**Case \u2116159\/5379\/24 dated 10\/16\/2025**
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the certificate of ownership of a share in a residential building as invalid and the recovery of this property from someone else’s illegal possession.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, supporting their conclusions. The court noted that the residential building was acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage, therefore, the presumption of joint joint ownership applies, which the plaintiff did not refute. According to the law, the wife had the right to obtain a certificate of ownership of a share in the joint property of the spouses after the death of her husband and dispose of it by selling a share of the house to the defendant. Since only part of the house was included in the inheritance after the death of the husband, the courts correctly refused to recover the other part from the defendant’s possession. The plaintiff’s arguments about the year the house was built were not supported by proper evidence.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
**Case \u2116753\/15409\/24 dated 10\/15\/2025**
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses, where the plaintiff did not agree with the ruling of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to secure evidence by inspecting it.
\n2. The court of appeal returned the appeal, considering that the ruling on the recovery of evidence is being appealed, which is not appealed separately from the court decision. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, emphasizing that the plaintiff was appealing specifically the refusal to secure evidence by inspecting it, and this is a different subject of appeal, which is subject to appellate review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court should have considered the complaint within the stated requirements, and not return it, violating the right to judicial protection. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly determined the subject of appeal of the ruling of the court of first instance.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
**Case \u2116495\/5463\/13-\u0446 dated 10\/16\/2025**
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling on the closure of proceedings on the application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in the case of debt collection under a loan agreement.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The courts found that the defendant applied for a review of the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances after the expiration of the three-year period from the date the court decision entered into legal force, which is a limitation period and is not subject to renewal in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the establishment of rules of court procedure, including procedural prohibitions and restrictions, is the right of each state party to the Convention.
\non the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The court also took into account that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to their own interpretation of the law and disagreement with court decisions, and do not contain reasonable grounds for overturning the appealed court decisions. The court also referred to a similar conclusion made by the Supreme Court in a previous ruling.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
Case No. 569\/17503\/24 dated 10\/15\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 453\/1232\/20 dated 10\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs did not prove with proper evidence the existence of joint economic buildings (gates, wicket, well) with the adjacent household, and also did not provide evidence of falsification of documents for the adjacent household and the illegality of acquiring ownership of it by other persons. The court took into account that the previous owner of the plaintiffs’ house during his lifetime did not dispute the absence of the disputed structures in the technical documentation. Also, the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of violation of their property rights to the household and the need for protection in the manner they defined. The court noted that the plaintiffs had enough time to prove their claims, but did not provide sufficient evidence to support them. The court of cassation has no authority to re-evaluate the evidence that has been evaluated The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 without satisfaction, and to uphold the decision of the court of first instance and the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 [resolution\/ruling] of the appellate court without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 2-1871\/09 dated 15\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation established that, according to the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the defendant has the right to appeal a default judgment only after his application for review of this default judgment has been dismissed by the court of first instance, or a repeated default judgment has been rendered. Since the defendant’s application for review of the default judgment was dismissed without consideration, the right to appeal the default judgment did not arise. The appellate court, in refusing to open appellate proceedings, did not pay attention to this and mistakenly applied the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the calculation of the deadline for appealing. Thus, the court of appellate instance committed a violation of the norms of procedural law, which impedes further proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case to the court of appellate instance at the stage of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12039\/24 dated 16\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 348\/244\/24 dated 15\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous courts, was guided by the fact that at the time of the plaintiff’s dismissal, the norm of the Law of Ukraine “On Complete General Secondary Education,” which allowed fixed-term employment contracts to be concluded with retired teachers, had already lost its force based on the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The court emphasized that, according to Article 9 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the terms of an employment contract that worsen the employee’s situation compared to legislation are invalid. Since at the time of the plaintiff’s dismissal, the fixed-term employment contract contradicted the requirements of current legislation, the dismissal was deemed illegal. Regarding the claims for recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence and compensation for moral damages, the case was sent for a new trial to the appellate court to establish all the factual circumstances, in particular the amount of the plaintiff’s salary and the existence of moral damages. The court noted that it does not have the authority to establish the factual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation partially \u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0438\u043b [satisfied\/granted]
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the state enforcement officer’s decision to terminate enforcement proceedings.
\n2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision, upholding the ruling of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the claimant’s representative was aware of the materials of the enforcement proceedings, and therefore of the appealed decision, as early as April 25, 2024, which was confirmed by evidence in the case and stated in the complaint filed with the administrative court. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not take these evidences into account and mistakenly believed that the time limit for appealing should be reinstated only due to the lack of evidence of sending a copy of the decision to the claimant. The court of cassation emphasized that a person is obliged to show interest in their rights in enforcement proceedings, and reference to not receiving a copy of the decision is not a sufficient basis for reinstating the time limit, especially when the representative was aware of the case materials. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the obligation of an interested party to exercise diligence in protecting their interests.
\n3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use and dispose of property, the invalidation of documents for real estate, and compensation for moral damage related to disputed economic buildings (gates, wicket, well) and access to the plaintiffs’ house.<\/p>\n
\nby previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. Subject of the dispute – appealing the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings based on the appeal against the default judgment of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
\nUnfortunately, I cannot provide an analysis of the court decision because it is not available for public review under the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the dismissal from the job of a teacher of foreign literature, reinstatement in the job, and recovery of wages for the time of forced absence and moral damages.<\/p>\n
\nupheld the cassation appeal, reversed the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to reinstate employment and rendered a new decision on the reinstatement of the plaintiff, and in the part of the claims for recovery of average earnings and compensation for moral damage, referred the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n