[Case No. 140\/10379\/24 dated November 21, 2025](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/131958115)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the State Labor Service regarding the elimination of violations of labor legislation related to the non- \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f (non-formalization) of labor relations with an individual who actually performed the duties of chief accountant.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of the actual circumstances of the case, in particular, the actual content of the legal relations between the enterprise and the individual who performed the duties of chief accountant. The court pointed out the importance of clarifying whether there was a systematic performance of the functions of chief accountant, whether there was access to the director’s electronic signature and corporate accounting programs, whether the person received current assignments from management, and whether he\/she signed financial statements. The court emphasized that the formal conclusion of a civil law contract does not exclude the possibility of the emergence of actual labor relations, if the legal relations in their content have all the features of labor relations. Also, the court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the absence of formalized labor relations may indicate a violation of labor legislation, and not the absence of the relations themselves. The court also drew attention to the priority of the norms of the International Labor Organization Convention No. 81 regarding the conduct of inspection visits.<\/p>\n
3. The court ruled to overturn the decisions of the previous courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
[Case No. 570\/3801\/23 dated November 19, 2025](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009538)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without marriage registration and the recognition of the right to inheritance.<\/p>\n
2. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, noting that the court of first instance did not properly assess the evidence confirming the validity of the claims of PERSON_1, in particular, the contradictory explanations of the defendant PERSON_2. The court of appeal took into account the testimony of witnesses who confirmed the fact of cohabitation of the plaintiff and the deceased, as well as the declaration on the choice of a doctor, where the plaintiff is listed as a trustee. The court of appeal also took into account that all the deceased’s personal documents after his death remained with the plaintiff. At the same time, the court of appeal refused to satisfy the claims for recognition of the right to inheritance, because it believes that the proper way to protect is to obtain a certificate of inheritance based on a court decision establishing the fact of living as one family without marriage registration.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, confirming the correctness of establishing the fact of cohabitation and taking into account all the evidence in the aggregate.
\nCase No. 910\/13381\/24 dated 11\/11\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the Kyiv City Council’s decision on the approval of land management technical documentation regarding the division of a land plot on which the plaintiff’s real estate is located.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that in order to satisfy a claim for cancellation of a decision of a local self-government body, it is necessary to prove not only the inconsistency of the decision with the law, but also the violation of the plaintiff’s rights and interests, which was not done in this case. The court indicated that the plaintiff did not prove how the disputed decision violates his rights to possession, use and disposal of property, since the division of the land plot does not deprive him of the right to apply to the city council for registration of the right to use the land plot under his property. In addition, the court noted that at the time of the division, the land plot was not in use, so the consent of the land user to its division was not required. The court also emphasized that the appellate court did not substantiate why it did not agree with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the absence of violation of the plaintiff’s rights, and that the grounds referred to by the appellate court were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n
Case No. 5\/58 (907\/527\/24) dated 11\/12\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to lease land plots to CJSC “Kotnar”, recognition of an additional agreement to the lease agreement as concluded, and obligation to take actions regarding the registration of the right to lease.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that after the invalidation of the contract of sale of vineyards between CJSC “Kotnar” and LLC “Karpat-Vyn Etalon” and the return of the vineyards to the ownership of CJSC “Kotnar”, the latter acquired the right to renew the right to lease the land plots on which these vineyards are located. The court noted that the rights to perennial plantations are derived from the rights to the land plot and follow it, and therefore the fate of the vineyards is decided as an integral part of the land plot. The court also took into account that LLC “Karpat-Vyn Etalon” uses the disputed vineyards, which makes it impossible to execute the decision on the return of the vineyards without resolving the issue of the right to lease the land plot. The court also noted that LLC “Karpat-Vyn Etalon” is not a bona fide user of land plots, since it acquired the right to lease on the basis of a contract of sale of vineyards, which was declared invalid. The court also took into account that the land lease agreement was not terminated in connection with the transfer of ownership of the vineyards, and therefore ZA
\n“Cotnar” LLC has the right to amend the lease agreement by replacing the lessee party.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Carpathian Wine Etalon” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of previous instances remained without changes.<\/p>\n
Case No. 910\/8222\/20 dated 11\/20\/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, did not clarify the status of one of the defendants as a member of the credit committee, did not examine the bank’s charter to establish the possibility of imposing liability on him, did not properly assess the evidence regarding the connection of the defendants with the borrowers, and did not take into account the “business judgment rule” when evaluating the actions of bank officials. The court also noted that the courts did not establish whether the actions of the defendants corresponded to the interests of the bank and whether they went beyond reasonable business risk, and also did not properly assess all the circumstances of the case and evidence, which is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances prematurely concluded that there was no element of tort in the actions of the defendants necessary to compensate for damages.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts in the part of refusing to satisfy the claim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 760\/6547\/17 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court of cassation, when considering the application for an additional decision, was guided by the following arguments: first, a party to the case has the right to compensation for expenses for legal assistance if this issue was not resolved in the main decision; secondly, the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer; thirdly, the party objecting to the amount of expenses must prove their disproportionateness; fourth, the court takes into account the specific circumstances of the case, the general principles of civil legislation, and the criteria for compensation of expenses for professional legal assistance, as well as the behavior of the party during the consideration of the case. The court also took into account that the applicant provided a legal aid agreement, payment documents, and acts of acceptance and transfer of services provided. Considering all the circumstances, the court decided to partially satisfy the application, reducing the amount of expenses for legal assistance to The court decided to partially grant the application for an additional decision and recover from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff the costs of professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 15,000.00.<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009512](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009512) **Case No. 369\/15496\/20 dated 11\/19\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot into ownership and the cancellation of the state act of ownership of this plot. [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009841](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009841) **Case No. 761\/3693\/23 dated 11\/19\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for distributing materials justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The operative part of the ruling does not contain the arguments of the court. Therefore, it is impossible to provide information about the arguments of the court.<\/p>\n Court decision: the judgment of the Lutsk City District Court of the Volyn Region dated November 7, 2024, and the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal dated March 5, 2025, regarding PERSON_8 were left unchanged, and his cassation appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/8035\/24 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, since the dispute actually exists between the Cherkaska Village Council and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine regarding the ownership of the disputed land plot, and therefore, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine was determined to be an improper defendant. The court emphasized that in such disputes, the proper defendant is the person who challenges the plaintiff’s property right, and not the body that made the decision to cancel the state registration. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910\/2546\/22, according to which the failure to involve a proper co-defendant is an independent ground for dismissing the claim. The court emphasized that the involvement of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine as a third party does not change its procedural status as a defendant, and the court cannot involve a co-defendant on its own initiative.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 463\/3374\/22 dated 11\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact that she suffered moral damage due to the illegal actions of the defendants, in particular, the causal link between the actions of the defendants and the plaintiff’s moral suffering was not proven. The court noted that the closure of the bankruptcy case was related to changes in legislation, and not to violations of the law during the opening and conduct of such proceedings. 3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case \u2116127\/16392\/21 dated 24\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because it established that the bank missed the three-year statute of limitations for applying to the court with a demand for foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage. The court proceeded from the fact that the bank, by sending the borrower a demand for early repayment of the loan in 2015, changed the term of fulfillment of the obligation and had the right to apply to the court within three years from the moment when the demand was not fulfilled, but applied only in 2021. The court also took into account that the expiration of the statute of limitations is the basis for refusing the claim according to Article 267 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, if this was stated by a party to the dispute. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they are consistent with the legal position of the Supreme Court, set out in the decision of October 09, 2019 in case No. 390\/669\/17. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the non-application by the courts of the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in other decisions, since it established that the factual circumstances in these cases differ from the circumstances of the case under consideration.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation left the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case \u2116127\/4930\/25 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since the defendant was not properly notified of the date, time and place of the court hearings, which is a violation of his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine; the courts sent subpoenas to the wrong address indicated by the plaintiff and did not take into account the information from the register about the correct address of the defendant; improper 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 642\/5180\/13-\u0446 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court granted the claim, based on the fact that a bank deposit agreement was concluded between the individual and the bank, which is confirmed by the available documents, in particular, the agreement and the receipt for the deposit of funds. The court noted that the bank did not refute the fact of the conclusion of the agreement and the deposit of funds, and also did not provide evidence of the return of the deposit. The court also took into account that non-compliance by authorized employees of the bank with the requirements of legislation in the field of banking activities cannot indicate non-compliance by the parties with the written form of the agreement. Regarding the claim for the recovery of 3% per annum, the court applied the provisions of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since after the depositor applied to the bank with a request for the return of the deposit, the contractual relations were terminated, but the monetary obligation was not fulfilled by the bank. The court rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the application of the statute of limitations, referring to the fact that the statute of limitations does not apply to the depositor’s claims for the issuance of the deposit.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to recover from Joint Stock Company “State Savings Bank of Ukraine” in favor of an individual the deposit, interest for using the deposit, and 3% per annum.<\/p>\n : The court in the decision noted that it departs from previous conclusions regarding the application of legal norms, set out in the resolution of the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated June 26, 2023 in case No. 306\/1119\/21 (proceedings No. 61-6392sv23) and the resolution of the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated December 22, 2023 in case No. 308\/9488\/21 (proceedings No. 61-11449sv23).<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/7747\/24 dated 11\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of Individual Entrepreneur Chygryay D.I., since the appellate court found that the additional agreement to the contract, which limited the right of the “Kyivtransparkservis” Municipal Enterprise to unilaterally terminate 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Private Entrepreneur Dmytro Ivanovych Chygryy, and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from persons related to the bank of losses caused to the bank as a result of their decisions to terminate the pledge agreement, which led to the impossibility of satisfying the bank’s claims under the loan agreement.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is an application for an additional decision regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.<\/p>\n
\nUAH 15,000.00, considering it reasonable and proportionate.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and such protection is possible only if the plaintiff’s rights are actually violated. In this case, according to the court, the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition as invalid of the decisions of the local self-government body and cancellation of the state act) is not effective, since the appealed decisions have already been executed, and their cancellation will not restore the plaintiff’s violated right to the land plot. The court emphasized that the proper method of protection in such a situation is a vindicatory claim for the recovery of the land plot from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also noted that the assessment of the legality of the decisions of the local self-government body should be given by the court, regardless of whether these decisions are appealed.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, as the appellate court duly verified the arguments of the defender’s appeal and provided comprehensive answers to them. The court of cassation noted that the court of first instance comprehensively and thoroughly examined all the evidence confirming the person’s guilt in committing the criminal offenses imputed to him, in particular, the protocols of inspection of the Internet resource and the system unit of the computer, as well as the conclusion of the expert of the judicial linguistic examination. The court of cassation rejected the convict’s arguments that the expert stated that the materials were entered by a Russian propagandist, and not by him, since the expert’s conclusion does not contain references to the publications of the mentioned blogger. The court also did not recognize as a significant violation the indication of the wrong date of the video material in the protocol of inspection of the Internet resource. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the arguments in the verdict confirmed the placement of video materials containing justification of the aggression of the Russian Federation.
\n3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convict and uphold the verdict of the appellate court.
\ns:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132009848″>Case No. 161\/10457\/24 dated 11\/24\/2025<\/strong>
\nThe subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_8 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding his conviction under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to satisfy the complaint of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, which annulled the decision of the state registrar on the registration of the right of communal ownership of a land plot by the Cherkaska Village Council.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 for recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine of moral damages in the amount of UAH 29,254,900.00, which she believes were caused by the actions of state authorities as a result of the lengthy bankruptcy procedure of her husband.<\/p>\n
\ng, the courts of previous instances established that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine took measures to respond to the activities of the arbitration manager and did not detect any violations. In addition, the courts took into account that the issue of compensation for moral damages due to the length of consideration of the bankruptcy case had already been the subject of judicial review in another case, where the lawsuit of the plaintiff’s husband was partially satisfied. The court of appeal considered the claim of PERSON_1 as an attempt to revise court decisions in an extra-procedural manner.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage and the eviction of the debtor and his family members from the mortgaged property due to non-fulfillment of the terms of the loan agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract of sale of a mobile phone and the recovery of the paid funds and moral damages due to the discovered defects in the phone.<\/p>\n
\nthat the defendant’s failure to receive notification deprived him of the opportunity to participate in court hearings, provide explanations, and exercise his procedural rights, which hindered an objective consideration of the case; that hearing a case in the absence of a duly notified participant is an unconditional ground for overturning a court decision.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “Oschadbank” in favor of an individual of the amount of a deposit, interest on the deposit, and 3% per annum for the delay in fulfilling the monetary obligation.<\/p>\n
\n1. Individual Entrepreneur Chygryay D.I. challenged the unilateral termination of the contract with the “Kyivtransparkservis” Municipal Enterprise for the provision of a site for operation, maintenance, and arrangement.<\/p>\n
\nis void due to non-compliance with the requirements regarding notarial certification in the part of the term of the contract, provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property.” The court of cassation noted that it does not take into account the arguments of the cassation appeal, as the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to, relate to legal relations that are not similar to those that arose in this case. In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the request of Private Entrepreneur Chygryy D.I. to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as the appellant did not substantiate the need for such a deviation. The court of cassation emphasized that its main task is to ensure the stability and unity of judicial practice, and deviation from previous decisions is allowed only if there are important grounds.<\/p>\n