[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129719655](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129719655)
\n**Case \u21162609\/23854\/12 dated 08\/25\/2025**<\/p>\n
The subject of the dispute is the convict’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court judge, considering the cassation appeal, found that it meets the requirements of the procedural law, was filed by a proper person and within the established term. Taking this into account, the judge concluded that there are grounds for requesting the materials of the criminal case from the court of first instance. The judge refers to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, which regulate the procedure for cassation appeal and requisition of the case. Also, the judge takes into account the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which determine the procedure for applying the previous code.<\/p>\n
The court ordered the materials of the criminal case to be requisitioned from the district court for consideration of the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129742808](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129742808)
\n**Case \u2116920\/692\/23 dated 08\/21\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the bank’s monetary claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy case, arising from the financial leasing agreement, as well as the set-off of counter homogeneous claims.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused the bank to recognize a part of the monetary claims, namely the overdue debt on payment of leasing payments against the value of the property, inflation losses and 3% per annum, accrued on this debt, since after the termination of the leasing agreement and the return of the leasing object, the obligations of the lessee to compensate the value of this object cease. The court also supported the refusal to set off counter homogeneous claims, as this violates the property rights of other creditors who did not consent to such set-off. The court noted that in the bankruptcy case, the court must carefully check the grounds for the occurrence of creditors’ monetary claims against the debtor, their nature, amount and time of occurrence. The court of cassation instance also noted that the debtor’s debt to the creditor, which is confirmed by a court decision that has entered into legal force, may be questioned by the commercial court during the consideration of the creditor’s application with monetary claims only in exceptional cases.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n
[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129719624](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129719624)
\n**Case \u2116754\/5283\/25 dated 08\/20\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to release a person from punishment with probation after the expiration of the probationary period.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court prematurelyreturned the appeal of the defense attorney, considering it filed after the deadline. The cassation court found that the defense attorney had sent the appeal to the court’s email address within the statutory deadline, as evidenced by the email sending data. The Supreme Court emphasized that the day of filing an appeal is the day it is actually submitted to the court, not the day it is registered by the registry. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court had the opportunity to verify the timing of the defense’s appeal by requesting the necessary information from the local court.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n
Case No. 910\/18499\/20 dated 08\/21\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. In this case, “Montale” LLC appealed the decisions of previous instances that approved the reports of the bankruptcy trustee and decided to pay him remuneration and reimburse expenses in the bankruptcy case of “Khimreaktiv” LLC. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal of “Montale” LLC, pointed out certain violations or shortcomings committed by the courts of previous instances when considering the issue of approving the reports of the bankruptcy trustee. There may have been inconsistencies in the calculation of remuneration, the validity of the expenses incurred, or violations of the procedure for considering these issues. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the appellate and local commercial courts, emphasized the need for a more thorough investigation of the circumstances of the case and provided instructions for their elimination during a new trial. This may be due to the fact that the courts of previous instances did not fully take into account the interests of creditors or did not ensure proper control over the activities of the bankruptcy trustee.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/987\/23 (910\/16904\/23) dated 08\/21\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The cassation court agreed with the appellate court that the creditor is not a proper plaintiff in the claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, since the right to such a claim belongs either to the owner of the property or to the sales manager in the bankruptcy case. The court noted that s 3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for recovery of property.<\/p>\n Case No. 727\/6140\/22 dated 08\/20\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 758\/3205\/21 dated 08\/20\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 918\/938\/23 dated May 29, 2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 910\/11212\/24 dated August 13, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 914\/3455\/23 dated August 25, 2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the consideration of the defendant’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application for the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance, noted that such expenses must be documented and justified. The court took into account that the parties agreed on the cost of legal services after the decision of the cassation court, which makes it impossible to objectively verify the agreement on the amount of the fee. The court also took into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided by the lawyer, the criteria of reasonableness, fairness and reality of court costs, as well as the fact that the plaintiff’s legal position had already been formed at the stage of cassation review. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the lack of evidence of payment of remuneration for the legal assistance provided, since the expenses are subject to distribution regardless of the actual payment. Considering all the circumstances, the court concluded that it was necessary to partially satisfy the plaintiff’s application.<\/p>\n 3. The court partially satisfied the application and recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 5,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 754\/5283\/25 dated August 20, 2025**<\/p>\n The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal in the criminal proceedings regarding exemption from the assigned sentence with probation after the expiration of the probationary period.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court, following the review of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, found that the appellate court unreasonably returned the appeal. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need for careful observance of the norms of procedural law when resolving issues related to appealing court decisions. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the importanto ensure the right to a fair trial and effective protection of the rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings at the appellate review stage. The court considered the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations committed by the appellate court in resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that there were grounds to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and order a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of decisions of previous instances regarding the approval of reports of the bankruptcy trustee on the accrual and payment of monetary remuneration, implementation and reimbursement of expenses in the case of bankruptcy of “Khimreaktiv” LLC.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of a vehicle and the reclamation of this property in favor of the debtor in the bankruptcy case of an individual.<\/p>\n
\nArticle 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides for the creditor’s right to challenge the debtor’s transactions, does not regulate the issue of reclaiming property from third parties who are not parties to these transactions. The court also indicated that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedure does not contain provisions that would grant the creditors of a debtor-individual the right to file claims for recovery of property in the interests of the debtor. Instead, according to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedure, from the moment the debtor is declared bankrupt, the liquidator manages the property included in the liquidation estate on behalf of the debtor. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the liquidator is not a procedural representative of the debtor, emphasizing that it is the liquidator who has the authority to return property to the liquidation estate.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding a person convicted of illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, considering that although there were certain shortcomings in the justification of the circumstances mitigating the punishment, however, given the restrictions on worsening the position of the accused after the cancellation of the previous decision, as well as the presence of other mitigating circumstances (admission of guilt, sincere repentance), this does not affect the correctness of the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person, her family status (three minor children, care for a disabled mother), volunteer activities and payment of a fine, as well as the absence of new crimes after the event. The court of cassation noted that the decision on the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine belongs to the discretionary powers of the court that considers the case on the merits.
\n3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of copyright to a teaser for a documentary film, frames from which were used by the defendants without the permission of the plaintiffs.
\n2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiffs did not provide proper evidence of their copyright to the teaser. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, noting that the courts did not take into account the presumption of authorship, which operates in copyright law, and did not properly examine the evidence provided by the plaintiffs. The court also indicated that the defendants did not refute
\nthat the plaintiffs are co-authors of the teaser, without providing any evidence to support that another person is the author of the teaser. In addition, the appellate court did not pay attention to the established fact that the plaintiffs created the film for which the teaser was created, which is also important for establishing authorship.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial in the appellate court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract of purchase and sale of communal property in the part of including the area of the anti-radiation shelter in the area of the basement and the return of this shelter to communal ownership.
\n2. The court of cassation departed from previous conclusions regarding the qualification of claims for the return of protective structures from private ownership, noting that such claims should be considered as vindicatory, and not negatory, since the owner (territorial community) does not possess the property that is in the possession of the defendant, for whom the right of ownership is registered. The court indicated that for the qualification of a claim as negatory, the presence of two conditions is necessary: \u200b\u200bthe impossibility of finding the property in private ownership by virtue of the law and the presence of external signs that indicate the impossibility of acquiring the right of ownership to this property. Since none of these conditions were met, the court concluded that a vindicatory claim is the proper method of protection. The court also noted that the request for the return of property in the order of restitution is not a proper method of protection, since in this case the change of owner took place by contributing the property to the authorized capital of the company. The court emphasized the obligations of the owners of protective structures, regardless of the form of ownership, to keep them ready for use.
\n3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the collection of debt under the contract of purchase and sale of electricity between S.Energy-Kirovohrad LLC and the Guaranteed Buyer SE.
\n2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since they did not provide a proper legal assessment of the arguments of the Guaranteed Buyer SE regarding the possibility of reducing the level of settlements with S.Energy-Kirovohrad LLC by the amount of the unpaid part of the compensation for the cost of balancing the electricity and the cost of deviation, given the presence of a significant debt of the plaintiff to the defendant. The courts did not establish whether the defendant had contacted the plaintiff with
\nwith a corresponding application to terminate the defendant’s obligation to pay the debt under the contract for the disputed periods, whether there are grounds for reducing the amount of the debt in this case by the amount of the unpaid part of the reimbursement of the cost of balancing electricity and the cost of deviation, and what evidence confirms such circumstances. The courts did not properly examine the evidence collected in the case and did not establish the related circumstances that were part of the subject of proof. In this regard, the Supreme Court pointed out violations of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant to the proper resolution of the case.<\/p>\n