**Case No. 334\/6796\/21 dated 11\/14\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child with the father and the termination of the collection of alimony for the child from the father in favor of the mother.<\/p>\n
2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the following:
\n * The courts of previous instances established that there is a dispute between the parents regarding the child’s place of residence.
\n * The child has been living with the father for a long time, has socialized and integrated into his living conditions.
\n * The court took into account the opinion of the guardianship authority, the psychological examination of the child, and also directly heard the child’s opinion in the court session, who expressed an unequivocal desire to live with the father.
\n * The father has a stable income and provides the child with adequate conditions for living, studying, and development.
\n * The child’s mother has been living abroad for a long time and has not actively participated in the child’s upbringing.
\n * The court took into account the best interests of the child, their rights to harmonious development and proper upbringing in a stable environment.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 452\/267\/22 dated 11\/17\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of the spouses, namely, funds in the amount of 81,356.73 US dollars, which were stored in a deposit account.<\/p>\n
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant used the disputed funds not in the interests of the family, but for her own needs; the courts of previous instances established that the funds were withdrawn by the defendant during the marriage, but the plaintiff did not prove that these funds were used not in the interests of the family; the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must prove that the funds were used by the defendant at her own discretion and not in the interests of the family; the courts took into account the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses’ property, but noted that this presumption can be disproved by evidence that the plaintiff did not provide; the court of cassation rejected the applicant’s reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in another case, since in the specified case the establishment of the circumstance of the use of the disputed funds in the interests of the family or for the own needs of one of the spouses was not included in the subject of proof; the court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the refusal of the court of appeal to grant the motion to call witnesses, since the plaintiff did not substantiate the impossibility of submitting such an application to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 604\/694\/23 dated 11\/05\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement as concluded for
\nexpiration of the lease term and recognition of the absence of a lease right for another farm enterprise.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following: the lessee (FE “Zoloty Zhayvir”) duly notified the lessor (PERSON_1) of the intention to conclude a lease agreement for a new term, but sent a draft of a new agreement, rather than an additional agreement, which provides for changes in the essential terms of the lease, in particular, increasing the lease term from 7 to 10 years; the lessor, within the period established by law, notified of the lack of desire to continue contractual relations; the appellate court, recognizing the lease agreement as renewed on the same terms, exceeded the limits of the claims, since the plaintiff requested to recognize the agreement as concluded for a new term with new conditions, and not to renew the existing agreement on the same terms; for the prolongation of lease relations, the consent of both parties is necessary, and not only the will of the lessee; the court of cassation noted that the preferential right of the lessee cannot dominate over the right of the owner to dispose of his land plot at his own discretion.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim of FE “Zoloty Zhayvir”.<\/p>\n
Case No. 644\/819\/23 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since it established the existence of a dispute over the right to the inheritance property between the applicant and the Kharkiv City Council, which objects to the recognition of the applicant’s right to inheritance. The court indicated that the establishment of the fact of living as one family with the testator is necessary to resolve the issue of acceptance of the inheritance, and since the city council objects to this, there is a dispute about the right. The court emphasized that cases on establishing facts that have legal significance are considered in separate proceedings only in the absence of a dispute about the right. In the case of a dispute, the case must be considered in the order of claim proceedings. The court also referred to similar conclusions set out in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n 3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and dismissed the application for the establishment of the fact of cohabitation as one family, explaining to the applicant the right to appeal to the court with a claim in the order of general claim proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 646\/660\/22 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance found that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case. In particular, the court of first instance did not properly examine the evidence regarding the voluntary nature of the plaintiff’s application for dismissal, and the court of appeal did not take into account the provisions on extending the deadlines for applying to the court for the duration of the quarantine established in connection with COVID-19. The court of cassation instance emphasized that clarifying the fact of the plaintiff’s voluntary signing of the application for dismissal is of decisive importance, and establishing the fact of not signing the application is usually possible with the help of an appropriate forensic handwriting examination. Also, the court of cassation instance noted that the court of appeal did not take into account that the extension of the term established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is regulated by paragraph 1 of Chapter XIX of the Final Provisions of the Labor Code of Ukraine, and therefore PERSON_1 should not have justified the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for resolving the labor dispute, nor should they have submitted such an application, since this term is extended for the duration of the quarantine by virtue of the law.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n **Case No. 707\/3637\/23 dated 11\/14\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a father raising a child independently for the realization of rights provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization.”<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the court of appeal, which left the application to establish the fact of independent child rearing without consideration, since in this case there is a dispute about the law, which must be resolved in the order of claim proceedings, and not in a separate one. The court noted that establishing the fact that a child is being raised independently by the father may have negative consequences for the mother, in particular, it may be used as a basis for depriving her of parental rights. Also, the court emphasized that family rights and obligations are closely related to the person and cannot be transferred to another person, and therefore the fact of single-handedly raising a child can be established by the court only as one of the circumstances that must be proven in a dispute between parents regarding the performance of their duties to raise a child. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the institution of separate proceedings cannot be used to create prejudicial facts for the purpose of further resolving a dispute about the law. The court also noted that the applicant refers to irrelevant legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, which do not relate to legal relations arising on the basis of an application to establish the fact of single-handedly raising a child in the presence of a dispute about the law.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and **Case No. 524\/7691\/23 dated 11\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact that the plaintiff and her minor children were dependents of the deceased husband\/stepfather for the purpose of receiving social benefits and a one-time financial assistance.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the district territorial center for recruitment and social support, against which the claim was filed, is a separate division and does not have the status of a legal entity, and therefore cannot be a defendant in civil proceedings. The courts of previous instances did not take into account that, according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, only legal entities have civil procedural capacity. Since district territorial centers for recruitment and social support are separate divisions of the relevant territorial centers for recruitment and social support, they do not have the status of legal entities. According to the established practice of the Supreme Court, cases in which a branch or representative office acts as the defendant are not subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings due to the absence of a proper defendant.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n **Case No. 554\/1904\/22 dated 11\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of shares of the authorized capital in the order of inheritance.<\/p>\n 2. The court granted the claim, since the deceased was the founder and participant of the LLC with a share in the authorized capital of 33.34%, which is part of the inheritance property. The court noted that the company did not provide the heirs with information on the size of the deceased’s share, which made it impossible to formalize the inheritance through a notary. The arguments of the LLC that the deceased paid only part of the contribution were rejected, since the company did not provide evidence of a change in the size of the authorized capital or the exclusion of the deceased from the members. The court also rejected the arguments about the absence of the subject of the dispute, since the LLC disputed the plaintiffs’ right to the full share, claiming that they only own part of it. The court indicated that the plaintiffs chose the proper method of protection, since the recognition of ownership of a share in the authorized capital is an effective way to protect their inheritance rights.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n **Case No. 285\/3662\/23 dated 11\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of a traffic accident in which the defendant was found guilty.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied 3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous courts – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 521\/11914\/21 dated 11\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which concluded that the defendant had illegally occupied the disputed apartment, as he did not have a proper warrant or other legal basis for moving in. The courts took into account that the defendant received the apartment only for protection until the determination of a candidate for moving in, as well as the fact that the defendant’s wife owns other housing. The court also took into account the short period of residence of the defendant in the disputed apartment and his referral for military registration to another area after being discharged into the reserve. Considering these circumstances, the court decided that the eviction of the defendant does not violate his right to housing, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as the existence of a sufficient and lasting connection of the defendant with the disputed apartment was not proven. The court also noted that official housing is provided temporarily, and after the grounds for its use are lost, it must be returned for other employees.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous courts on the eviction of the defendant from the apartment designated for official use without providing other housing – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/82\/20 dated 09\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, stating that the claim to invalidate the auction is improper and ineffective, since the property was sold in the order of execution of court decisions, and the legislator in Part 2 of Art. 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides forestablished “vindication immunity” for bona fide purchasers in such cases. The court also noted that invalidating the certificate of acquisition of property from auctions and canceling the decisions of the state registrar is not an effective way to protect rights, as these documents do not cause the transfer of ownership. The Supreme Court emphasized that the recovery of property is possible only if the bad faith of the acquirer is proven, and in this case, the courts of previous instances reasonably established the good faith of the acquirers. The court took into account that public auctions within the framework of enforcement proceedings should be the safest way to acquire property, and the buyer should not be liable for violations committed by other persons within procedures specifically designed to prevent fraud. **:** The court departed from the conclusion regarding the application of Articles 4, 45 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine that the state, represented by the Ministry, is an improper plaintiff in the claim for the recovery of property that belonged to the Ukrainian State Research Institute “Ukrvodheo” based on the right of economic management, stating that the state, as the owner of the property, has the right to protect its ownership right in case of its violation.<\/p>\n 3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the Ministry without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances courts \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/9198\/25 dated 11\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 909\/1028\/20 dated 11\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/6386\/25 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances on securing the claim, as the courts did not take into account that the subject of the dispute is the renewal of the land lease agreement, and the security concerns property on this land. The court noted that there is no evidence of the Department’s decision to dismantle the property, and the courts did not substantiate the adequacy and proportionality of the measures taken to secure the claim with the claim requirements. Also, the courts of previous instances did not cite circumstances that would indicate a real threat of complicating the protection of the applicant’s rights in the event of rejection of the application for securing the claim. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of observing the balance of interests of the parties and the adequacy of the measures to secure the claim to the stated requirements. The court also took into account that the measures taken should not violate the rights of other persons not related to the dispute.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to satisfy the application for securing the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/70\/25 dated 13\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff in the original claim challenged certain clauses of the Regulations on the Service 3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal and leave the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/2661\/24 dated 11\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting the position of the prosecutor and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. The court noted that, according to current legislation, in particular, the Tax Code of Ukraine and the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, operations for the supply of goods for refueling military transport for the needs of the defense of Ukraine are taxed at a zero VAT rate. The inclusion of VAT in the contract price contradicts these norms, which is the basis for recognizing the relevant clauses of the contract as invalid. The court also took into account that the recipient of the products is military units, which falls under the resolution on the zero VAT rate. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were not supported, as it was not proven that these conclusions are erroneous or outdated. The court also emphasized that in the case of unjustified acquisition of property, the obligation to return it arises directly from the fact of such acquisition, and not from a court decision.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/287\/25 dated 10\/23\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of appeal overturned the ruling of the court of first instance. 3. The court decided to overturn the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court and send the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n **Case No. 904\/1501\/24 dated 05\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of the Serving Cooperative “Gardening Society “Soyuz-1” regarding the election of the chairman of the board and other issues.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, which declared the decisions of the general meeting of the cooperative invalid due to the lack of a quorum and other procedural violations. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court mistakenly failed to take into account the powers of attorney certified by the head of the village council when determining the quorum, since a written form of power of attorney without mandatory notarization is sufficient for participation in the meeting. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court unreasonably excluded 27 people from the list of meeting participants based only on the absence of decisions on their admission to the cooperative, since the cooperative itself keeps records of its members and is responsible for its correctness. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to recognize the meeting’s decision as invalid, it is necessary to prove not only procedural violations, but also violations of the plaintiff’s rights and legitimate interests, which was not done in this case. Considering that the plaintiff did not prove how the challenged decisions violate his rights, and also taking into account the balance of interests of the cooperative and its members, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim to declare the decision of the general meeting of the cooperative invalid.<\/p>\n **Case No. 922\/83\/25 dated 11\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of lease and supply agreements, the return of leased property, as well as the recovery of penalties, fines, late payment interest, and 3% per annum for violation of the terms of the lease agreement.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/294\/25 dated 11\/13\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance, which returned the statement of claim due to the expiration of the term for appealing to the court, noting that the court of first instance did not take into account important circumstances. The judge who tried to obtain documents from the HQCJ to clarify the grounds for the appealed decisions acted in good faith. The delay in providing documents by the HQCJ affected the possibility of timely appeal to the court. The right to appeal a decision must be exercised after receiving information about the reasons for its adoption. The court of first instance prematurely concluded that the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing to the court were not valid.<\/p>\n 3. The court overturned the ruling of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court and sent the case to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/8635\/24 dated 11\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the claim of the Kyiv City Council, motivating it by the fact that the company, being the owner of real estate located on a communal land plot, but not having \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f the right to lease this plot, became its actual user. The court emphasized that the use of land in Ukraine is paid, and until the \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f of the right to lease, the relations between the owner of the real estate and the owner of the land (the city council) are of a condictio nature. The court rejected 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact that the applicant lived as one family with the testator without registration of marriage for five years before the time of the opening of the inheritance for the \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f of inheritance rights.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order on dismissal, reinstatement, recovery of average earnings, and obligation to pay
\ncalculating the average salary for a mobilized employee.<\/p>\n
\nthe appellate court’s ruling without changes.<\/p>\n
\nlawsuit, having recovered from the defendant moral damages, but denied compensation for property damage (medical expenses and lost profits). The court noted that the proper defendant in terms of compensation for property damage, which is subject to payment from regulatory payments, is the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU), and not directly the perpetrator of the accident, since the civil liability of the defendant was insured. Regarding lost profits, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the reality of the unrealized income he was counting on. In determining the amount of moral damages, the court took into account the physical and mental suffering of the plaintiff, as well as the consequences of the accident for his health and life, guided by the principles of reasonableness and fairness.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of a former serviceman from an apartment designated for official use without providing other housing.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, certificates of ownership, cancellation of decisions of state registrars and recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal of the sole proprietor Baranenko against the first instance court’s ruling on securing the claim.
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court erroneously returned the appeal, as the powers of an attorney can be confirmed not only by a power of attorney or warrant, but also by an agreement on the provision of legal aid, especially if there is a certificate of the right to practice law. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in the decision of January 20, 2025 in case No. 761\/5870\/24, which states that an agreement on the provision of legal aid and a valid certificate are proper confirmation of the attorney’s powers. The appellate court did not properly assess the attorney’s certificate and the agreement on the provision of legal aid in totality, and did not check the validity of the attorney’s certificate. Thus, the appellate court prematurely returned the appeal, without taking into account all the evidence provided and the conclusions of the Supreme Court.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling and resolution of the previous instance courts on the refusal to recognize the monetary claims of an individual (creditor) against the debtor in the insolvency case.
\n2. The court
\nThe court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recognize the monetary claims of the creditor, since the right of claim under credit agreements was assigned to an individual from a financial company, which, although it had a license to provide financial services at the time of the assignment agreement, such assignment contradicts the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which require a special subject (bank or financial institution) as a creditor in credit obligations. The court took into account that there was a replacement of the creditor, who is a financial institution, with an individual who does not have the right to provide financial services. Also, since the assignment of the right of claim under the loan agreement was unlawful, then the assignment of rights under the mortgage agreement, which secured the fulfillment of the credit obligation, is also impossible. The court agreed that in such a case, the issue of the statute of limitations does not apply, since there are no grounds for recognizing the creditor’s claims. The court also noted that the absence of a court decision declaring the assignment agreement invalid is not an indisputable basis for recognizing the creditor’s claims in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an agreement on the renewal and amendment of the land lease agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the court’s ruling on the return of the application to increase the claim requirements, since the court of first instance considered that the additional requirements were not related to the original claim.<\/p>\n
\nof the judicial guard and the decisions of the HJC, considering them discriminatory and violating his right to judicial independence. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to increase the amount of the claims, adding claims for recognition of the lack of legal capacity of the HJC and the HCJ, recognition of the illegality of their state registration, and termination of the legal entity of the HJC. The court noted that the increase in the amount of the claims should relate to the quantitative indicators of the original claim, and not the addition of new claims. The court emphasized that a motion to change the subject matter or grounds of the claim can be considered a new claim if it specifies an independent substantive legal claim that is justified by other circumstances and rules of law. The court indicated that the plaintiff’s additional claims are not related to the original claims, are not derived from them, and do not arise from the same basis of the dispute, therefore, they cannot be combined within one proceeding.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the clauses of the contract for the supply of lubricants for state needs in the part of including value-added tax (VAT) in the contract price and the recovery of unreasonably paid funds in the form of VAT, inflation losses, and three percent per annum.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of the qualification exam and the denial of admission to the next stage of the competition for the position of judge of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\non the return of the statement of claim, noting that the term for appealing to the court was missed for valid reasons. The court took into account that the plaintiff had applied to the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to obtain information on the grounds for evaluating her practical task, and only after receiving this information was she able to reasonably challenge the commission’s decision. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the realization of the right to file a lawsuit correlates with the person’s awareness of the reasons for the decision, and the plaintiff’s actions indicate her active position in clarifying the circumstances, which became the basis for renewing the term for appealing to the court. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding flexibility in applying restrictions on access to court and the need to take into account the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
\ninstances, noting that satisfying the claims for the recovery of penalties and fines required establishing the fact of a breach of obligation at the time of filing the claim, which was not the case here, as the contracts had not been terminated at that time. The court also emphasized that the penalty under Part 2 of Article 785 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is a special form of property liability, which applies in case of the tenant’s failure to immediately return the item after the termination of the contract. Regarding the distribution of court costs, the court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances reasonably reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. The court of cassation also noted that it does not re-evaluate evidence and does not establish new circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification assessment of a candidate for the position of judge of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the company of unjustly retained funds in the amount of rent for the use of a communal land plot.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the defendant’s arguments for exemption from land tax based on clause 69.14 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine, as this rule applies only if there are legal grounds for possessing or using the land plot, which was not the case here. The court also noted that it does not re-evaluate the evidence but only verifies the correct application of substantive and procedural law and that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances are consistent with the previous practice of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n