**Case No. 916\/3473\/24 dated 11\/25\/2025**
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159652](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159652)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “Kherson-auto” in favor of LLC “Promin-21” of debt in the amount of UAH 5,081,750.27, which arose as a result of the defendant’s allegedly improper performance of obligations under the car sale and purchase agreement.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance on partial satisfaction of the claim. The appellate court found that, despite the lack of primary documents, in particular the car acceptance certificate, the defendant proved the fact of transferring the car to the plaintiff, based on a set of other evidence. In particular, the court took into account the fact of state registration of the vehicle to the plaintiff, which requires a statement from the owner, as well as the actions of the plaintiff, which indicate his acquisition of the owner’s powers, such as the formation of a tax credit, the issuance of an order for the registration of the vehicle, an appeal to the military commissariat, payment of pension fees and other payments related to the registration of the car. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not change his tax address after the occupation of the territory, which indicates the possibility of fulfilling the monetary obligation. The court of cassation emphasized that it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and does not re-evaluate the evidence provided by the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Promin-21” without satisfaction, and the decision of the Southwestern Economic Court of Appeal and the additional decision remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 910\/16322\/24 dated 11\/18\/2025**
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159693](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159693)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on the conditions of conducting hunting management and the obligation to vacate hunting grounds located within the objects of the nature reserve fund.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the State Environmental Inspectorate of Ukraine is an improper plaintiff in the case, since the courts did not take into account that the prosecutor’s claims are based on a violation of environmental protection legislation, namely legislation on the protection and use of territories and objects of the nature reserve fund, where the State Environmental Inspectorate is the authorized control body. The court noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly did not take into account the grounds of the claim filed by the prosecutor, and did not examine the evidence provided by the parties, and also did not take into account the dissimilarity of the disputed legal relations in this case with another case referred to by the courts of previous instances, since in the other case the claim was motivated by violation of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Hunting Management and Hunting”. The court emphasized that the State Environmental Inspectorate of the Polissia District is the body authorized to exercise state supervision (control) over compliance with the requirements of natureof nature conservation legislation, in particular, regarding the regime of land use of the nature reserve fund.<\/p>\n
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
Case No. 922\/154\/22 dated November 18, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of previous instances, which partially satisfied the application of PERSON_2 for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the prosecutor’s office, as the courts took into account the criteria of reality, validity, reasonableness, and proportionality of such expenses, as well as the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s discretion in resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs. The court noted that the mere fact of providing evidence of incurred expenses for legal assistance is not an unconditional basis for their full reimbursement, as the court must assess their necessity and proportionality to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court of cassation also indicated that the courts of previous instances properly assessed the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the overestimation of the cost of individual services of the attorney.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/5886\/22 dated November 27, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine extends not only to the parties to the case, but also to persons who did not participate in the case, if the decision of the court of first instance decides the issue of their rights, freedoms, interests, and\/or obligations. The court emphasized that the exhaustive list of grounds for refusing to open appellate proceedings is contained in Article 299 of the CAS of Ukraine and is not subject to broad interpretation. Clarification of the circumstances regarding the court’s decision on the rights of a person who did not participate in the case should be carried out during the consideration of the case on the merits, and not at the stage of opening appellate proceedings. The court also noted that the possibility of filing an appeal after the completion of the appellate review of the case is regulated by Article 323 of the CAS of Ukraine. The court indicated that the appellate court prematurely stated the absence of influence of the decision of the court of first instance on the rights and interests of Luxar LLC, without assessing the arguments of the appeal.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/10895\/21 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the village council on the approval of the general plan of the village and the appeal against the inaction of the executive committee of the village council regarding land planning.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the village council complied with the procedure for public discussion during the development of the general plan, in particular, regarding the publication of decisions, projects, a report on the strategic environmental assessment, registration and consideration of public proposals, conducting public hearings and publishing their results. The court noted that formal non-compliance with the sequence of amendments to the draft town planning documentation did not lead to a violation of the procedure for adopting the general plan as a whole and did not affect the essence of the decision taken. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the deputies were given a different document for voting than the one published, since the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support this fact. The court took into account that the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances, taken together, do not give grounds for concluding that the defendant violated the procedure for approving town planning documentation and that the appealed decision is illegal. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the established circumstances of the case and additionally verify the evidence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 120\/5263\/24 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by returning the appeal to the plaintiff. The appellate court disregarded the fact that the appeal was left without motion due to the expiration of the deadline for appeal, and not due to defects in its execution. In such a case, if the appellant did not file a motion for the renewal of the term, the consequence should be a refusal to open appellate proceedings, and not the return of the appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that participants in the judicial process should use procedural rights to perform the tasks of administrative justice, and not for abuses, such as disrespect for the court. The court of cassation also noted that the actions of participants in the judicial process must correspond to the tasks of administrative justice both in form and in content, and that courts should not consider cases in which a person uses procedural rights to the detriment of other participants in the process and the interests of justice.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/1045\/23 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong> 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the general meeting of the Condominium Association “Comfort” regarding the approval of the board’s report, budget, amount of contributions for 2016, and the new version of the charter, adopted on February 6, 2016.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the plaintiff did not prove violations during the adoption of decisions by the general meeting of the Condominium Association “Comfort.” The court noted that in order to determine the legality of the meeting’s decisions, it is necessary to take into account the data on the co-owners and the areas of their premises at the time of the meeting in 2016, and not as of 2022-2023, which the plaintiff referred to. Also, the court took into account that the required majority of co-owners voted for the decision to approve the budget and contributions. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide arguments regarding disagreement with the conclusions of the courts in the part of the claim regarding the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting regarding amendments to the Charter.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 910\/15609\/24 dated 11\/25\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties and a fine from LLC “Euromedtechnika” for the untimely delivery of goods under the procurement contract, as well as a counterclaim by LLC “Euromedtechnika” regarding the interpretation of the terms of the additional agreement to the contract.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that LLC “Euromedtechnika” violated the contractual obligations regarding the timely delivery of goods, which became the basis for the accrual of penalties and a fine. The court noted that the prepayment for the goods was made before the conclusion of the additional agreement, which changed the payment terms, and this agreement did not contain provisions on changing the delivery terms. The court also rejected the arguments of LLC “Euromedtechnika” regarding the need to interpret the terms of the additional agreement, since no wording was found that would complicate the fulfillment of obligations. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to the practice of the Supreme Court, as the legal relations in these cases are not similar. The court also rejected the petition of LLC “Euromedtechnika” to reduce the amount of penalties, as no evidence was provided of the existence of valid reasons for the violation of obligations.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Euromedtechnika,” and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 910\/14682\/20 dated 11\/20\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Enerhetychne Ob`yednannia “Proekt montazh naladka” in connection wiwith the cassation review of the case.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court partially granted the motion of “Enerhetychne Ob`yednannya “Proekt Montazh Naladka” LLC, noting that the costs of professional legal assistance are subject to distribution between the parties. The court took into account the agreement on the provision of legal assistance and evidence of the provision of services by a lawyer, namely, drafting a response to the cassation appeal and participating in the court hearing. At the same time, the court agreed with the arguments of JSC “Ukrtransgaz” regarding the excessive amount of the claimed expenses, taking into account the minor complexity of the case and the lawyer’s familiarity with the case materials. The court also noted that the absence of evidence of actual payment of the fee is not a ground for refusing to recover costs if the scope of services provided and their value are confirmed. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the discrepancy between the amount of expenses and the average salary of lawyers, since the fee is determined by agreement of the parties.<\/p>\n 3. The court ruled to recover from Joint Stock Company “Ukrtransgaz” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Enerhetychne Ob`yednannya “Proekt Montazh Naladka” UAH 5,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/1453\/25 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, considering the appeal, agreed with the decision of the court of first instance. The court took into account the arguments of the parties, examined the evidence, and concluded that the decision of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court is lawful and justified. The appellate court emphasized that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence of the legality of the origin of the funds that the state demands to be recovered. The court also took into account the role of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in protecting the interests of the state in the field of combating corruption. The judges of the appellate chamber carefully checked all the circumstances of the case and found no grounds for canceling or changing the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n The court decided to leave the appeal unsatisfied and the decision of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 520\/9056\/23 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance indicated that the courts of previous instances took a formal approach to the consideration of the case, without establishing which specific decision, action, or inaction of which subject of power is the subject of the appeal, and whether they create, change, or terminate the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs in the field of public law relations. The court emphasized the need 3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 921\/555\/22 dated 11\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case of insolvency, as the debtor did not provide complete and reliable information about their financial condition and income, as well as that of their family members, which is a violation of the requirements of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine (\u041a\u0423\u0437\u041f\u0411). The court noted that the insolvency procedure aims to restore the debtor’s solvency, not to write off debts, and requires the debtor to behave in good faith and cooperate with creditors. In this case, the debtor did not provide reasonable explanations regarding the circumstances of their insolvency, did not provide corrected declarations with complete information, and also proposed a restructuring plan that did not meet the requirements of the \u041a\u0423\u0437\u041f\u0411. The court emphasized that the debtor’s good faith is a determining criterion for assessing the circumstances of the case, and in its absence, the proceedings in the case are subject to closure.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 340\/1779\/24 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the prosecutor’s claim, arguing that the prosecutor had not proven the improper protection of the state’s interests by the State Environmental Inspectorate. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecutor has the right to represent the interests of the state in court if the authorized body does not protect these interests or does so improperly. The court indicated that the prosecutor reasonably asserted the Inspectorate’s inaction regarding the protection of interof the state in the field of environmental protection, as the Inspectorate did not take measures to eliminate violations of environmental legislation, namely the failure to establish the boundaries of the reserve. The court emphasized that it is the authorized bodies that have the duty to protect the interests of the state, and the prosecutor plays a subsidiary role when these bodies do not act. Considering this, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court mistakenly decided that the prosecutor had no grounds to appeal to the court.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 560\/4579\/25 dated 11\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court justified its decision by the fact that the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees social protection of citizens, and pension provision for military personnel is regulated by a special law, which aims to implement their constitutional right to state pension provision. The court noted that the restriction on the maximum amount of pension, appointed on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Some Other Persons,” was put into effect by the Law of Ukraine “On Measures Regarding Legislative Support of Reforming the Pension System,” but the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the provisions restricting the maximum amount of pensions as unconstitutional. The court also took into account that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine emphasized that any restriction on the maximum amount of pensions, appointed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Some Other Persons,” does not correspond to the essence of high-level social guarantees for persons covered by part five of Article 17 of the Basic Law.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, confirming that the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the restriction of the plaintiff’s pension to the maximum amount are unlawful.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/20937\/23 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the order of the Ministry of Justice as illegal, since the ministry violated the terms of consideration of the complaint of the Dnipro City Council, did not justify the reasons for suchviolated the requirements of procedural law and failed to properly assess the evidence provided by the city council to confirm the violation of its rights. The courts noted that to determine the existence of a violated right of a person who filed a complaint, it is necessary to consider the complaint on its merits, and not be limited only to stating the absence in the State Register of Real Property Rights of information about the rights to the disputed property already registered for the complainant. The court of cassation also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court that the violation by a subject of power of the deadlines for considering a complaint casts doubt on the legality of the entire procedure for considering the complaint and the decision made based on its results.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 420\/37042\/24 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation established that the plaintiff is appealing the actions of the notary, motivated by the violation of his rights as a member of a consumer society who invested funds in the construction of a real estate object, and believes that the decision to close the registry section was made without the consent of the general meeting of members of the society, which is a violation of their rights to dispose of property. The court emphasized that the dispute arose in connection with the plaintiff’s disagreement with the actions of the head of the consumer society, and not with public law relations with the notary. Considering that the claims are aimed at protecting property rights, the dispute is of a private law nature and is not subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which disputes regarding the cancellation of state registration of a real property right, initiated by a person who was not the applicant in the registration action, are disputes about civil law.<\/p>\n 3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to the court of commercial jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.<\/p>\n Case No. 914\/521\/22 dated November 18, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, but changed their motivation. The court noted that the university is not a proper plaintiff in the claim for the recovery of land plots, since such claims are aimed at protecting the interests of the state, and not the right of permanent use of the university. 3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left their operative parts unchanged, that is, the claim was dismissed.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/11905\/24 dated November 28, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court found it proven that the accused, being a People’s Deputy, abused his power, because, having housing in Kyiv, he submitted false information about its absence and received compensation for a hotel room during his term as a deputy. The court noted that a determining condition for receiving compensation was the lack of housing in Kyiv, and the accused was aware of this. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the use of one of the apartments as an office, since this does not change its status as housing, and also did not take into account the arguments about the unsuitability of the other apartment for living due to insufficient evidence. The court also took into account that the accused did not inform the Apparatus of the Verkhovna Rada about the availability of housing, which led to an unfounded reimbursement of the cost of the hotel room. The court recognized that the actions of the accused were intentional and aimed at obtaining an illegal benefit.<\/p>\n 3. The court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of 3 years and 6 months, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a term of 3 years and a fine of UAH 8,500.<\/p>\n Case No. 183\/8847\/24 dated November 27, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The cassation court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the Patrol Police Department against the decision of the court of first instance. The Court of Appeal found the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal cited by the Patrol Police Department to be invalid, namely organizational difficulties, a significant workload on employees, formal procedures and the introduction of martial law. The Supreme Court emphasized that organizational difficulties in the work of a subject of power cannot be valid reasons for missing the proceduralof the reasonable time limit, as the state must adhere to the principles of good governance. The court also noted that the introduction of martial law itself is not a sufficient basis for renewing the term, unless the specific impact of these circumstances on the possibility of timely appeal to the court is proven.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n **Case No. 904\/3453\/24 dated November 27, 2025**<\/a> The court partially granted the application for the recovery of legal aid expenses, as the plaintiff did not substantiate the excess of the amount of expenses stated in the preliminary calculation. The court noted that, according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the amount of court costs claimed for reimbursement significantly exceeds the amount indicated in the preliminary calculation, the court may refuse to reimburse the difference if the party does not prove that it could not have foreseen these costs at the time of submitting the preliminary calculation. The court took into account that the contract for the provision of legal assistance, which defined the cost of services, was signed before the formation of the cassation appeal, therefore, the plaintiff could have indicated the full amount of expenses in the preliminary calculation. The court also emphasized that the criterion of reasonable necessity of expenses for professional legal assistance is evaluative and is determined by the court on the basis of a comprehensive examination of evidence.<\/p>\n The court decided to recover from the Association of Co-owners of an Apartment Building “Dniprovski Vezhi” in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 15,000.00 for expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 922\/831\/23 dated November 18, 2025**<\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that a loan agreement and a property rights pledge agreement were concluded between JSC “Megabank” and ME “Zhylkomservis”, which secured the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement; JSC “Megabank” fulfilled its obligations under the loan agreement by providing funds, but ME “Zhylkomservis” violated the terms of the agreement regarding timely payment of the loan and interest, as a result of which debt arose; the creditor has the right to exercise the right to foreclose on the subject of the pledge, but is not obliged to do so, and in this case, the creditor chose a method of protection in the bankruptcy case; the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case does not change the essence of the pledge obligation, but only changes the procedure for satisfying the creditor’s claims. The court of cassation instance noted that JSC “Megabank” had the right to apply to the 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/3378\/24 dated 11\/25\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of “NT Adenium” LLC against the additional ruling of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the application of “NT Agrotonika” LLC for the recovery of expenses for legal assistance. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court correctly applied the provisions of part eight of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the defendant claimed reimbursement of expenses and submitted evidence of their incurrence in the response to the appeal, i.e., before the end of the court debates. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the detailing of the description of the work performed by the lawyer and concluded that the appellate court, having assessed the provided documents and objections of the other party, reasonably reduced the amount of expenses for legal assistance. In addition, the court of cassation noted that the Appellant exercised its right to submit objections regarding the Respondent’s claims for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, and the appellate court gave them appropriate assessment, which confirms compliance with the principle of adversarial commercial procedure.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “NT Adenium” LLC and upheld the additional ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 480\/207\/25 dated 11\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that pension indexation is an integral part of pension payments, aimed at maintaining the purchasing power of citizens in conditions of inflation, and is mandatory. The court indicated that the provisions of Procedure No. 124, which determine indexation from the average salary indicator as of 10\/01\/2017, contradict part two of Article 42 of Law No. 1058-IV, which provides for indexation from the average salary indicator that was taken into account when assigning the pension. The court emphasized that in case of conflict between the norms of the law and a by-law, the law prevails. The court also noted that pension provision should be carried out on the principles of legislative determination of the conditions and differentiation of pension amounts depending on the insurance period and 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which declared the actions of the Pension Fund illegal and ordered a recalculation of the pension, taking into account the relevant coefficients for increasing the average salary.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/1828\/25 dated 25\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the Antimonopoly Committee has the right to initiate consideration of cases of violation of legislation on protection of economic competition if there are signs of concerted actions between the participants of the auction, which may distort its results. The court noted that in this case, the AMCU does not check the legality of land auctions, but establishes the existence of signs of concerted behavior between competitors, which is a violation of economic competition. Also, the court indicated that the complainant did not prove that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since the legal relations in the cases referred to by the complainant are not similar to this case. The court also noted that there are no grounds for providing a legal opinion regarding the application of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine”, since the courts of previous instances investigated and evaluated the arguments of the parties to the case through the prism of the subject, grounds of the claim, and scope of evidence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12284\/24 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, when considering the application for the distribution of court costs, was guided by the principles of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of the costs of professional legal assistance. The court noted that the party requesting reimbursement of costs must prove their necessity and justification. At the same time, the court takes into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, the time spent by the lawyer, as well as the financial condition of the parties. The court also emphasized that interference in the contractual relationship between a lawyer and a client regarding the amount of the fee is possible only if there is evidence of nnon-compliance of expenses with actually provided services. In this case, although LLC “Spacex” provided evidence of incurred expenses, the court considered the claimed amount excessive, taking into account the consistency of the legal position, the lawyer’s familiarity with the case materials, and the absence of a motion from the other party to reduce the expenses.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the application of LLC “Spacex”, recovering UAH 10,000 from LLC “Gravityfall” for professional legal assistance expenses, refusing to satisfy the remaining amount.<\/p>\n Case No. 909\/763\/24 dated 11\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim because Private Enterprise “Prima MED” was not the owner of the real estate object before the reconstruction, but only carried out the reconstruction of an existing object owned by the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council; the courts of previous instances took into account the circumstances established in another case, where it was established that the rights and legitimate interests of Private Enterprise “Prima Med” regarding the acquisition of property rights to the disputed real estate were not violated; the plaintiff did not prove the violation of its rights and chose an improper method of protection, since the claim for recognition of the rights of the developer does not contribute to the restoration of the violated right and does not meet the legislative requirements for the acquisition and registration of property rights to real estate; cancellation of the state registration of ownership of the object by the defendant will not restore the rights of the plaintiff, since it did not acquire ownership of the object. The court of cassation also noted that there are no grounds for forming a conclusion regarding the application of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development” and the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances”, since the courts of previous instances concluded that there was no violation of the plaintiff’s rights and that it had chosen an improper method of protection.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of Private Enterprise “Prima MED” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 280\/672\/24 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the analogy of the law in similar legal relations, namely, part eight of Article 27 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The Supreme Court previously stated that in the event that the state executor returned the writ of execution to the creditor, and the creditor presented it to a private executor, who opened proceedings and issued a decision on the recovery of the main remuneration 3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the claim.<\/p>\n **Case No. 925\/1634\/24 dated 11\/18\/2025** 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from a private enterprise under a contract for the right of special use of aquatic bioresources.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision because the appellate court failed to ensure the participation of the defendant’s representative in the court hearing via video conference, despite having previously granted a request for such participation. This deprived the party of the opportunity to exercise its procedural rights and violated the principle of equality of the parties. The court of cassation emphasized that the right to be heard is a key principle of procedural fairness, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Since the court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case, the case was sent back to the appellate court for a new trial to remedy violations of procedural law and ensure a full hearing of the case, taking into account all arguments of the parties. The court also noted that other arguments of the appellant may be subject to cassation review only after a new trial by the appellate court in compliance with the rules of procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n **Case No. 280\/11149\/24 dated 11\/27\/2025** 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the refusal to recalculate and pay monetary allowance, financial assistance for health improvement, and financial assistance for resolving social and domestic issues.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court prematurely dismissed the claim without considering important circumstances. In particular, the appellate court did not determine when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of payments made to her. The court also did not divide the disputed period into two parts: before and after July 19, 2022 (the date of entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX, which amended Article 233 of the Labor Code), in order to correctly apply the rules regarding the terms of application to the court. The court noted that it is necessary to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new hearing to the appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 759\/16084\/24 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the temporary assignment of the duties of the chairman of the board of the Condominium Association to one of the board members was lawful, since it concerned the current activities of the association, and was subsequently approved by the general meeting. The court also noted that the contracts were not contracts for the management of an apartment building, but concerned the performance of duties assigned to a full-time employee of the Condominium Association, the building manager, as provided for in the staffing schedule and estimate. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to the fact that the contracts should have been concluded only by a decision of the general meeting, since they did not provide for the transfer of building management functions to the manager, but were aimed at ensuring the current activities of the Condominium Association. The court also took into account that the general meeting of the Condominium Association approved the decisions of the board adopted in 2022-2023, which confirms the approval of the defendant’s actions.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged, partially satisfying the defendants’ claims for reimbursement of professional legal assistance expenses.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/3921\/21 (922\/1371\/22) dated November 18, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, agreeing that the local commercial court prematurely declared the debtor bankrupt and opened liquidation proceedings, since it did not properly verify the debtor’s property and financial condition, did not clarify the ratio of assets and liabilities, and did not examine the completeness of the asset manager’s actions to determine the value of the identified property. The court of cassation emphasized that at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance, court disputes were ongoing regarding the monetary claims of one of the main creditors, which significantly affected the amount of the debtor’s liabilities and assets. Also, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court that **Case No. 902\/181\/22(902\/1003\/24) dated November 18, 2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement and the return of the land plot due to the lessee’s systematic failure to fulfill obligations to pay rent. **Case No. 922\/1327\/25 dated November 25, 2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on recognizing anti-competitive concerted actions as distorting the results of tenders. 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.<\/p>\n **Case No. 367\/5747\/23 dated 11\/26\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of the business reputation of a charitable foundation, which believes that the defendant disseminated false information about its activities in her online articles.<\/p>\n 2. The court partially granted the claim, based on the following arguments: the defendant is the owner of the website where the disputed articles were posted; the information in the articles contains statements about fraudulent activities of the foundation, which are factual assertions, not value judgments; the defendant did not provide evidence to confirm the accuracy of the disseminated information; the examination confirmed that the information in the articles is real, not imaginary or predicted; the disseminated information harms the business reputation of the plaintiff, who is engaged in charitable activities. The court took into account the balance between freedom of expression and the right to protect business reputation, as well as the fact that the disseminated information is not a value judgment, but contains specific accusations of illegal actions. The cassation court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and sees no reason to interfere in their assessment.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n **Case No. 161\/21832\/23 dated 11\/28\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement between individuals.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which reduced the amount of recovery, based on the following arguments: 3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and to uphold the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n **Case No. 215\/1484\/20 dated 11\/19\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for compensation for moral damages caused by prolonged non-execution of a court decision.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation 3. The court partially satisfied the claim, recovering UAH 4,000 from the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of the plaintiff as compensation for moral damage.<\/p>\n Case No. 352\/2521\/24 dated 28\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 447\/118\/24 dated 26\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to partially satisfy the claim of PERSON_1.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the court of appeal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case, but believes that the decision of the court of first instance concerns their rights and interests.<\/p>\n
\nCase No. 826\/18820\/16 dated 26\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n**Case No. 910\/10468\/23 (910\/19481\/23) dated 11\/27\/2025**<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute in this case is a claim by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office against individuals for the recognition of an asset as unjustified and the recovery of funds into the state revenue.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Kharkiv City Council and its departments regarding the dismantling of the tram tracks on Vesnina Street in Kharkiv and the inconsistency of these actions with the General Plan of the city.<\/p>\n
\nof a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the evidence, determination of the nature of the disputed legal relationship, establishment of the facts underlying the claims, and clarification of the existence of evidence to support these facts. The court also noted that for the provision of legal protection by the court, it is necessary to establish a violation of the rights, freedoms, or interests of a person at the time of applying to the court, as well as the existence of a causal link between the actions of the defendant and the consequences for the plaintiff. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances had allowed a superficial approach to resolving the dispute, and therefore the Supreme Court cannot recognize the decisions of the courts of previous instances in this case as lawful and justified.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling to close the proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the Onufriivka settlement council regarding the failure to ensure work on marking the boundaries of the local landscape reserve “Lozuvatskyi”.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute was the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi Oblast regarding the restriction of the maximum amount of pension of PERSON_1, appointed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service, and Some Other Persons.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to dismiss the complaint of the Dnipro City Council regarding the actions of a private notary regarding the state registration of ownership of an apartment.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the registration action of a private notary regarding the closure of a section in the State Register of Real Property Rights relating to an unfinished construction object.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of land plots from someone else’s illegal possession, as well as the cancellation of the order of the State Geocadastre and the decision of the city council regarding the transfer of these plots to communal ownership.<\/p>\n
\nu. Also, the court agreed that the request to cancel the order of the State Geocadastre and the decision of the city council is not an effective way to protect, since these acts have already been executed. The court emphasized that choosing an ineffective method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim. The court also took into account that the court decision should be reasoned, legal and correspond to the task of economic proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of a former People’s Deputy of abuse of power, which led to the illegal receipt of compensation for hotel accommodation at the expense of state funds.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision on the imposition of an administrative penalty for violation of part two of Article 117 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of Joint Stock Company “Megabank” to Municipal Enterprise “Zhylkomservis” as a creditor secured by a pledge of the debtor’s property, in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n
\nand did not realize it, choosing to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, which does not contradict the law.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the refusal to index the pension using the established coefficients of increase in the average salary.<\/p>\n
\nof salary. The court emphasized that when recalculating pensions, the average salary indicator that was taken into account when calculating the pension at the time of its assignment should be used, and not as of 01.10.2017.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the order of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to start consideration of the case on violation of legislation on protection of economic competition.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is SpaceX LLC’s application for an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance in the case of invalidation of contracts for the sale of property rights to a trademark and the recovery of these rights.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Private Enterprise “Prima MED” to cancel the state registration of rights to real estate and to recognize its rights and obligations as the developer of the reconstruction object.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim to oblige the state enforcement service to terminate the enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the enforcement fee.<\/p>\n
\nConsequently, the execution fee is no longer collected to avoid double recovery from the debtor. The court emphasized that the proper way to protect the debtor’s rights in such a case is to terminate the enforcement proceeding for the recovery of the execution fee. The court also pointed out that the appellate court referred to decisions of the Supreme Court that are not relevant to the circumstances of this case, as they did not concern the simultaneous recovery of the execution fee and the main remuneration.<\/p>\n
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159694](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132159694)<\/p>\n
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132145973](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132145973)<\/p>\n
\nin similar cases to ensure a uniform approach to resolving the issue of the statute of limitations for appealing to the court in labor disputes. The court indicated that in the case of ongoing legal relations that began before July 19, 2022, the wording of Article 233 of the Labor Code, which was in effect until that date, should be applied, and for the period after July 19, 2022, the new wording should be applied.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of invalid contracts concluded between the Condominium Association and an individual, and the recovery of funds by way of restitution.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate commercial court’s ruling on the cancellation of the first instance court’s decision regarding the recognition of the debtor as bankrupt and the opening of liquidation proceedings.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the return of the case to the stage of property disposition, in order to implement all necessary measures in this procedure, which corresponds to the goals and objectives of the bankruptcy procedure.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for termination of the land lease agreement, considering that bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the lessee, and termination of the lease agreement could negatively affect the formation of the liquidation estate and the satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court noted that the purpose of the bankruptcy procedure is to maximize the satisfaction of creditors’ claims, and termination of the lease agreement may reduce the attractiveness of the bankrupt’s property to potential buyers, which will lead to a decrease in proceeds from the sale of property. The court also took into account that the rent arrears were not declared as a creditor’s claim in the bankruptcy case. The court emphasized that the special rules of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures take precedence over the general rules of land and civil legislation.
\n3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s ruling was upheld.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of “New Heat Technologies” LLC to invalidate the decision of the AMCU, reasoning that proof of a violation in the form of anti-competitive concerted actions must be based on an analysis of the totality of circumstances, and not on a separate fact, and that the appellate court took into account the probability and interrelation of the evidence analyzed by the AMCU in their entirety. The court of cassation noted that each case involving the AMCU is individual, and it is impossible to refer to the failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court if the difference in court decisions is due to different factual circumstances of the cases. The court also emphasized that for the qualification of actions as anti-competitive, the occurrence of negative consequences is not mandatory, it is sufficient to establish the fact of coordination of competitive behavior that may have a negative impact on competition. The court of cassation also noted that commercial courts must assess the circumstances of the case and the evidence according to their inner conviction, examine the probadignity and interconnection of evidence in their entirety.<\/p>\n
\n * The appellate court took into account the screenshots of correspondence with the plaintiff in the messenger provided by the defendant, where the plaintiff acknowledged the defendant’s debt in a smaller amount.
\n * Submitting electronic evidence in paper copy does not make it inadmissible if the court has no doubts about the conformity of the copy to the original.
\n * The court may consider electronic correspondence as evidence if it allows to establish the authors and content of the correspondence.
\n * The plaintiff did not refute the defendant’s arguments about partial repayment of the debt and did not provide evidence to confirm a larger amount of debt.
\n * The presence of the original receipt with the plaintiff does not disprove the evidence of partial repayment of the debt by the defendant.<\/p>\n
\ninstance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for compensation for moral damage, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account that the basis of the claim is not the fact of unlawful inaction of the state body itself, but the long-term non-execution of a court decision that established this inaction. The court noted that long-term non-execution of a court decision is a violation of the right to a fair trial and one of the fundamental principles of justice, which cannot but cause moral suffering to a person. Also, the court took into account that the defendant did not provide any explanations regarding the reasons for non-execution of the court decision and did not object to the claims. Taking into account the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court determined the amount of monetary compensation for moral damage in the amount of UAH 4,000. The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, finding no grounds for this.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is divorce and invalidation of the marriage due to its fictitiousness.
\n2. The court dissolved the marriage, as it established that further joint life of the spouses contradicts the interests of one of them, taking into account the lack of support for marital relations and the formal nature of the marriage; the court refused to invalidate the marriage, as the plaintiff in the counterclaim did not prove that the defendant had the sole intention to obtain material benefits when entering into the marriage, and the long-term non-residence of the spouses due to military service does not indicate the fictitiousness of the marriage; the court also took into account that the plaintiff provided funds to the defendant even before the marriage was concluded, when he was in another marriage, and that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of his disability at the time of registration of the marriage. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances. The court also noted that a lawyer can confirm the payment of the fee by the client with a certificate in any form.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, partially satisfying the claim for reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state for compensation for moral damage caused, as he claims, by the illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office in the criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted.
\n2. The court of first instance partially satisfied
\nlawsuit, based on the premise that an acquittal is grounds for compensation for moral damages caused by unlawful prosecution. The appellate court overturned this decision, reasoning that the plaintiff had been convicted in other criminal proceedings and therefore could not be considered a victim of unlawful acts in this particular proceeding. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, stating that the existence of convictions in other cases does not deprive a person of the right to compensation for moral damages caused by unlawful prosecution in a specific proceeding in which they were acquitted. The court also emphasized that the basis for compensation is the unlawful investigation and trial in the criminal proceeding in question and the existence of an acquittal that has entered into force. The Supreme Court referred to previous practice of the Supreme Court, in particular the ruling of December 24, 2024, in case No. 740\/6706\/23, which supports this position.<\/p>\n