisition were not confirmed. The court found that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of the legality of the origin of the funds for which these land plots were purchased. The court decided to satisfy the claim and recover the specified land plots to the state revenue.<\/p>\n
\nof property status and the expiration of the statute of limitations were rejected by the court as unfounded. The court pointed out that in cases concerning unjustified assets, the standard of proof of “preponderance of the evidence” applies, and the defendants may submit their own evidence to refute the plaintiff’s data.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by the Eastern Interregional Department of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers to PJSC “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih”.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Apartment-Operational Department of the city of Chernivtsi to refuse the privatization of an apartment, recognition of the right to privatization, and obligation to perform certain actions regarding the transfer of the apartment to the ownership of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
\nthat does not imply the existence of legal grounds for residence, but only indicates compliance with the right to housing guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of paying a one-time cash payment to a person with a Group III disability as a result of war for the Independence Day of Ukraine in 2023 in the amount established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and not in the amount of seven minimum old-age pensions, as previously stipulated.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order to suspend the employment contract and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the motion of Eurotranstelecom LLC to recover from Ukrainian Railway JSC legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is a claim for the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue.<\/p>\n
\nThe court also took into account that the defendant failed to convincingly explain the discrepancy between his official income and the value of the acquired assets. The court concluded that the assets were acquired from unconfirmed sources, which is a basis for their recovery to the state revenue in accordance with anti-corruption legislation.<\/p>\n