Case \u2116183\/2276\/20 of 09\/04\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the land sale agreement as invalid, the recovery of property from illegal possession of another, the cancellation of entries in the State Register of Real Property Rights, the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid, and the cancellation of the corresponding entries in the registers.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the land plot was disposed of from the possession of the plaintiff illegally, since the signature on the power of attorney, on the basis of which the sale was made, was forged. The court noted that the owner whose property was disposed of from his legal possession under an unexecuted contract may protect his property right by filing a vindication claim. Also, the court agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not miss the deadline for appealing to the court, since she learned about the violation of her right only in 2019, and appealed to the court in 2020. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of the expert’s opinion, since the examination was conducted with a sufficient number of handwriting samples. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms, since the actual circumstances in the cases referred to by the appellant differ from the circumstances of this case.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116283\/1459\/20 of 09\/03\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle, which caused the death of the victim or caused grievous bodily harm).<\/p>\n
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116607\/24241\/23 of 09\/03\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of an individual as legally incapacitated, the establishment of guardianship over him, and the appointment of a specific person as guardian.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which recognized the person as legally incapacitated, established guardianship over him, but refused to appoint the applicant as guardian. The court noted that a mandatory condition for the appointment of a specific person as guardian is the presence of a reasoned submission from the guardianship authority. In this case, although the guardianship authority approved the applicant’s candidacy, the submission did not contain sufficient justification for the need to appoint him as guardian, and the nature of the relationship was not clarified
\nconcerning the relationship between the ward and the potential guardian, the possibility of their cohabitation, and the circumstances of why the previous guardian ceased to fulfill their duties were not assessed. The court emphasized that when deciding on the appointment of a guardian, the primary consideration is ensuring the best interests of the incapacitated person.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n
Case No. 742\/1110\/24 dated 09\/04\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, which denied the claim for recognition of the right to a land share ( \u043f\u0430\u0439 ), as the plaintiff is not a citizen of Ukraine, and Ukrainian citizenship is a mandatory condition for obtaining the right to a land share ( \u043f\u0430\u0439 ). The court noted that a person acquires the right to a land share upon the simultaneous existence of three conditions: being a member of a collective agricultural enterprise at the time of land allocation; being included in the list of persons attached to the state act on the right of collective ownership of land; and the receipt of this act by the collective agricultural enterprise. Since the plaintiff does not meet the citizenship criterion of Ukraine, the courts reasonably denied the claim. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court on the application of the norms of Article 130 of the Land Code of Ukraine and Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Allocating Land Shares ( \u043f\u0430\u0439 s) in Kind (on the Ground),” as the decisions of the lower courts were made based on the assessment of all evidence and circumstances of the case in their entirety.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 751\/7276\/21 dated 09\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments. The full text of the ruling is required to understand them.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/4578\/24 dated 09\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which denied the claims of PJSC “Cherkaske Khimvolokno”. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of difficult circumstances when concluding the agreement, as it had the opportunity to freely choose a gas supplier at market prices. 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/20531\/23 dated 09\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 585\/2746\/24 dated 09\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 303\/5688\/20 dated 03\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiffs, being elderly and in need of care, mistakenly believed that they were entering into a life maintenance agreement, and not a gift agreement. The court took into account that the plaintiffs continued to live in the house after the conclusion of the agreement, paid utility bills, which indicates the absence of actual transfer of property. The court also took into account the age of the plaintiffs, their health condition, and the absence of other housing. The court noted that the existence of an error regarding the nature of the transaction is essential, as it affected the will of the plaintiffs. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the notary explained the essence of the agreement to the parties, as this does not exclude the possibility of the plaintiffs’ mistake regarding the nature of the transaction.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 916\/476\/21 dated 26\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the fact of a malicious agreement between the former head of the NGO “Kombi-2” and the contractor. The court noted that the conclusion of the physical-chemical examination provided by the plaintiff cannot be accepted as proper evidence, since the examination was not conducted by a state specialized institution, but by a private one. The court also took into account that the repeated forensic technical examination ordered by the court was not conducted due to non-payment of its cost by the plaintiff. The court indicated that the agreements with another entrepreneur provided by the plaintiff do not confirm that this entrepreneur performed the disputed work in the relevant period. The court emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal unsatisfied.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/7447\/23 dated 04\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that for the payment of additional remuneration in an increased amount, the direct participation of the serviceman in combat operations must be documented, in particular, by combat orders, combat logs, and reports of commanders. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not examine all the necessary documents, in particular, combat orders, combat logs, and reports of commanders, which could confirm the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations. Also, the court emphasized that the courts did not clarify what tasks, in what position, and where the plaintiff performed during the disputed period, while on a business trip under the operational command of another military unit. The court emphasized that a violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot indicate the absence of the right to remuneration if actual participation in combat operations is confirmed by other evidence. The court also noted that the orders of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine No. 392\/0\/81-22-AH dated July 30, 2022, and No. 628\/0\/81-22-AH dated December 9, 2022, are subject to application for determining the procedure and conditions for the payment of additional remuneration.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive establishment of the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/8640\/24 dated 09\/04\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of first instance granted the claim, considering that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the entire period of delay in the payment of indexation, referring to previous decisions of the Supreme Court. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that compensation should be paid only for the period from the moment when the debt on indexation actually arose until the moment it was repaid, referring to another decision of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the appellate court, arguing that compensation should be calculated from the month when the payments were terminated, referring to other decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to compensation arises from the moment of violation of the terms of payment of income, and such compensation is subject to accrual for the entire period of non-payment. The court also noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, failing to take into account that the moment of unlawful non-payment of indexation is precisely January 1, 2016.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/673\/19 dated 08\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the liquidator’s application, reasoning that the liquidator did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the existence of a causal link between the actions\/inaction of the defendants and bringing the enterprise to bankruptcy, and also did not take sufficient measures to form the liquidation estate and identify the debtor’s assets. The court noted that the debtor’s insolvency itself does not indicate that it was brought to bankruptcy, and the liquidator did not provide sufficiently substantiated evidence of the defendants’ guilt, which would differ from the usual risks of entrepreneurial activity. In addition, the courts found that the liquidation estate was not actually formed, and part of the debtor’s assets were not identified and recorded, which makes it impossible to reliably determine the residual debt to creditors. The court also took into account that the liquidator did not check the relevance of data on the availability of the debtor’s assets, which were indicated by the previous liquidator, and did not take measures to return the property that was in the possession of third parties.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/10673\/23 dated 04\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the appellate court’s ruling, as the military unit did not provide evidence of payment of the court fee or reasonable grounds for deferring its payment, despite the deadline set by the court to remedy the deficiencies of the appeal. The court emphasized that the obligation to prove proper financial condition, which prevents the payment of the court fee, rests with the applicant of the deferral request. Also, the court noted that the defendant did not express any disagreement with the position of the appellate court regarding the return of the appeal, and its cassation appeal concerned only disagreement with the decision of the court of first instance on the merits of the dispute, which was not the subject of cassation review in this case. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the subject of the appeal is precisely the ruling on the return of the appeal, which prevents further proceedings in the case, and the appellant did not provide any arguments regarding its illegality or unreasonableness.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/1815\/24 dated 04\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appeal, citing paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which indicates that the appellant attempted to appeal court decisions on grounds not provided by law for cassation appeal. In other part, the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged, which indicates that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law in resolving the dispute in this part. The absence of a representative of SE “Newtek Ukraine” at the hearing did not affect the consideration of the case, as the court considered the case based on the available materials. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, finding no grounds for their cancellation or change.<\/p>\n 4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya,” and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/911\/23 dated 02\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 5. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for unaccounted electricity from a private enterprise and the recognition as invalid of the commission’s decision to charge this debt.<\/p>\n 6. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which rejected the claim of the energy supply company to recover the debt for unaccounted electricity from the enterprise, and granted the counter-claim of the enterprise to recognize the decision of the energy supplier’s commission as invalid. The court proceeded from the fact that the act of violation and the commission’s protocol did not specify the specific subparagraph of the rules that defines the type of violation. Also, the court rejected the expert study and video recording submitted by the energy supplier as inadmissible evidence of interference with the operation of metering devices. In addition, the court took into account that the electricity supply agreement, on the basis of which the charges were made, had expired, and the new agreement did not contain agreed terms regarding the operating mode of the electrical installation and power. The court noted that the establishment of the absence of conditions regarding power and operating mode makes it impossible to properly calculate the volume of unaccounted electricity.<\/p>\n 7. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/19625\/23 dated 04\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 8. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for additional construction works and the recognition of the contract as concluded.<\/p>\n 9. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, recovering from the defendant the cost of additional works within the fixed estimate, but refused to recover the cost of works exceeding this estimate, since the plaintiff did not prove that the necessity to perform 3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/8610\/24 dated 08\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the dispute arose in the public law sphere, namely in connection with the implementation by the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine of administrative management functions regarding the issuance of permits for the use of subsoil. The court noted that the relations between the State Service of Geology and Subsoil and JSC “Dashukivski Bentonites” regarding obtaining and using a special permit for the use of subsoil are public law relations, since they arose as a result of the state’s implementation of administrative functions in the field of regulation of permitting activities regarding the use of subsoil. The court also took into account that the prosecutor is appealing the order of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil, which is an act of implementation of administrative management functions. The court emphasized that it is important to take into account the nature of the legal relations, and not only the subject composition, in order to determine jurisdiction, and in this case the dispute concerns public law relations. Given that the dispute has the characteristics of an administrative one, it is subject to consideration in the procedure of administrative proceedings.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 480\/727\/24 dated 09\/04\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused “Pid Yalynkoyu” LLC to satisfy the counterclaim and satisfied the claim of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Sumy region for the recovery of tax debt. The court noted that “Pid Yalynkoyu” LLC violated the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of Registrars of Settlement Operations in the Sphere of Trade, Public Catering andof services” regarding the execution of settlement transactions during the sale of excisable goods without using the programming mode for the names of goods and violated the established restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages at certain times of the day. The court also took into account that “Pid yalynkoyu” LLC did not appeal the tax assessment notices in administrative proceedings and did not pay the penalties, and therefore the tax debt is subject to recovery. The arguments of the cassation appeal of “Pid yalynkoyu” LLC were deemed unfounded, as the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Pid yalynkoyu” LLC and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to a land share ( \u043f\u0430\u0439 ) for agricultural purposes.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against an acquittal concerning a person accused of official negligence (Part 1 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of certain clauses of a natural gas supply agreement and amendments thereto.<\/p>\n
\nalso, the court pointed to the absence of a causal link between the difficult circumstances and the conclusion of the contract, as it was a normal business activity of the plaintiff. The court emphasized that amendments to the contract are possible only with the consent of the parties or in cases provided by law, and the plaintiff did not prove the existence of such grounds. In addition, the court rejected the reference to the Draft Common Frame of Reference of European Private Law (DCFR), as they are not binding on the court. The court also noted that the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases are consistent and clear, and there is no reason to deviate from them.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of JSC “Oschadbank” as illegal regarding the refusal to issue a certificate of non-use of housing vouchers for the privatization of the state housing fund and the obligation to issue such a certificate.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, noting that according to current legislation, in particular Regulation No. 396, it is the privatization authorities, not banks, that are authorized to issue certificates of non-use of housing vouchers for the privatization of the state housing fund. The court also emphasized that the provision of such certificates is an administrative service, and the plaintiff should apply to the relevant local self-government bodies, which are the subjects of the provision of such services. The plaintiff’s references to Regulation No. 179 are unfounded, as it regulates the procedure for providing certificates of transactions on deposit accounts, not on the use of housing vouchers. In addition, the court noted that references to case law regarding disputes with the Pension Fund are irrelevant, as no such claims were filed in this case.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the director of the Romny Center for Comprehensive Rehabilitation for Children and Persons with Disabilities of damages caused by the illegal dismissal of the chief accountant of this center.
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to return the statement of claim to the prosecutor, since at the time the prosecutor filed the claim with the court, the Romny City Council had already filed a similar claim with the court against the same defendant for damages caused by the illegal dismissal of an employee, and proceedings in this case had been opened. The court noted that the prosecutor may represent the interests of the state in court only in cases where the protection of these interests is not carried out or is improperly carried out by the competent authority, or in the absence of such authority. Since at the time of the ruling on the return of the prosecutor’s claim, the city council had already filed a similar claim, there were no grounds for the presentation
\nthe prosecutor’s representation of the state’s interests was absent. The arguments of the cassation appeal that the city council was denied the satisfaction of its claim do not affect the legality of the appealed court decisions, since the legality of the first instance court’s decision is verified at the time of its adoption.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the court decisions of the first and appellate instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a gift agreement for a residential building, concluded between the plaintiffs (donors) and the defendant (donee).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of contracting and guarantee agreements concluded between the NGO “Kombi-2” and individuals, due to a malicious agreement between the former head of the organization and the contractor and forgery of documents.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of
\nto a serviceman of additional monetary reward in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in combat operations during martial law.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of INFORMATION_1 to pay PERSON_1 compensation for the loss of part of income due to violation of the terms of payment of monetary allowance indexation.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application for the imposition of subsidiary liability
\nregarding bringing to subsidiary liability former managers and the founder of the bankrupt enterprise in connection with bringing it to bankruptcy.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the military unit against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of its appeal in the case regarding the obligation to calculate and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds under the original and counterclaim between JSC “Ukrgas production” and SE “Newtek Ukraine.”<\/p>\n
\nThe occurrence of these works could not have been foreseen in advance, and he also did not notify the customer about the overrun of the estimate before the work was performed. The court also rejected the claim for recognition of the contract as concluded, since there is no obligation to conclude a contract for additional works outside the negotiation procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that for cassation review, similarity of legal relations in the cases referred to by the appellant is necessary, and no such similarity was found in this case. The court of cassation noted that the contractor’s notification to the customer about the need to perform additional works and increase the fixed estimate must precede the actual performance of additional works, otherwise the contractor cannot demand payment for such works from the customer.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine on extending the term of the special permit for the use of subsoil and termination of the right to use subsoil by the joint-stock company.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from “Pid Yalynkoyu” LLC and a counterclaim for recognition as illegal and cancellation of tax notifications-decisions.<\/p>\n