**Case \u2116536\/1302\/24 dated 09\/23\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the father in relation to two minor children.<\/p>\n
2. The appellate court, in overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure that can be applied only in the case of proven deliberate evasion by the father of his duties. The court took into account that the father works abroad, which limits his ability to communicate with the children, but does not indicate a deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities. It was also taken into account that the father had applied to the court with a claim to determine the method of participation in the upbringing of the children. The court noted that the children’s residence with their mother and her new husband is not proof that the biological father does not want to participate in their lives. It is important that the father’s negative impact on the children was not established, which makes the severance of family ties unjustified. The court of appeal concluded that in this case, the deprivation of parental rights does not meet the best interests of the children.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n
**Case \u2116383\/531\/24 dated 09\/22\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in the court of cassation in a case regarding the recognition of a gift agreement as invalid.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation, in granting the application for the recovery of expenses for legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments:
\n * Firstly, the plaintiff’s representative provided proper evidence confirming the fact of incurring expenses for legal assistance in the court of cassation, namely: an agreement on the provision of legal assistance, a calculation of the cost of services, an act of completed works, and a receipt for payment.
\n * Secondly, the court took into account the criteria of validity, necessity, and reasonableness of the amount of expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.
\n * Thirdly, the court noted that the other party did not file a motion to reduce the amount of expenses for legal assistance, and therefore agreed with their amount.
\n * Fourthly, the court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that when deciding on the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, an assessment should be given only to those circumstances regarding which the other party has objections.
\n * Fifthly, the court indicated that the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance corresponds to the criterion of the reality of the provided legal services, their scope, taking into account the complexity of the case, and the necessary procedural actions of the party.<\/p>\n
3. The court decided to grant the application for the adoption of an additional court decision and to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
\namount of costs for professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 8,500.00.<\/p>\n
Case No. 2-2170\/11 dated 09\/05\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which, in turn, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the complaint of PERSON_1. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the fact that PERSON_1 missed the ten-day period for appealing the actions of the state executor, established by Article 449 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and did not file a motion to renew this period for valid reasons. The court of cassation agreed with this conclusion, noting that PERSON_1 knew about the property valuation back in 2016, when her representative familiarized himself with the materials of the enforcement proceedings, but filed a complaint with the court only in 2020. The court also noted that in case of non-receipt of relevant documents for a long time, the presumption of the person’s obligation to know about the state of their rights in the enforcement proceedings applies.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 308\/7234\/22 dated 09\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 381\/890\/24 dated 09\/22\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for closing the proceedings in the part of the claims for annulment of the decision of the Pension Fund and obligation to recalculate the pension, since such claims are of a public-law nature and are subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings. The court noted that disputes regarding the calculation, appointment, recalculation and payment of pensions are public-law, since they arise from relations between a person and a state authority that performs administrative functions. Also, the court took into account that it is not allowed to combine in one proceeding claims that are subject to consideration in the order of different proceedings, namely claims for establishing a fact that has legal significance, and claims for appealing a decision of a subject of power. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to take into account the provisions of the third part of Article 19 of the CAS of Ukraine, since the combination of claims under the jurisdiction of different jurisdictions is inadmissible.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 509\/6195\/20 dated 09\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation concluded that the appellate court, in refusing to satisfy the claims against SC “Raduga-3”, did not take into account that the plaintiff’s claims, which arose on the basis of the contract with LLC “Granit K”, were extinguished in the bankruptcy procedure of the latter, which was established by previous court decisions in the commercial case. The Supreme Court emphasized that these circumstances are of prejudicial significance for this case, that is, they are not subject to repeated proof. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court came to contradictory conclusions, refusing the claim on various grounds, some of which exclude each other. The court of cassation emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, but such protection is possible only if the plaintiff’s rights are indeed violated, and in this case, given the extinguishment of claims in the bankruptcy procedure, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims against SC “Raduga-3”, stating it in a new version, taking into account the above-mentioned conclusions.<\/p>\n Case \u2116758\/12064\/22 dated 16\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432a of the court of appeal, which satisfied the application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s share in the authorized capital of the company. The court proceeded from the fact that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision, since the disputed property was repeatedly alienated. The court also took into account that the security of the claim is proportionate to the stated claims, will not lead to an unjustified restriction of the defendant’s rights, but will only limit the possibility of disposing of the disputed property. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to a revaluation of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation. The court also indicated that the security of the claim meets the criterion of proportionality with the stated claims.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case \u2116522\/7578\/21 dated 22\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case \u2116440\/6650\/24 dated 22\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the chairman of the court, issuing an order to transfer the case 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 522\/11142\/22 dated 22\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not comply with the procedure for unilateral termination of the agreement, provided for by the terms of the agreement, in particular, did not send a notice of termination to the proper legal address of the defendant, and there is no evidence that the defendant received the notice. The court noted that since the agreement was not terminated in the prescribed manner, there are no grounds for obliging the developer to fulfill the conditions for the return of funds. The court also pointed out that the terms of the agreement provide for the return of funds only after the transfer of rights to the object to a third party and receipt of payment for it, which was not proven. Although the court agreed that the conclusion of the courts of previous instances regarding the need to simultaneously pay 1% of the value of the share upon termination of the agreement is erroneous, this did not affect the final decision in the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 593\/315\/20 dated 20\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court, in particular, regarding the impact of appealing the decision to liquidate the enterprise on the timeliness of applying to the court with a claim for reinstatement at work. The appellate court did not clarify whether appealing the decision to liquidate the enterprise could be an objective obstacle to the plaintiff’s timely application to the court, taking into account the out-of-court settlement of the dispute and the uncertainty of the legal situation. The Supreme Court emphasized 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/5247\/25 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the previous instances, emphasizing that the law on the State Budget cannot amend other laws, suspend their operation, or repeal them, as this leads to inconsistencies in legislation and restriction of citizens’ rights. The court noted that the application of the provisions of Article 46 of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which provide for the payment of pensions with the application of coefficients to the amount of the pension exceeding 10 subsistence minimums, is illegal. The court emphasized that in such cases, a special law should be applied, which regulates the procedure for assigning, recalculating, and paying pensions to military personnel and other persons, and this law does not provide for any restrictions on the amount of pensions. The court also took into account the previous decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on this issue.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged, confirming the illegality of the Pension Fund’s actions regarding the application of reducing coefficients to the plaintiff’s pension.<\/p>\n Case No. 757\/33049\/22-\u0446 dated 09\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts, which dismissed the claim to establish the fact of the plaintiff’s brother’s permanent residence with the testator (grandmother) on the date of the inheritance opening. The courts of previous instances concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of his brother’s permanent residence with his grandmother at the time of her death. In particular, the evidence provided by the plaintiff (an act of cohabitation, receipts for utility payments, a lease agreement) does not contain sufficient information that would unambiguously 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 199\/3149\/23 dated 08\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right. Case No. 646\/539\/24 dated 09\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “OGS “KHARKIVMISKGAZ” in favor of PERSON_1 of arrears in the payment of severance pay and average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish the circumstances necessary to resolve the issue of jurisdiction of the dispute.<\/p>\n Case No. 947\/28933\/21 dated 09\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not prove the fact of acceptance of the inheritance after the death of the daughter, in particular, did not provide evidence of cohabitation with the testator at the time of the latter’s death, which is a necessary condition for automatic acceptance of the inheritance in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the difference in the place of registration of the plaintiff and the deceased daughter casts doubt on the fact of their cohabitation. Also, the plaintiff did not apply to the court with a request to renew the term for accepting the inheritance. The court took into account that the bank duly notified the heirs about the existence of debt and the possibility of foreclosure on the mortgaged property. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her inheritance rights, since she did not confirm the fact of acceptance of the inheritance in the manner prescribed by law.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 554\/4028\/23 dated 09\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, upholding the decisions of previous instances, agreed that the best interests of the child are served by living with the father, taking into account the child’s stable social connections, her attachment to the father, long-term residence with him in a familiar environment, as well as the father’s conscientious performance of his duties. The court also took into account the opinion of the child herself, expressed in her written explanations. An important factor was that the mother lives in another city, which could lead to the destruction of the child’s social connections. The court also noted that it is impossible to apply the model of joint physical custody, since the mother lives in another city. In addition, the court satisfied the father’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, recognizing them as reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case.<\/p>\n 3.The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 420\/810\/25 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the Law on the State Budget cannot amend other laws, suspend their effect or repeal them, as this creates contradictions in the legislation and leads to restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens. The court emphasized that in this case, a special law should be applied, which regulates the procedure for the appointment, recalculation and payment of pensions to military personnel, namely the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Certain Other Persons,” which does not provide for any restrictions on the amount of pensions. The court also took into account the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, according to which the Law on the State Budget cannot amend other laws. The court indicated that the pension restrictions established by the Law on the State Budget and the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers are illegal and restrict the guaranteed right to adequate social protection, provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine. The court also noted that the application of reduction coefficients to the plaintiff’s pension contradicts the provisions of the special law that regulates the procedure for paying pensions to military personnel.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and to leave the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 465\/1234\/22 dated 09\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the borrower’s counterclaim for loan restructuring, since the borrower applied to the bank in a timely manner with the appropriate application, as of January 1, 2014, he had no overdue debt, and the mortgaged apartment is his permanent place of residence. The court noted that the existence of another apartment owned by the enterprise, of which the borrower is the founder, is not a basis for refusing restructuring, since the property of the enterprise is not the property of an individual entrepreneur. The court also emphasized that the requirement that the borrower does not own other housing does not extend to the property of a legal entity in the authorized capital of which the debtor has a share. The Court of Cassation rejected the bank’s reference to the decision of the Constitutional 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116320\/25649\/24 dated 23\/09\/2025** 2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal, since the appellate court did not fulfill its obligation to verify the crediting of the paid court fee to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine, and only formally approached the issue of compliance of the details in the payment document. The Supreme Court emphasized that the obligation to verify the fact of crediting the court fee lies with the court, and the legislation does not establish a specific list of documents that confirm this fact. The court noted that the appellate court should have clarified whether the amount of the court fee was actually credited to the special fund, using available methods, in particular, obtaining information from the State Treasury Service of Ukraine. Since the appellate court did not do this, its ruling was recognized as erroneous.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116260\/4751\/24 dated 22\/09\/2025** 2. The court of cassation instance overturned the rulings of the appellate court on the return of the plaintiff’s appeals, since the appellate court mistakenly believed that the appeals were signed by the plaintiff’s representative, a lawyer, without proper evidence of his authority. In fact, the case file shows that the appeals were filed personally by the plaintiff through an electronic cabinet in the “Electronic Court” subsystem using a qualified electronic signature, which confirms his personal filing of the appeals. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the electronic cabinet is an official means of exchanging documents between the court and participants in the process, and electronic identification of a person is carried out using a qualified electronic signature. The appellate court did not fully examine the materials of the plaintiff’s appeals, which led to erroneous conclusions. As a result, the norms of procedural law were violated, which hinders further proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court ruled to overturn the rulings of the appellate court and send the case to the court of appellate instance for further consideration. Case No. 260\/4751\/24 dated 22\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 420\/4971\/25 dated 23\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 620\/3407\/24 of 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance noted that the additional remuneration established for the period of martial law is a special type of monetary allowance related to the special nature of service in wartime conditions. The court emphasized the importance of social protection of servicemen who participate in the defense of Ukraine and the state’s obligation to take measures to motivate and support them. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the evidence of the plaintiff’s inpatient treatment, and also did not take into account the existence of electronic document flow between medical institutions and military units, which refutes the fact that the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff’s treatment. The court also noted that the conclusion of the military medical commission may be expressed in the form of a certificate, and the courts had to give a proper legal assessment to all the evidence in the case. In addition, the court emphasized that the courts did not adhere to the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme 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. 380\/2243\/25 of 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court satisfied the claims, based on the fact that the pension provision of servicemen is regulated by a special law, namely the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision of Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Some Other Persons.” The court notedregarding pension provision for persons dismissed from military service and certain other persons,” to which amendments can only be made by amending this law. The court emphasized that the pension restrictions established by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine contradict the provisions of this special law and restrict the constitutional right to social protection. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which confirm the illegality of restricting the maximum amount of pensions assigned in accordance with Law No. 2262-XII. The court indicated that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” cannot change the conditions and norms of pension provision established by a special law. The court emphasized that the application of coefficients to the pension amount exceeding 10 times the subsistence minimum is an unlawful restriction.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 140\/16568\/21 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the actions of the military unit regarding the refusal to recalculate and pay indexation of monetary allowance to a serviceman for the period from March 1, 2018, to the day of dismissal.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, which refused to satisfy the serviceman’s claim, pointing out that the courts did not investigate the circumstances relevant to the correct application of the Norms of Procedure No. 1078 regarding the indexation of monetary allowance, in particular, did not clarify whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the so-called “indexation-difference” in connection with the increase in monetary allowance in March 2018. The court noted that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish the amount of increase in the plaintiff’s income in March 2018, the amount of possible indexation of monetary allowance in this month, and also to clarify whether the amount of increase in income exceeds the amount of possible indexation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the previous instance courts did not verify the correctness of the calculation of the indexation-difference provided by the plaintiff in the statement of claim and did not give a proper assessment to the arguments of the parties.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous instance courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/2779\/25 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine on the refusal to grant a one-time financial assistance and the obligation to include certain periods of work in the special seniority for the purpose of granting an old-age pension.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly returned the appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, since, according to the subsystem “Electro 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/248\/25 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the non-consideration of a disciplinary complaint against a judge and the claim for compensation for moral damages.<\/p>\n 2. The court dismissed the claim, based on the fact that although the deadlines for considering the disciplinary complaint were violated, this was due to objective reasons, in particular, the significant workload of HCJ members and disciplinary inspectors. The court took into account that after amendments to the legislation and the commencement of the disciplinary inspectors’ service, disciplinary proceedings that had not been resolved were transferred to the inspectors, which led to a redistribution of workload and interruption of deadlines for consideration. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of a causal link between the actions of the HCJ and the moral damage caused, and the fact of unreasonable delay in considering the complaint was not established. The court referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the timeframes for considering cases, taking into account the complexity of the case, the behavior of the parties, and the importance of the subject of the dispute.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Council of Justice to recognize the inaction as illegal, to oblige certain actions, and to compensate for moral damages.<\/p>\n Case No. 140\/2543\/25 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the application of restrictions in recalculating the pension of a serviceman, provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Determining the Procedure for Payment of Pensions to Certain Categories of Persons in 2025 during Martial Law.”<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the actions of the Pension Fund as illegal. The court emphasized that the law on the State Budget cannot amend other laws, suspend their effect, or repeal them. 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the Pension Fund’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the Pension Fund’s obligation to pay the plaintiff’s pension without applying restrictions.<\/p>\n Case No. 280\/6895\/24 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings due to the missed deadline for appealing. The court noted that the military unit missed the deadline for filing an appeal and did not provide sufficiently valid reasons for its renewal. In particular, the lack of funds to pay the court fee is not an objective obstacle but a subjective reason. Also, the court took into account that the military unit did not provide evidence of taking measures to pay the fee on time, although it had such an opportunity. The court emphasized that the return of the previous appeal does not give the right to an indefinite appeal of the decision, especially in the absence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The participation of the military unit in measures to defend the country does not exempt it from the obligation to comply with procedural deadlines.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 754\/15450\/23 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as it concluded that the guilt of PERSON_6 was proven by proper and admissible evidence examined by the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the local court reasonably rejected PERSON_6’s version of ignorance regarding the status of the victims as police officers, as this is refuted by their testimonies, video recordings from body cameras where they introduced themselves and were in uniform. The court of cassation alsothe court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court reasonably refused to re-examine the evidence, as the defense counsel did not substantiate why they were examined incompletely or with violations. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court is not obliged to re-examine the evidence if it does not interpret it differently than the court of first instance. In addition, the court of cassation noted that the parties to the criminal proceedings have equal rights to collect and submit evidence, and it is the parties who determine the scope of evidence to be examined.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.<\/p>\n Case No. 464\/5152\/23 dated 09\/25\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation as a family without registration of marriage between the applicant and the deceased in order to realize the right to inheritance and receive a one-time financial assistance. Case No. 127\/10853\/24 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an application for recognizing an individual as legally incapacitated, establishing guardianship, and appointing a guardian. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the refusal to appoint the applicant as a guardian and referred the case in this part for a new consideration to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 2610\/5287\/2012 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly recognized PERSON_2 as a person whose rights and interests are directly violated by the appealed rulings, since her participation in the credit legal relations, on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued, was not established. The court noted that the right to appeal should be based on a legal, rather than hypothetical, interest, conditioned by the norms of substantive law. Also, the appellate court did not investigate which specific rights, interests, or obligations of PERSON_2 are violated by the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution and the replacement of the party in the enforcement proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the existence of circumstances for the protection of the rights of PERSON_2 should be the subject of a separate judicial review. The court of cassation took into account that by a court decision in another case, the contract for the donation of the apartment to PERSON_2 was declared invalid.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/15836\/24 dated 09\/16\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, noting that for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, the existence of a monetary obligation of the debtor to the creditor, the absence of a dispute about the right regarding the claims, and the failure of the debtor to satisfy these claims before the preparatory hearing of the court are important. The court emphasized that the obligation to prove solvency rests with the debtor, and only full satisfaction of the creditor’s claims before the preparatory hearing is the basis for refusing to open proceedings. The court also pointed out that 3. The cassation court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s ruling to open bankruptcy proceedings against LLC “Alliance of Builders of Ukraine”.<\/p>\n Case No. 873\/46\/25 dated 17\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 915\/1624\/16 dated 16\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that LLC “Novotor”, as the owner of the debtor’s corporate rights, lawfully repaid the creditors’ claims, and the purpose of the bankruptcy case was achieved, since all creditors’ claims, except for penalties, were satisfied. The court noted that the legislator provides for the obligation of a participant in a business association to take actions to prevent bankruptcy, including the right to simultaneously repay creditors’ claims. Also, the court took into account the duration of the bankruptcy procedure, which lasted from 2017, and the need to comply with reasonable time limits for the consideration of the case. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the repayment took place as a result of enforcement proceedings, since the main goal of the bankruptcy procedure is back 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts to close the bankruptcy case remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 925\/1263\/24 dated 09\/25\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and granted the cassation appeal in the part of the grounds provided for in paragraph 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the previous instances due to violations of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case that are relevant for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the court of cassation pointed out the incompleteness of the examination of evidence and failure to take into account certain circumstances that could affect the legality and validity of the appealed decisions. The court emphasized the importance of a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the case to ensure a fair resolution of the dispute. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance to eliminate the identified deficiencies.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Cherkasy Region.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/157\/25 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the procedure for evaluating the practical task met the established requirements, namely: 4. The court decided to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 620\/4633\/23 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, motivating it by the fact that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case regarding the legality of the actions of one of the private enforcement officers, namely, Prykhodko Yurii Mykhailovych. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need for a thorough analysis of the parties’ arguments and their proper evaluation. In particular, the court of first instance needs to check whether all the requirements of the law were met when the decision was made by the private enforcement officer Prykhodko Yu.M. Also, it is important to clarify the circumstances that preceded the issuance of the appealed decision, and their impact on the legality of the private enforcement officer’s actions. Regarding the claims against another private enforcement officer, Koval Vitalii Oleksandrovych, the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, leaving it unchanged.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the claims against the private enforcement officer Prykhodko Yurii Mykhailovych and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and in the other part, it left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 560\/10\/23 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, reviewing the case, found that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the new wording of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (which limits the payment of average earnings to six months) to the entire period of delay in settlement, without taking into account that part of this period falls on the period of validity of the previous wording of this article, which did not contain such restrictions. The court also noted that after the amendments to Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the application of the principle of proportionality, set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of September 26, 2019, is impractical, since the legislator has already established restrictions on the term of payment of compensation. Considering this, the Supreme Court determined that the principle of proportionality may be applied to the period before July 19, 2022 (when the old wording of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was in effect), and for the period after this date, the restriction on the payment of average earnings for six months is in effect. Based on these conclusions, the court recalculated the amount payable to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance amended the decisions of the courts Case No. 420\/40610\/24 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 359\/7985\/18 dated 09\/05\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 532\/2266\/23 dated 09\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment without changes, as the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and reasonably established the person’s guilt in committing the crime under Article 407, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the convict’s arguments about the forced nature of leaving the unit were disproved by the examined evidence, and the fact of leaving the unit without valid reasons was proven. Also, the court of cassation indicated the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could affect the legality and validity of court decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that the convicted person is not deprived of the opportunity to initiate the issue of parole for military service under a contract.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court without changes, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person \u2013 without satisfaction.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of the state executor regarding the valuation of property and its transfer to the claimant in order to repay the debt under a court decision.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision to dismiss the director of the communal enterprise and his reinstatement.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the dismissal of the director was illegal, since the decision on dismissal did not specifically state which conditions of the contract were violated, but only general references to normative acts and the contract. The court noted that the Zakarpattia Regional Council did not prove the existence of specific violations of the contract on the part of the director, which is a necessary condition for lawful dismissal under paragraph 8 of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. Also, the courts took into account that at the time of the decision on dismissal, the director had been in office for less than a year, which made it impossible to assess his performance in accordance with the internal regulations of the council. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the inefficiency of the director, since they were not reflected in the decision on dismissal as specific violations of the terms of the contract. The court also emphasized that violations of the procedure for making a decision on dismissal, although they occurred, are not the main reason for canceling the decision, since the main reason is the lack of specific grounds for dismissal provided for in the contract.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Pension Fund to refuse the recalculation of the pension and
\nobligation to recalculate taking into account certain periods of employment and study, as well as establishing the fact that the documents belong to the person.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the servicing cooperative (SC) “Raduga-3” of compensation for property and moral damage, as well as lost profits, related to the non-fulfillment of the contract for equity participation in housing construction, concluded with LLC “Granit K”.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of contracts for the sale and purchase of shares in the authorized capital of companies as invalid and the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation of the plaintiff’s rights.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased for the purposes of inheritance.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the establishment of the fact of living as one family without marriage before 2004 has no legal significance, since the legislation in force at that time did not provide for relevant legal consequences. In addition, the court indicated that the requirement to establish the fact of living as one family is not an effective means of protection, since the plaintiff did not claim the distribution of the inheritance or the determination of ownership of it. The court also emphasized that the establishment of the fact of living as one family will not affect the inheritance rights of the plaintiff, since she is already an heir of the first \u043e\u0447\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438 as the wife of the deceased. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law and did not violate the norms of procedural law.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. Subject matter of the dispute – appealing the orders of the chairman of the district court on the transfer of civil cases to another court.<\/p>\n
\nto another court due to the impossibility of forming a panel of judges, acts within the limits of the procedural law, and not as a subject of power. The court emphasized that such actions of the court president are aimed at ensuring the right to judicial protection. If the plaintiff believes that the case was considered by an unauthorized panel of judges, they should appeal the relevant court decision in appellate procedure within the civil case, and not initiate a separate administrative process. The Supreme Court emphasized that appealing the actions of judges regarding the consideration of cases outside the procedural order is not allowed, and all procedural violations must be eliminated within the case where they were committed. The court also noted that the lack of opportunity to appeal the actions of the court other than through appeal or cassation is a legitimate restriction that ensures legal certainty and the independence of judges.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the agreement on equity participation in construction and the obligation of the developer to return the funds paid.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order of dismissal and reinstatement at work.<\/p>\n
\nbelieved that the courts should ascertain whether there were objective and insurmountable obstacles to a person’s timely appeal to the court, especially when the person could reasonably believe that the resolution of a related dispute in other proceedings is important for determining their legal position. The appellate court limited itself to stating the fact of missing the deadline, without investigating the circumstances that could affect the timeliness of the appeal to the court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the application of reducing coefficients when recalculating the plaintiff’s pension, which was assigned in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Certain Other Persons.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s permanent residence with the testator on the date of the inheritance opening for the registration of inheritance rights.<\/p>\n
\nconfirmed this fact. The court also took into account that the plaintiff’s brother was registered and lived in another place, which casts doubt on the fact of his permanent residence with his grandmother. The court of cassation agreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances and emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, took into account that the prosecutor challenged the legitimacy of the defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the land, claiming forgery of the order of the State Geocadastre, based on which the ownership right was registered. The court noted that the existence of a copy of the order, which was the basis for registration, casts doubt on the claim of forgery, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of document forgery. The court also took into account that the disputed land plot is located in an area where active hostilities were conducted, which complicates the receipt of original documents. At the same time, the court drew attention to the fact that the dispute between the local self-government body and the legal entity (SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”) regarding the land plot is subject to consideration in the commercial court, and not in the civil court. The court emphasized that an electronic document has the legal force of the original if it is drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the law, and the evaluation of electronic evidence is carried out on general grounds.
\n3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and in the other part the decision remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
\n2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim, considering the claims for severance pay to be well-founded, but the term for applying to the court, provided for in Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, was missed, without valid reasons for its renewal. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision, drew attention to the fact that the courts did not take into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the distinction between corporate and labor disputes, especially in cases of dismissal of officials of companies. The court of cassation indicated that the courts should have checked whether the plaintiff was a member of the collegial executive body, since disputesregarding the termination of the powers of such persons fall under the commercial jurisdiction. Also, the courts did not investigate the grounds for the dismissal of the plaintiff and prematurely concluded that the case could be considered under the rules of civil procedure.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of decisions of the state registrar on the registration of the bank’s ownership of real estate, which became the property of the bank as a result of foreclosure under a mortgage agreement, and the recognition of ownership of this property in the order of inheritance.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the determination of the child’s place of residence after the divorce of the parents, as well as the recovery of alimony.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the application of restrictions when recalculating the pension of a serviceman, namely, the application of reduction coefficients established by the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025” and the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, as well as a counterclaim for obliging the bank to restructure the obligations under this agreement.<\/p>\n
\ndo not take into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as they relate to other legal relations.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Kyiv Regional Military Administration regarding the seizure and provision of a land plot for the National Military Memorial Cemetery.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s appeal against the actions and decisions of the military unit regarding his detention, conscription for military service during mobilization, as well as exclusion from the personnel lists.<\/p>\n
\nreyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/130456745″>Case No. 219\/14256\/18 dated 18\/09\/2025<\/strong>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s dismissal from the position of chief accountant as illegal, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as the employer complied with the procedure for dismissal of an employee due to staff reduction, provided for in Article 49-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, having timely warned the employee about the dismissal. The court took into account that at the time of warning the plaintiff about the dismissal and at the time of dismissal, there were no vacant positions that would correspond to her qualifications. The court noted that the issue of the legality of hiring another person for the position of accountant with a probationary period is not related to the circumstances of this case, as it occurred before the plaintiff’s dismissal. The court also rejected the arguments about violation of the secrecy of the adoption of a court decision, referring to changes in legislation regarding the abolition of the institution of the deliberation room.
\n3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions and decisions of the military unit regarding the conscription of the plaintiff for military service during mobilization, as well as the requirements for his dismissal from service.
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly returned the plaintiff’s appeals, considering that they were signed by a representative without proper authority. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appeals were filed through the “Electronic Court” system personally by the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the case materials and the electronic digital signature. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not fully investigate the case materials and came to erroneous conclusions regarding the signing of the appeals by a representative. Considering that the appeals were filed personally by the plaintiff through the electronic cabinet, there were no grounds for their return. This is a violation of the norms of procedural law, which impedes further proceedings in the case.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s rulings on the return of the appeals and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the application of restrictions when recalculating the pension of a serviceman, provided for by the Law on the State Budget and the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution.
\n2. The court satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the Law on the State Budget cannot make changes to other laws, in particular to the Law “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service,” which is a special law in this area. The court emphasized
\nthat the establishment of additional restrictions on the amount of pensions through coefficients actually narrows the scope of rights of retired military personnel, which contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine. The court took into account previous decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which emphasize the inadmissibility of making changes to laws through the Law on the State Budget. The court also noted that the special law governing the pension provision of military personnel does not provide for any restrictions on the amount of pensions. The court indicated that the application of reduction coefficients to the plaintiff’s pension contradicts the provisions of the special law that regulates the procedure for assigning, recalculating, and paying pensions to persons dismissed from military service.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman an additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for the period of inpatient treatment due to an injury related to the defense of the Motherland.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv region regarding the restriction of the amount of the plaintiff’s pension on the basis of a resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which establishes the procedure for paying pensions to certain categories of persons during martial law.<\/p>\n
\nthe “Appellate Court,” the defendant submitted a document confirming payment of the court fee within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to re-verify the compliance of the complaint and attached documents with the requirements of the procedural law, even if a ruling on leaving the complaint without motion had been previously issued. Also, the court emphasized the importance of the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of procedural rights by the appellant. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court cannot limit a party’s right to appeal the case based solely on formal grounds without properly investigating the availability of submitted documents.<\/p>\n
\nbecause it leads to contradictions in legislation and restricts the rights of citizens. The Supreme Court emphasized that in this case, a special law regulating pension provision for military personnel should be applied, and this law does not provide for restrictions established by budget legislation. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which has repeatedly stated the inadmissibility of amending pension legislation by the law on the State Budget. Thus, the court upheld the plaintiff’s right to receive a pension without the restrictions established by the challenged regulations.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to a serviceman for participating in combat operations.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of minor bodily harm to a law enforcement officer in connection with the performance of his official duties).<\/p>\n
\n2. The court refused to grant the application, as the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm cohabitation with the deceased as a family, maintaining a common household and economy, as well as the existence of mutual rights and obligations inherent in a family; the evidence provided only indicated possible close relationships, communication at a distance, and leisure activities. The court also took into account the presence of other close relatives of the deceased (parents) and the absence of evidence of the absence of other family members who could claim assistance or inheritance. The court noted that the fact of joint vacation, money transfers, joint attendance at holidays by themselves, without proving the fact of maintaining a common household, the existence of a common budget and mutual rights and obligations inherent in a married couple, cannot reliably indicate that the parties had established and maintained stable relationships inherent in a married couple. The court also critically assessed the provided power of attorney, as the applicant undertook to return all credited funds, which does not indicate the existence of a common budget. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
\n3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, did not properly assess the collected evidence and made conclusions based on assumptions. The appellate court did not substantiate exactly which issues the guardianship authority should have clarified when verifying the possibility of the applicantdid not check whether the applicant’s mother had applied for her appointment as a guardian and did not take into account that court conclusions cannot be based on assumptions about the purpose of the applicant’s appeal to the court. The court of cassation emphasized that the current legislation does not contain restrictions on the appointment of a person of mobilization age as a guardian, and the appellate court did not assess the fact that the applicant’s father is already undergoing military service. Thus, the appellate court did not ensure a comprehensive, complete, and objective clarification of the circumstances of the case, which made it impossible to make a legal and justified decision.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the rulings of the court of first instance regarding the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution and the replacement of the claimant party in the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open proceedings in the case of bankruptcy of “Alliance Builders of Ukraine” LLC at the initiative of “Sobi” LLC.<\/p>\n
\nthe analysis of the debtor’s financial condition is carried out at the stage of disposal of property, and not at the stage of opening proceedings. The appellate court did not take into account that the existence of security for the creditor’s claims is not a basis for refusing to open proceedings, and also incorrectly assessed the possibility of analyzing the debtor’s financial condition at the stage of the preparatory hearing.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the arbitral tribunal’s decision to recover debt under a loan agreement from an individual entrepreneur.
\n2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to overturn the decision of the arbitral tribunal, citing the fact that the appellate court took an overly formal approach to the case and did not take into account important procedural violations committed by the arbitral tribunal. In particular, the arbitral tribunal did not ensure proper notification of the defendant, who is an active serviceman, about the consideration of the case, which deprived him of the opportunity to protect his rights and interests, including the right to benefits provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families”. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of equality of the parties and adversarial proceedings in the judicial process, as well as the state’s obligation to ensure social protection of servicemen. Taking these circumstances into account, the Supreme Court concluded that upholding the decision of the arbitral tribunal would be a disproportionate interference with the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and overturned the decision of the arbitral tribunal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closing of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC ZhEK “Soliani” on the basis of the repayment of all creditors’ claims, except for penalties.<\/p>\n
\nSatisfaction of creditors’ claims, regardless of the method of their repayment. The court emphasized that penalties (fines, late payment interest) are included in the register of creditors’ claims separately from the main obligations in the sixth priority and are considered repaid if all other claims are satisfied.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Executive Committee of the Cherkasy City Council to perform certain actions, initiated by the Northern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of the qualification exam of a candidate for the position of judge of the appellate administrative court.<\/p>\n
\n * The evaluation was carried out by the examination board in the approved composition using special software that ensures anonymity and objectivity of the evaluation.
\n * The software does not provide for the assignment of separate grades for each indicator, but only one individual grade by each member of the commission.
\n * The fact that one of the members of the commission was on sick leave does not indicate bias in the assessment, since the software allows working outside of working hours, and the plaintiff has not proved violations of the procedure for accessing the authorized workplace.
\n * The court emphasized that the plaintiff
\nit has not been proven how the assessment of his work was carried out in violation of the procedure, which could affect the objectivity of the assessment.
\n * The court also took into account that a comprehensive system of protection of automated workflows has been implemented in the information and communication system of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against actions and decisions of private enforcement officers regarding enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the payment of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.<\/p>\n
\nof previous instances, increasing the amount of the average earnings for the period of delay in the settlement upon dismissal, which is subject to payment to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the expert monetary valuation of property in enforcement proceedings.
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to the expiry of the term for applying to the court. The courts found that the plaintiff’s representative received the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 [resolution\/ruling] of the Supreme Court, which indicated the need for a different method of protection, on December 7, 2024, and the claim was filed only on December 30, 2024, i.e., after the expiration of the ten-day term. The court noted that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of objective obstacles to timely application to the court, and reference to a minor omission of the term is not a sufficient basis for its renewal. Also, the court took into account that the lawyer received the court decision in the electronic cabinet, which indicates awareness of the need to take action. The court emphasized that the institution of terms in the administrative process contributes to legal certainty and encourages participants in the process to act in good faith with regard to their obligations.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family, recognition of ownership of property acquired during cohabitation without marriage, and division of this property, as well as recognition of ownership of property acquired in a registered marriage that was dissolved.
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for establishing the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, since at the time of the occurrence of the disputed legal relations (before January 1, 2004), the legislation did not provide for the possibility of establishing such a fact. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the maintenance of a common household, the existence of a common budget and mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses. Regarding the claims of the deceased’s ex-wife for recognition of ownership of property acquired in a registered marriage, the court noted that such right can only be recognized by a notary, and the court cannot assume his powers. The court of cassation emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies, and proof cannot be based on assumptions.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a serviceman for unauthorized abandonment of a military unit under martial law.<\/p>\n