Case \u2116740\/2368\/20 dated 01\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal transfer of property and the cancellation of entries on state registration of ownership of non-residential buildings.<\/p>\n
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and partially satisfied the claim, reasoning that the transfer of property to the defendants occurred on the basis of illegitimate documents, namely a joint property ownership agreement and a union charter, which did not contain the necessary data on signing and approval. The Supreme Court did not agree with this decision, since the plaintiff did not challenge the legality of these documents, and also did not involve the association of co-owners, the decision of which he was appealing, in the case. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the agreement between co-owners on the procedure for owning joint property is also binding on a person who subsequently acquired a share in the right of common shared ownership. The Supreme Court also took into account that the plaintiff knew that the property that was subleased to him belonged to the association of co-owners.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116761\/23680\/23 dated 01\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state enforcement officer regarding the determination of the place of meeting with the child.
\n2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that the state enforcement officer has the right to independently determine the place of meeting with the child, if it was not specifically defined by the court decision that is subject to enforcement. In this case, the court’s ruling on securing the claim defined only the city (Tiachiv), but not a specific address for meetings. The appellate court, granting the appeal, did not take into account that the appeal filed with the court of first instance did not refer to the fact that the state enforcement officer did not summon the parties to agree on the place and time of the meeting. In addition, the appellate court did not indicate how the executor’s change of the meeting place does not take into account the interests of the child, considering the grounds on which the complaint was filed. The court of first instance correctly took into account that the specifics of the executor’s activity during the execution of a court decision on establishing a meeting with a child, a decision on removing obstacles to a meeting with a child, lies primarily in the fact that the executor can at his own discretion determine the time and place of meeting with the child in the event that such conditions were not determined by the court in the decision that is being executed by the executor.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116991\/9023\/25 dated 07\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute
\nThere is a criminal proceeding regarding the accusation of PERSON_3 of misappropriation, embezzlement of property or taking possession of it through abuse of official position, committed by an organized group, on an especially large scale, that is, of committing a crime under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
2. The court approved the plea agreement because it was concluded voluntarily between the prosecutor and the accused with the participation of a defense attorney, met the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the interests of society, and did not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons. The court took into account the accused’s unconditional admission of guilt, her agreement to the agreed punishment, and the absence of grounds to believe that the agreement was not voluntary. The court also took into account mitigating circumstances, such as sincere remorse and active assistance in solving the criminal offense, as well as the absence of aggravating circumstances. The court noted that the punishment agreed upon by the parties corresponds to the sanction of Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the general principles of sentencing established by Article 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the accused partially compensated for the damage caused.<\/p>\n
3. The court approved the plea agreement and rendered a verdict by which PERSON_3 was found guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 7 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a term of 2 years, releasing her from serving the main sentence with probation.<\/p>\n
Case No. 488\/2818\/23 dated 02\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute was the elimination of obstacles in the use of the apartment by evicting the ex-wife of the plaintiff’s deceased husband and establishing the fact of the deceased husband’s paternity in relation to his minor child.<\/p>\n 2. The court of appeal, satisfying the claim to establish the fact of paternity, took into account that the parties did not deny the fact that the child’s mother and the deceased lived together, as well as their raising of children. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s correspondence with another child of the deceased, where she called the deceased “dad,” invited the child to her place, and provided financial assistance. An important factor was that the deceased’s DNA samples were not preserved, which made it impossible to conduct a genetic examination. The court emphasized that the establishment of paternity is in the best interests of the child, considering her right to know her parents and to realize her inheritance rights. The court noted that the deceased’s behavior during his lifetime indicated his recognition of paternity in relation to the child.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.<\/p>\n Case No. 373\/211\/21 dated 25\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of violating traffic rules, which caused 2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, noted that the arguments regarding the incorrect recovery of property damage from the convicted person, and not the insurance company, are unconvincing, since the civil claim was filed directly against the convicted person, and not the insurer, and the defense did not file a motion to involve the insurance company as a civil defendant. The Supreme Court also agreed with the appellate court that the application of conditional release from serving the sentence would not contribute to the correction of the convicted person, considering the severity of the crime and the consequences. At the same time, the Supreme Court took into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person, his disability, the presence of a minor child, compensation for moral damage, volunteer activities, and injuries sustained as a result of the road accident, which mitigate the punishment. Based on this, the Supreme Court decided to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and mitigate the imposed punishment.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, amending the appellate court’s judgment and mitigating the imposed punishment to 3 years of restriction of liberty with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years, and left the remaining court decisions unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 440\/13784\/24 dated 06\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim of NKREKP, proceeded from the fact that the enterprise actually paid the fine in full, albeit with an error in the details, which was promptly corrected. The court emphasized that the enterprise had timely informed NKREKP about the payments, and the Commission had not expressed any objections to the details. Also, the court took into account that NKREKP did not provide the enterprise with exhaustive information regarding the correct details for paying the fine, limiting itself only to the code of budget classification. The court emphasized that the error in payment was not intentional or a result of inaction by the enterprise, but rather a technical inaccuracy. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court in cases regarding erroneous payment of taxes, where it was recognized that the actions of the payer, which do not contain signs of inaction, cannot be the basis for applying \u0448\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0444\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0441\u0430\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0456\u0439.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of NKREKP, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 906\/350\/24 dated 30\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, refusing the prosecutor’s claim, since “Mineral Wool Products Plant” LLC is the owner of the real estate on the disputed plot, and the city council rightfully sold this plot to it without holding land auctions, as required by law for real estate owners. The court took into account that the prosecutor did not prove the need for the company to use a smaller area of land, and also did not refute the legality of the company acquiring ownership of the disputed land plot of a certain size for the operation and maintenance of the real estate belonging to it, located on such a plot, without a competitive procedure. The court also noted that the mere fact that the area of the allocated land plot exceeds the area occupied by real estate objects is not an independent basis for recognizing the transfer of land as illegal. The court of cassation emphasized that the prosecutor did not prove the violation of the rights of the territorial community of the city of Zhytomyr as a result of the sale of the land plot.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/25118\/15 dated 09\/30\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the “Indicator-13” Housing Cooperative (HC) in favor of “Kyivenergo-borg” Limited Liability Company (LLC) of debt under the heat energy supply agreement.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which partially satisfied the claim of “Kyivenergo-borg” LLC, recovering the debt from the “Indicator-13” HC. The court proceeded from the fact that the courts of previous instances, having examined the circumstances of the case, established the existence of the HC’s debt to the LLC for the consumed heat energy in a certain period, which is confirmed by primary documents. The court also took into account that the HC did not provide evidence of full payment for the consumed heat energy. It is important that the cassation court noted that the courts of previous instances fulfilled all the instructions given during the previous cassation review, in particular, assessed the amount of heat energy consumed during each settlement period and the final balance of payments. Also, the court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases are not similar to the circumstances of this case.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the “Indicator-13” Housing Cooperative and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/253\/25 dated 10\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to refuse admission to participate in the selection for the position of a judge of a local court.<\/p>\n 2. The court justified its decision by the fact thatthat in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”, a person who wishes to become a judge must submit all necessary documents confirming their compliance with the requirements of the law on the date of submitting the application for participation in the selection process. One of these requirements is proficiency in the state language, which is confirmed by a relevant certificate. In this case, the plaintiff did not provide a certificate of proficiency in the state language within the prescribed period, but submitted it later, which does not meet the requirements of the law. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s reference to a diploma of higher legal education with an “excellent” grade in business Ukrainian language and the presumption of proficiency in the state language in connection with the position of prosecutor are unfounded, since the law requires the presence of a certificate. The court emphasized that the establishment of individual deadlines for submitting documents to individual candidates is not provided for by law.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 183\/6201\/21 dated 22\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the mortgaged property was acquired with credit funds, which is important for resolving the issue of the possibility of evicting residents without providing other housing. Also, the courts did not properly assess the fact that the defendants were registered in the house in violation of the terms of the mortgage agreement without the consent of the bank, which could have been aimed at avoiding the realization of the property. The court of cassation drew attention to the inconsistencies in the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the date of the decision to foreclose on the mortgaged item and evict the mortgagor. The court emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, freedoms or interests, and to apply a certain method of protection, it is necessary to establish which specific rights of the plaintiff have been violated. The court noted that the principle of competitiveness places the burden of proof on the parties, and the court cannot consider proven a circumstance that the party claims without proper evidence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 522\/23430\/23 dated 01\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the requirement to recognize electronic auctions as invalid is an improper method of protection, since the owner can protect his rights by claiming property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also noted that PERSON_3 is a bona fide purchaser, since he purchased the apartment at electronic auctions. 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 127\/27018\/20 dated 02\/10\/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 ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, as it concluded that the person’s guilt was proven on the basis of the examined evidence, and the arguments about necessary defense are unfounded. The court noted that to determine the lawfulness of the defense, it is necessary to establish the existence of a socially dangerous encroachment and the correspondence of defensive actions to the danger of the encroachment. The Supreme Court established that the victim did not commit a socially dangerous encroachment that would threaten the life or health of the convict, and the convict’s testimony about the injuries he sustained was refuted by a forensic medical examination. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court provided sufficient time to prepare for the debates, and the repeated request to review the case materials was unfounded, since the defender was already familiar with the case materials.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convict and the defender \u2013 without satisfaction.<\/p>\n Case No. 348\/1682\/21 dated 02\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, since the appellate court did not specify which particular violation of the Traffic Regulations was the direct cause of the traffic accident and its consequences, and which of these violations only contributed to it, did not provide a proper reasoned response to the arguments of the appellate appeals of the prosecutor and the victim regarding the leniency of the imposed punishment, referring only to the victim’s involvement in the traffic accident and the data characterizing the convict, and did not take into account that the convict The court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 170\/459\/23 dated 02\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, supporting the conclusion that the guilt of serviceman PERSON_6 in insubordination committed under martial law was proven. The court noted that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the defense counsel regarding the absence of a crime in the actions of PERSON_6, in particular, regarding the absence of a clear order and intent to disobey it. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that PERSON_6 knowingly left the place of service without permission, which indicates the presence of direct intent to disobey the order. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court properly assessed all the arguments of the defense and reasonably found them unfounded, and the imposed punishment is fair and corresponds to the severity of the crime.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.<\/p>\n Case No. 576\/3227\/23 dated 07\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance, partially satisfying the cassation appeal of the defense counsel. The reasons for the annulment are not specified in the operative part, as the full text of the decision will be announced later. However, given the release 3. The court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7 and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance, releasing the convicted person from the penitentiary institution.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/5\/25 dated 07\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. Unfortunately, the decision does not state the court’s arguments. To find out what they are, you need to read the full text of the decision, which will be prepared within five days. Without the full text of the decision, it is impossible to understand why the court granted the prosecutor’s claims and overturned the HCJ’s decision. It is possible that the court found a violation of the procedure for bringing to disciplinary responsibility, or recognized the absence of sufficient evidence of the prosecutor’s guilt, or concluded that the penalty was disproportionate to the severity of the offense. It is also possible that the court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors.<\/p>\n 3. The court granted the prosecutor’s claim, found illegal and overturned the decision of the High Council of Justice upholding the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors regarding the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on him, and also recovered court fees in his favor.<\/p>\n Case No. 520\/7611\/22 dated 07\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances erroneously applied Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine as amended by Law No. 2352-IX, which limits the payment of average earnings to six months, without taking into account that the legal relations cover the period before and after the entry into force of this Law. The court noted that it is necessary to divide the delay period into two parts: before 19.07.2022 (when the previous version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was in force) and after 19.07.2022 (when the new version with a limitation of six months came into force). For the period before 19.07.2022, the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the previous version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine should be applied, in particular, taking into account the amount of average earnings fromand the entire period of delay and the total amount of payments due upon dismissal, and to apply the current version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine with a limitation of six months’ payment to the period after 19.07.2022, but without applying the principle of proportionality. The Court deviated from the conclusion regarding the application of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the wording of Law No. 2352-IX, as stated in the Supreme Court’s decision of June 20, 2024, in case No. 120\/10686\/22.<\/p>\n 3. The decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are overturned, and the case is remanded for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/1152\/20 dated 09\/30\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court because the appellate court did not properly clarify whether the Department of Forestry and Hunting has the authority to dispose of the disputed land plot and whether it is a proper plaintiff in this case, considering that the competence of the department includes only the approval of changes in the designated purpose of the land plots. Also, the court did not properly assess the method of protection chosen by the prosecutor in the form of recognizing as illegal and canceling the order of the local body of state executive power in view of its effectiveness, since the order had already been executed. In addition, the court did not take into account that in the case of a registered lease right, the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession (vindication) is an inappropriate method of protection, since a negatory action to eliminate obstacles in the use of property is more effective. The court of cassation emphasized that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish whether the plaintiff’s rights have actually been violated and whether the chosen method of protection of the violated right corresponds to those provided by law.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 909\/679\/24 dated 10\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, supporting the decision of the appellate court, based on the following: 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of KOSTANZA LLC and left the ruling of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 754\/7431\/24 dated 09\/25\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 910\/15275\/21 dated 10\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s decision – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 368\/1067\/22 dated 02\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that after the commission of the crime, a law came into force that decriminalized part of the acts, namely the theft of property, the value of which does not exceed two non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens. The court took into account that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, in 2022 this amount was UAH 2,481. Since some episodes of theft committed by the convicted person did not exceed this amount, the criminal proceedings in this part are subject to closure on the basis of paragraph 1-2 of part 2 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, due to the loss of validity of the law that established the criminal illegality of the act. The court also took into account the legal opinion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution of October 07, 2024 in case No. 278\/1566\/21. At the same time, the court of cassation instance did not find grounds for changing the measure of punishment for those episodes for which the conviction remained in force.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance overturned court decisions in the part of convicting a person for individual episodes of theft and closed criminal proceedings in this part, and left the court decisions unchanged in the rest.<\/p>\n Case No. 523\/7645\/23 dated 06\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 340\/4308\/24 dated 06\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a>
\ninfliction of grievous bodily harm to the victim, regarding the imposed punishment and the resolution of the civil claim for compensation of property damage.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties from a communal enterprise for overdue payment of fines imposed by the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Utilities (NKREKP).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal decision of the city council on the sale of a land plot, recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement for this plot, and cancellation of the state reof the right of ownership to it.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of persons from a residential building that is mortgaged.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions for the sale of part of the apartment as invalid and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.<\/p>\n
\nin the course of the execution of a court decision, and at the time of purchase, information about the seizure of the apartment was absent in the state registers. The court emphasized that the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser is impossible if the property was sold in the manner established for the execution of court decisions. The court took into account that there is no evidence of bad faith acquisition of property by the defendant, and references to the seizure of the apartment are unfounded, since the relevant information was not entered into the State Register of Real Property Rights, and later the seizures were canceled. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances and amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute was the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim.<\/p>\n
\nwho initially did not admit guilt, tried to shift all the blame onto the victim, did not repent of the crime, was not interested in the victim’s health condition and did not try to compensate for the damage caused to the victim’s health, did not take into account the testimony of the accused himself in the court of first instance, where he explained that driving at night always created discomfort for him, as the visibility of the road significantly worsened when passing oncoming cars, it was not sufficiently taken into account that as a result of the committed criminal offense, the victim suffered severe bodily injuries in the form of a closed head injury, severe brain contusion, skull fracture, as a result of which he underwent a craniotomy, as a result of the traffic accident, the victim became a person with a disability. The court emphasized that the opinion of all parties must be heard in court and given due consideration, which the appellate court failed to do.<\/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 a serviceman under Part 4 of Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (insubordination).<\/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 a person under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service).<\/p>\n
\nrelease of the convicted person from the penitentiary institution, it can be assumed that the court could have established significant violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the criminal law, which led to the illegal conviction of the person. Possibly, the arguments of the defense regarding the absence of the elements of a crime, the incorrect classification of the convicted person’s actions, or the violation of his right to defense during the trial were taken into account. The final grounds for cancellation will be known after the full text of the ruling is announced.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice upholding the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors regarding the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the prosecutor.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the correctional colony regarding the failure to accrue and pay average earnings for the delay in calculating the payment to the plaintiff upon dismissal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order on the transfer of the land plot for lease, recognition as invalid of the lease agreement, cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, and recovery of the land plot from illegal possession.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the appellate commercial court to adopt an additional decision to the ruling on the bankruptcy of “Kostanza” LLC based on the application of “Kostanza” LLC.<\/p>\n
\n * The applicant requested to specify the amount of undisputed creditor claims in the operative part of the appellate court’s ruling, referring to discrepancies with the reasoning part.
\n * The appellate court reasonably refused to grant the application, since it was not established that the court did not resolve a certain declared claim that requires clarification.
\nof separate regulation through the adoption of an additional decision.
\n * The Supreme Court has previously confirmed the legality of both the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, including their operative part.
\n * An application for an additional decision cannot be used as a tool for reviewing or clarifying the legal conclusions of the court, which have already been subject to cassation review.
\n * The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal instance that an application for an additional decision cannot be used as a tool for reviewing or clarifying the legal conclusions of the court, which have already been subject to cassation review.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which mitigated the punishment of PERSON_7 for illegal trafficking of psychotropic substances and released her from serving her sentence on probation.
\n2. The appellate court, in mitigating the punishment, took into account that PERSON_7 was being brought to criminal liability for the first time, sincerely repented of what she had done, was of advanced age and suffered from serious chronic diseases, which was confirmed by medical documents. The court recognized these circumstances as mitigating the punishment and significantly reducing the degree of gravity of the crime committed. Also, the appellate court took into account the absence of aggravating circumstances and the convicted person’s impeccable procedural conduct during the pre-trial investigation and trial. Based on these factors, the court concluded that it was possible to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a punishment below the lowest limit) and Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence with probation), believing that the correction of the convicted person was possible without isolation from society. The court noted that taking into account only the general circumstances of the crime without taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and information about the identity of the perpetrator does not comply with the principle of individualization of punishment.
\n3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
\n2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, thus upholding the AMCU’s decision. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances. In substantiating the decision, the courts referred to the fact that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims. The court also took into account the circumstances of the case and found no violations of substantive and procedural law in the adoption of
\nof the appealed decision of the AMCU. The court noted that the review of court decisions in cassation proceedings aims to correct judicial errors, not to re-evaluate evidence.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a person for theft, unauthorized interference with the operation of automated systems.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the order to suspend the employment contract as illegal and the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
\n2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the suspension of the employment contract was illegal, since the employer had the opportunity to provide the employee with work. The court noted that there is no rule of law that would regulate the issue of payment of average earnings for the period of illegal suspension of the employment contract, therefore it applied the analogy of the law, namely part two of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which provides for the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work in case of illegal dismissal. When calculating the average wage, the court proceeded from the employee’s official salary, since the calculation period was absent due to a long downtime. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to calculate the average salary based on the payments that preceded the downtime, since this contradicts the Procedure for calculating averageof salary. The court also rejected the arguments about the need to deviate from the conclusion stated in the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0456 (resolution) of the Supreme Court of May 28, 2025, in case No. 522\/17582\/22, since it did not establish the existence of an exclusive legal problem.
\n3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the National Police in the Kirovohrad region to prepare and send documents for the appointment of a length of service pension to the plaintiff.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, reasoning that for the appointment of a length of service pension in accordance with paragraph “a” of Article 12 of Law No. 2262-XII, 25 calendar years of service are required, and the plaintiff does not have enough. The court noted that preferential length of service is taken into account only for determining the amount of the pension, and not for its appointment. Also, the court took into account the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court in case No. 520\/5695\/23, according to which the appointment of length of service pensions to persons dismissed from police service is carried out based on the calculation of calendar length of service, if they applied after 19.02.2022. The court rejected the plaintiff’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned other grounds for the appointment of a length of service pension, namely, on the basis of paragraph “b” of Article 12 of Law No. 2262-XII.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n