**Case No. 911\/362\/24 dated 09\/09\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order on the dismissal of the director of LLC, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim. The appellate court based its decision on the fact that the general meeting of participants of the LLC had the right to terminate the powers of the director on the basis of Part 3 of Article 99 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which allows the termination of the powers of a member of the executive body of the company at any time, for any reason or without stating them. The court noted that in such disputes, it is not the existence of grounds for dismissal that is important, but compliance with the procedure for making a decision on dismissal. Since the plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the general meeting on her dismissal, the court recognized the dismissal as lawful. Also, the appellate court did not agree that the plaintiff is a single mother, since her children have a father who pays alimony.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 906\/127\/24 dated 10\/09\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery from the former chairman of the board of the joint-stock company of losses caused to the company as a result of the issuance of an order on the payment of bonuses to employees on the basis of a decision of the supervisory board, which, according to the plaintiff, was adopted by an unauthorized composition.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the chairman of the board, as an executive body, must act in the interests of the company in good faith and reasonably, and in the presence of signs of obvious illegality of the decision of the supervisory board, in particular, the absence of the required number of votes for its adoption, should have notified the supervisory board about this. The court also took into account that at the time of issuing the order on awarding bonuses, the minutes of the meeting of the supervisory board contained information about an insufficient number of votes for making a decision, and corrections to the minutes were made after the issuance of the order and by a person who was not a member of the supervisory board at that time. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about violations of the norms of procedural law, in particular, regarding the refusal to suspend proceedings in the case and regarding the evaluation of evidence, noting that the courts of previous instances acted within their powers and in compliance with the norms of procedural law.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 910\/14122\/24 dated 03\/09\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement and the obligation to return the land plot in a condition suitable for its further use.
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim. The court of first instance decided to dismiss the claim because the prosecutor did not provide answers to the defendant’s questions regarding the possibility of developing the land plot in accordance with the General Plan of Kyiv. The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, noted that providing or not providing such explanations is not decisive for an objective clarification of the circumstances of the case, and the court of first instance could have considered the case on its merits based on the available evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that dismissal of a claim is an extreme measure that is applied only when the court is unable to resolve the dispute due to shortcomings committed by the plaintiff. The court also noted that failure to provide answers in accordance with Article 90 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine is not an unconditional ground for dismissing a claim.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 922\/2416\/24 dated 08\/05\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim by the prosecutor’s office for the recovery of property (non-residential premises) that, in its opinion, was illegally privatized, from the ultimate acquirer \u2013 a natural person.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, agreed that the decision of the local government body to privatize the property through redemption was made in violation of the requirements of the law, since there were no grounds for applying such a method of privatization. At the same time, the court noted that the courts of previous instances prematurely concluded that the claim for recovery of property from the ultimate acquirer should be denied, without examining the issue of whether the property was removed from the possession of the territorial community against its will. The court indicated that the courts did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments that the exercise of ownership by the local government body not in the manner and outside the scope of powers provided by law cannot be assessed as an expression of the will of the territorial community. The court also took into account that the owner of real estate does not need to file a claim for the cancellation of decisions, entries on state registration of ownership of this property by the illegal possessor in order to effectively restore his right. The court noted that for the application of such a real property law remedy as the recovery of property under the rules of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, challenging the decisions of state authorities or local governments, the chain of contracts, other transactions regarding the disputed property and documents certifying the relevant right is not an effective way to protect the owner’s right.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to recover the property and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
\nCase \u2116907\/523\/25 dated 09\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of state registration of ownership and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
\n2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim, considering that failure to take such measures may complicate the protection of the plaintiff’s rights and the enforcement of the court decision if the claim is satisfied, since the defendant has the right to freely dispose of the disputed property. The court noted that the applicant claims the illegal disposal of property from his ownership on the basis of forged documents, regarding which criminal proceedings have been initiated, and the defendant may alienate the property to third parties. The court indicated that the imposition of seizure will not harm the defendant, but will only temporarily limit his right to alienate the property. The court also emphasized that it is not obliged to take counter security measures in every case, and the very fact of not applying counter security does not indicate the illegality of securing the claim.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116911\/640\/24 dated 09\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 3,797,782.09 under a factoring agreement, where LLC “FC “Diamond” acts as a factor, and LLC “Procter & Gamble Ukraine” is the debtor.
\n2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since LLC “FC “Diamond” did not prove with proper evidence the fact of actual provision of services by LLC “Anchor Personal Ukraine” (the client under the factoring agreement) to the defendant LLC “Procter & Gamble Ukraine” in the amount claimed for recovery. The court noted that the acts of acceptance of work refer to another agreement (lease agreement, not a service agreement) and are signed by persons whose powers were not confirmed. Also, the court indicated that cash receipt orders are not proper evidence of payment of an advance payment under the factoring agreement. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove the circumstances on which he relies as the basis of his claims, and that the courts of previous instances lawfully assessed the provided evidence and concluded that the fact of providing services was not proven. The Supreme Court emphasized that its task is to ensure the stability of judicial practice, and not to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
\n3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Diamond”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116922\/33\/22 dated 08\/05\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal decision of the local self-government body on the privatization of communal property through redemption, the recognition of the invalid purchase and sale agreement of this property, and the recovery of property from illegal possession.
\n2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellateof the court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Articles 387, 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that for claiming property from someone else’s illegal possession, it is important whether the property was disposed of from the owner’s possession against their will. In this case, since the privatization took place in violation of the procedure, the property was disposed of from the possession of the territorial community against its will. Also, the court took into account that at the time of the case’s consideration in the cassation instance, there was already a practice of the Supreme Court, according to which, in similar legal relations, claiming property is possible even from a bona fide acquirer if the property was disposed of from the owner’s possession not by their will.<\/p>\n
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim in the part of claiming property from illegal possession.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116916\/1294\/24 dated 08\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the bank’s complaint against the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to determine the share of the debtor’s property in the joint property of the spouses.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation, granting the bank’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, rulings of the court of first instance on determining the share of the debtor’s property in the property that they own jointly with other persons may be appealed separately from the court decision. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which any ruling of the court of first instance is subject to appeal either independently or together with the decision on the merits of the dispute, in order to ensure the right to appellate review. The court noted that the appellate court narrowly interpreted the procedural law, failing to take into account that the ruling refusing to satisfy the motion to determine the share of the debtor’s property impedes further proceedings in the case and makes it impossible to protect the creditor’s rights in any other way than by appealing this ruling. The court also took into account that in a similar case, the Supreme Court had already expressed the position that it is necessary to overturn court decisions made in violation of the norms of procedural law when considering the state enforcement officer’s motion to determine the share of the debtor’s property.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n Case \u2116907\/577\/24 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, including the loan amount, annual interest, and inflation losses.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the defendant 2. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116372\/699\/24 dated 09\/03\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her minor son.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not fully take into account the interests of the child and the circumstances of the case. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence regarding the mother’s willful evasion of parental responsibilities, ignored the opinion of the guardianship authority regarding the expediency of depriving the mother of parental rights, and did not take into account the circumstances established by the court in a previous case regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence. In addition, the court did not provide the child, who had reached the age of 12, with the opportunity to express his opinion on the issue of depriving the mother of parental rights, which is a violation of international and national legislation. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not consider the possibility of warning the mother about the need to change her attitude towards fulfilling her responsibilities for raising her son.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116335\/9378\/24 dated 09\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding a person convicted under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which caused consequences).<\/p>\n 2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of the convicted person, the defender, and the victim, and to leave the verdict of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116607\/5887\/23 dated 09\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which resulted in the death of the victim or severe bodilydamage).<\/p>\n 2. The reasoning of the court is not provided in the operative part of the decision.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<\/p>\n Case No. 904\/6706\/23 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, in rejecting the claim, proceeded from the fact that contractual relations exist between the parties, regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On the Electricity Market” and the Rules of the Retail Electricity Market (RREEM). The court established that the distribution system operator (defendant) lawfully drew up an act of violation based on the detected malfunction in the plaintiff’s meter. The court noted that the additional charge for the volume of electricity was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the RREEM and the Commercial Metering Code of Electricity, as a temporary malfunction of the metering point was detected through no fault of the consumer. The court emphasized that the calculation of the volume of unaccounted electricity was carried out on the basis of the average daily consumption after the restoration of the metering point’s operation, taking into account the accrual period determined by the Code. The court also noted that the accrual of the cost of unaccounted electricity based on the decision of the distribution system operator’s commission does not require proof of the consumer’s fault as a mandatory condition.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/3826\/24 dated 11\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments that it relied on when rendering the decision. There is only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment. To provide a complete analysis, it is necessary to have the full text of the court decision, which sets out the court’s reasoning. Without an analysis of the court’s reasoning, it is impossible to understand why the courts of previous instances were mistaken and what specific circumstances require further investigation.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast and the resolution of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal, remanding the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast.<\/p>\n Case No. 357\/11054\/23 dated 11\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/130158169](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/130158169)<\/p>\n **Case No. 539\/257\/22 dated 09\/03\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as a family without registration of marriage and the recognition of property as jointly acquired property.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not pay attention to the fact that the claim was filed against improper defendants, namely the son and mother of the deceased, without establishing whether they had accepted the inheritance and whether they were proper heirs. The courts did not take into account that the proper defendants in such cases are the heirs who accepted the inheritance, or, in their absence, the territorial community represented by the relevant local government body. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not clarify the circle of heirs who accepted the inheritance and did not establish whether the son of the deceased is a proper defendant in the filed claim.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/130158216](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/130158216)<\/p>\n **Case No. 484\/6992\/23 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the establishment of the paternity of the deceased man regarding a child born after his death.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the plaintiff’s claim, taking into account several key points. Firstly, the defendant (the brother of the deceased) evaded the molecular genetic examination ordered by the court to establish the blood relationship between him and the child, which allowed the court to recognize the fact of paternity as established. Secondly, the courts took into account other evidence provided by the plaintiff, which confirmed the deceased’s recognition of his paternity during his lifetime. The court of cassation emphasized that the DNA test result is an important, but not the only, piece of evidence. 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the establishment of paternity.<\/p>\n Case \u2116303\/5611\/20 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal verdict regarding two former police officers, accused of abuse of power accompanied by violence. Case \u2116309\/332\/25 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint against the investigating judge’s ruling granting permission for an unscheduled audit. **Case No. 916\/574\/15-\u0433 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a works procurement contract, as well as penalties, inflation losses, and annual interest due to the improper performance of obligations by the defendant.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation, when considering the cassation appeal, focused on the application of the statute of limitations to claims for the recovery of inflation losses and annual interest, as well as on the possibility of reducing their amount. The court emphasized that the right to recover inflation losses and annual interest arises for the creditor from the moment of breach of the monetary obligation and is limited to the last three years preceding the filing of the claim, taking into account the period of quarantine and martial law, when the statute of limitations was extended\/suspended. The court also noted that the reduction of the annual interest rate is possible only to the legally established minimum rate of three percent per annum, and inflation losses are not subject to reduction, as they are a way to protect the creditor’s property right from the depreciation of funds. In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments for a retrial, since the subject matter and grounds of the claim differ from the previous case, although the composition of the participants was identical.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of annual interest and inflation losses and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 367\/1916\/20 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of property, namely a land plot and a pharmacy building, by obliging the defendant to demolish an unauthorized extension.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the appellate court did not properly assess the circumstances of the violation of the plaintiff’s property right to the building located on her land plot, as a result of the unauthorized extension to the neighboring building, which led to the deterioration of the consumer qualities of the pharmacy building. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court limited itself only to the lack of confirmation of the fact of violation of the boundaries of the land plot, without taking into account the expert opinion on the non-compliance of the extension with building codes and regulations and the deterioration of the consumer qualities of the plaintiff’s building. The court of cassation emphasized that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of obstacles to the use of their property, and the demolition of unauthorized construction is possible in case of a significant violation of building codes and regulations that violates the rights of others. Also, the court of cassation referred to the ECHR’s practice regarding the need for the court to properly study all the arguments of the parties.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of thebased on the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1.<\/p>\n **Case No. 752\/5279\/20 dated 09\/03\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the state registration of the right of permanent use of the land plot by PJSC “MARS” and the plaintiff’s right to formalize the use of this plot.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation, reviewing the case, noted that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, because instead of demanding recognition of the absence of the right to use the land plot by another person, he demanded the cancellation of the decision on state registration of this right, and also demanded recognition of the “right to formalize” the land plot instead of recognizing the right to use it directly. In addition, the court indicated that in disputes about the right to a land plot of state or communal ownership, the proper defendant is not only another user, but also the relevant state or local government body that has the right to dispose of this plot, and the plaintiff did not involve such a body in the case. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the proper way to protect the civil rights of a person who, in the disputed legal relations, believes that the registered right to use the land plot of the defendant is absent, is his claim to the person for whom such right is registered, to recognize the absence of the right to use. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions, pointing to the improper method of protection and the improper subject composition of the defendants. Regarding court costs, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of first instance on partial reimbursement of legal aid costs, but overturned the additional decision of the court of appeal, because the defendant did not prove the incurrence of legal aid costs in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, left the cassation appeals of PJSC “MARS” unsatisfied, changed the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, left unchanged the additional decision of the court of first instance and canceled the additional decision of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n **Case No. 643\/6711\/16-\u0446 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Kharkiv City Council to amend the land lease agreement by recognizing an additional agreement as concluded in connection with the increase in the normative monetary valuation of land.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, because the court of appeal violated the norms of procedural law when resolving the issue of renewing the term for appeal. The court of cassation indicated that the court of appeal did not establish valid reasons for the significant omission of the term for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not clarify whether there are legal grounds for its renewal. 3. The court of cassation instance decided to cancel the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 757\/19417\/23-\u0446 dated 09\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the honor, dignity, and business reputation of an individual, namely, the recognition of the actions of the defendant (ZN UA LLC) regarding the dissemination of information about the plaintiff (PERSON_1) on the Internet as violating his non-property right to use his name, and the obligation to remove the relevant publication.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s non-property right to use his name, as he disseminated information about him as a person suspected of committing a criminal offense before the accusatory verdict of the court entered into legal force, which is expressly prohibited by Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the existence of public interest in the information does not exclude the need to comply with this norm. It was also taken into account that the case concerns the protection of the non-property right to use a name, and not the protection of personal data or the refutation of inaccurate information. The court emphasized that the violation of a direct legislative prohibition on the use of the name of a suspected person cannot be interpreted as criticism in the media. At the same time, the Supreme Court indicated that the obligation to remove the entire publication is excessive, since part of the information does not concern the plaintiff, and changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, limiting the defendant’s obligation to removing only the reference to the plaintiff’s name from the publication.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the courts of previous instances, obliging ZN UA LLC to remove from the publication only the reference to the name of PERSON_1, and not the entire publication, and redistributed court costs.<\/p>\n Case No. 552\/1960\/21 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim).<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, canceling the decision of the appellate court. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention.<\/p>\n Case No. 309\/3292\/23 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, as the court of first instance, having examined all the evidence, came to a reasonable conclusion about the guilt of PERSON_6 in intentional homicide, and the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and found them unfounded. The court took into account the testimonies of witnesses, protocols of inspection of the scene, conclusions of examinations, including forensic medical and psychiatric, as well as the admission of guilt by the convicted person himself. The defense’s arguments about the lack of intent to kill and the state of stress are refuted by the expert’s conclusion, which confirmed that PERSON_6 was aware of his actions and could control them. The appellate court reasonably refused to re-examine the video recording, as the defense did not insist on this during the consideration of the case in the court of first instance. Inaccuracies in the convicted person’s personal data do not affect the legality of court decisions.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict and ruling of the previous instance courts regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Art. 115 part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n Case No. 613\/1130\/17 dated 10\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s verdict regarding PERSON_7.<\/p>\n Case No. 529\/984\/24 dated 11\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defender.<\/p>\n Case No. 908\/1267\/24 dated 09\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim, reasoning that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of all the elements of a civil offense necessary for the recovery of damages, namely: unlawful conduct of the defendant, a causal link between this conduct and the damages, and the fault of the defendant. The court noted that the cost of the work was agreed upon by the parties in the contract, the work completion certificates were signed without comments, and there is no evidence of the invalidity of the contract or changes in its terms. The court also indicated that the audit report of the State Audit Service of Ukraine is not proper evidence of damage, since there are contractual relations between the parties that establish the scope and cost of services. In addition, the court emphasized that the request of the State Audit Service for compensation of damages is addressed to the plaintiff, not the defendant, and is not a decision that directly creates obligations for the defendant. The court also noted that the rejection of the defendant’s motion for a forensic examination is not an unconditional ground for overturning the court decision.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 904\/1528\/24 dated 09\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the defendant’s illegal actions regarding the change of the land plot boundaries. The plaintiff’s claims are based on documents drawn up by the Inspectorate for State Control over Land Use and Protection, 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 552\/1960\/21 dated 09\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not fully comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law when reviewing the verdict of the court of first instance. In particular, the appellate court did not provide proper justification for its conclusions, limiting itself to general formulations when verifying the arguments of the defense appeal. The court did not take into account the contradictions in the conclusions of the expert examinations, which the court of first instance referred to, and did not justify why some expert opinions were taken into account and others were not. In addition, the appellate court did not properly assess the testimony of a witness, which differed from the conclusions of the court of first instance. Also, the appellate court, without examining the video recording, gave its own assessment of it, establishing from it the number of blows inflicted on the victim, which is a violation of the principle of direct examination of evidence. Given the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, the defense’s request for a re-examination of the evidence was not unreasonable.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.<\/p>\n Case No. 645\/5440\/23 dated 10\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments. To understand them, it is necessary to read the full text of the resolution, which will be announced on September 15, 2025. Without the full text, it is impossible to understand why the Supreme Court decided that the appellate court made mistakes in the case of PERSON_6. Perhaps the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law, or did not take into account important circumstances of the case, which led to the reversal 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 404\/8741\/21 dated 09\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments. It is only known from the text of the ruling that the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeals of the convicted PERSON_6 and the prosecutor against the appellate court’s ruling. At the same time, the full text of the ruling will be drawn up later, where the reasons for the decision will be stated. Currently, it can only be stated that the Supreme Court did not find grounds for overturning the appellate court’s ruling, and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal. This may indicate that the court agreed with the appellate instance’s conclusions regarding the proof of PERSON_6’s guilt and the correct application of the criminal law to him. Also, it is possible that the court did not find significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could affect the legality and validity of the court decision.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed PERSON_6’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 758\/9907\/21 dated 09\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the following: first, the long-term residence of the younger son with the father was taken into account, which provides the child with a stable and safe environment; second, the father pays due attention to the child’s health and development, in particular, he is engaged in the treatment of the child’s identified disorders; third, the courts took into account the conclusions of psychological examinations, which confirm the child’s attachment to the father and the positive impact of parental care; fourth, although the guardianship authority recommended that both children live with their mother, the court has the right not to agree with this conclusion if it contradicts the child’s interests; fifth, the court took into account that the father created appropriate conditions for the child’s residence and upbringing, in particular, provided housing and demonstrated the financial ability to support the son who lives with him abroad. The court also took into account information about the entry into the ERDR of information about the mother’s unauthorized actions against the son.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances on determining the place of residence of the daughter with the mother, and the son with the father, remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 947\/6594\/20 dated 09\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, when reviewing the case, noted that an effective method of protection should be chosen to protect a civil right, which corresponds to the essence of the violated right and the nature of the disputed legal relationship. In this case, the claim for cancellation of the state act is not an effective method of protection, since the plaintiff seeks to establish the procedure for using the land plot, and not to deprive the defendant of ownership. The court also indicated that the plaintiff did not prove how the disputed decisions of the city council violate her rights, freedoms, and interests. Regarding the counterclaim, the court agreed with the previous instances that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of obstacles in the use of his property, and since it was proven that the defendant obstructs the plaintiff in the use of the land plot, the counterclaim is subject to satisfaction. The court also rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to appoint an expert examination, since they are not relevant to the correctcase resolution.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances courts regarding the refusal to satisfy the initial claim, but left unchanged the decision regarding the satisfaction of the counterclaim to remove obstacles in the use of property.<\/p>\n
\nreceived funds under a loan agreement and did not provide evidence of their full repayment. The court took into account numerous reconciliation statements and partial payments, which interrupted the statute of limitations. The court also noted that the introduction of quarantine measures and martial law in Ukraine suspended the statute of limitations, which allowed the plaintiff to apply to the court within the established deadlines. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that a copy of the loan agreement was not a proper piece of evidence, as the original agreement was inspected by the court and found to be consistent with the copy. The court also applied the standard of proof of “probability of evidence,” emphasizing that the plaintiff’s evidence is more probable than the defendant’s evidence.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the distribution system operator’s commission regarding the additional charge to the consumer for the volume of unrecorded electricity due to detected malfunctions in the meter’s operation.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds based on the claim of JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” and the cancellation of economic sanctions and recovery of funds based on the counterclaim of LLC “Plant of Oil and Gas Equipment”.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the termination of the land lease right, recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement, and recognition of the absence of a land lease right.<\/p>\n
\nrendered judgments of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the land lease agreement between the plaintiff and the previous owner had expired, and the owner rightfully disposed of their land by concluding an agreement with another lessee. The court noted that the plaintiff’s preferential right to renew the agreement had not been violated, as the lessor had expressed their disagreement with the extension of the lease relationship. The court also emphasized that the automatic prolongation of lease agreements, provided by law in connection with the martial law, does not apply to this case, as the term of the agreement expired after the cancellation of this provision. The court took into account that the renewal of the lease agreement requires the consent of both parties, and the absence of such consent makes it impossible to recognize the agreement as renewed. Also, the court of cassation reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, recovered from the plaintiff in favor of the defendants, considering the previously determined amounts to be overstated.<\/p>\n
\nm, and in case of evasion from its conduct, the court may take into account other evidence in aggregate. The court also noted that the defendant did not apply for an expert examination to be conducted outside of Ukraine, where he was temporarily residing, which emphasizes his evasion from the procedural action.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out significant violations of the criminal procedure law, namely: the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal regarding the incompleteness of the judicial review and the inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance with the actual circumstances of the case; did not adequately justify the refusal to grant the request for re-examination of evidence, in particular, the testimonies of witnesses and the conclusion of the forensic medical examination; mistakenly recognized the conclusion of the forensic medical examination as inadmissible evidence, citing the absence of originals of medical documents in the case file, without taking into account the practice of the Supreme Court on this issue; did not directly examine the evidence, giving it a different assessment than the court of first instance, violating the principle of direct examination of evidence.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court mistakenly closed the proceedings, citing the fact that the investigating judge’s ruling granting permission for the audit is not subject to appeal; the Supreme Court emphasized that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has already expressed the position that appellate courts are obliged to open proceedings on complaints against investigating judges’ rulings granting permission to conduct unscheduled audits, citing the need to ensure the right to appeal procedural decisions guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; the Court also emphasized that courts should take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms to ensure the uniformity of judicial practice; Thus, the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law by not opening appellate proceedings, which is the basis for overturning its ruling.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate
\ninstance.<\/p>\n
\nthe cassation appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that when deciding on the reinstatement of the term for appeal, the appellate court must motivate its conclusion regarding the existence of valid reasons for the reinstatement of the term for appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the conclusion itself about the existence of valid reasons for reinstating the term for appeal is not a proper motivation for reinstating such a term. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account that the person who filed the appeal knew about the existence of the appealed decision for a long time but did not provide proper justification for the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal.<\/p>\n
\nof Appeal and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. In making such a decision, the court of cassation, presumably, established significant violations of the norms of criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court during the review of the judgment of the court of first instance, which could have affected the legality and validity of the court decision. Possibly, the appellate court did not fully examine the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal or did not properly assess the evidence that was relevant to the correct resolution of the case. Also, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the previous instance courts regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for intentional homicide (Art. 115 part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under part 3 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code (robbery combined with intrusion into a dwelling) and PERSON_8 under part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code (violation of inviolability of dwelling).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).<\/p>\n
\nand the judgments of the courts of previous instances remain unchanged. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, where the reasons for the decision will be stated. From the text, it can be concluded that the courts of previous instances found PERSON_7 guilty of intentional homicide under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the appellate court agreed with this decision. The defender, PERSON_6, filed a cassation appeal, presumably believing the judgments to be illegal and unfounded, but the Supreme Court found no grounds for their cancellation or modification. The lack of detail in the operative part does not allow establishing the specific arguments of the parties and the motives of the court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages from a limited liability company, which, according to the plaintiff, arose as a result of overestimating the cost of work performed under a contract for the overhaul of wheel pairs.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the state cadastral registrar regarding the introduction of changes to the boundaries of the land plot and the obligation to bring the configuration of the plot in accordance with the initial land management project.<\/p>\n
\nthat do not confirm the inconsistency of the information in the State Land Cadastre with the data of land management documentation. It is important that the plaintiff himself gave permission to design a residential building on the disputed plot after the alleged changes in the boundaries, which indicates recognition of the existing boundaries. The court noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to correct errors in the cadastre in accordance with the procedure established by law. The court of cassation emphasized that the reevaluation of evidence is not within its competence, and it only checks the correct application of legal norms.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily injury that resulted in the death of the victim).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court in the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_6 of committing theft under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\ning of its decision.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the convicted PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of two minor children, born in a civil marriage, between their parents who live separately.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of local self-government body decisions as invalid, the cancellation of the state act on the ownership of land, and the establishment of the procedure for using the land plot between the co-owners of the house.<\/p>\n