Case No. 569\/8071\/23 dated 01\/10\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of loan agreements concluded between the plaintiff’s husband and a third party without her consent.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, pointing to violations of procedural law, namely the defendant’s right to participate in the consideration of the case. The appellate court held a hearing during a declared air raid alert, without clarifying the reasons for the non-appearance of the defendant and his representative, which could be due to objective circumstances caused by a security threat. The Supreme Court emphasized the priority of preserving human life and health, especially in the context of martial law, and the need for the court to ensure the safety of participants in the proceedings. Also, the appellate court did not consider the defendant’s motion to renew the term for submitting evidence and did not assess the submitted evidence, which is also a violation of procedural rules. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court should have decided on the adjournment of the case, applying the relevant procedural rules, taking into account the general principles of civil procedure, ensuring guarantees of the right of a person to participate in the consideration of his\/her case, and the court’s obligation to assist participants in the trial in exercising their procedural rights.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n
Case No. 203\/7344\/23 dated 11\/13\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s death during combat operations.<\/p>\n
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the application, since the fact of death had already been established by a previous court decision, and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the death occurred specifically during combat operations, but only the testimony of a witness. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, noting that the applicant did not provide proper, sufficient and reliable evidence to confirm that the father’s death occurred as a result of artillery shelling during combat operations. The court also took into account that the applicant did not contact law enforcement agencies regarding the father’s death as a result of shelling, and did not provide information about the existence of criminal proceedings on this fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the testimony of a witness is not enough to establish the fact of death during combat operations, and proof cannot be based on assumptions.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case No. 281\/372\/24 dated 11\/26\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the ways in which the father participates in the upbringing and communication with the child after the dissolution of the marriage.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, based on the following:
\n* \u0412\u0456\u043d \u043f
\nHe emphasized that when resolving issues regarding the upbringing of a child, courts should be guided by the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child, which takes priority over the interests of the parents.
\n * He noted that international and national norms guarantee parents equal rights and responsibilities regarding the child, but these rights must be exercised taking into account the interests of the child.
\n * He emphasized that the court, when establishing the method of communication, must maintain a reasonable balance in the participation of both parents in the upbringing of the child.
\n * He took into account the child’s age, health condition, as well as the father’s desire to actively participate in upbringing.
\n * He agreed with the appellate court that the defined communication procedure would ensure a fair balance between the interests of the child and the parents, and promote the establishment of trusting relationships.
\n * He noted that in cases involving disputes regarding the participation of parents in the upbringing and communication with a child, a generalized and formal approach is unacceptable.
\n * He also indicated that the development of the family situation can be dynamic, and the defined methods of the father’s participation may be changed in the future by agreement or by court decision.<\/p>\n
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 766\/20475\/18 dated November 19, 2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of ownership of the apartment, the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on the registration of ownership of this apartment to the defendant, which, according to the plaintiff, was carried out in violation of the procedure and during the moratorium on the recovery of property under foreign currency loans.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that the appellate court mistakenly took into account the absence of property valuation during the registration of ownership, since this was not stated as the basis of the claim. However, the court agreed with the appellate court regarding the application of the Law of Ukraine “On the moratorium on the recovery of property of citizens of Ukraine provided as security for loans in foreign currency,” since the disputed apartment was the plaintiff’s permanent residence, the loan was in foreign currency, and the plaintiff had no other housing in ownership. Regarding the claim for termination of ownership, the court of cassation indicated that this is not a proper method of protection, since the cancellation of the registrar’s decision already restores the plaintiff’s rights. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of property law methods of protection in similar legal relations.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court regarding the reasons for canceling the registrar’s decision and canceling the decision of the appellate court on the termination of ownership, upholding the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss this part of the claims, but with a different motivation.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 308\/7291\/24 dated December 2, 2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge
\nregarding the actions of a private enforcement officer in the execution of enforcement proceedings based on an writ of execution, the term for presentation of which for execution, in the debtor’s opinion, has expired.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the debtor’s complaint against the actions of the private enforcement officer. The court of appeal reasonably noted that at the time of the opening of the enforcement proceedings, the court’s ruling on the renewal of the term for presenting the writ of execution for execution was valid. According to current legislation, the cancellation of this ruling after the opening of enforcement proceedings is not an unconditional basis for returning the writ of execution to the claimant or terminating the enforcement proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the enforcement officer acted lawfully by opening enforcement proceedings based on a valid court decision on the renewal of the term at that time. The court of cassation also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal and are reduced to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court.<\/p>\n
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
Case No. 757\/27418\/22-\u0446 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the fact that he suffered pecuniary and moral damage as a result of the decisions of the courts in the previous case, and also did not provide proper evidence to confirm the causal link between the actions of the judges and the negative consequences. The court noted that appealing the actions of judges regarding the consideration and resolution of cases, as well as appealing court decisions outside the procedure provided for by the procedural law, is not allowed. Also, the courts of previous instances reasonably indicated that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine is not a proper defendant in this case, since it is not the body authorized to represent the state in disputes on compensation for property damage. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to impose liability on the state, it is necessary to prove the illegality of the actions of the state authority, the fact of damage and the causal connection between them.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 756\/10766\/21 dated 11\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy 2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous courts in the reasoning part.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/4637\/24 dated November 19, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the previous courts, which recognized the monetary claims of the CRGL and MD STS as justified. Regarding the claims of the MD STS, the court of cassation emphasized that the inconsistency of the amount of the monetary obligation is not a basis for refusing to recognize creditor claims in the bankruptcy case, and the previous courts lawfully examined the documents submitted by the tax authority, confirming the existence of debt. Regarding the claims of the CRGL, the court of cassation noted that LLC “Casino “Premier Palace” did not fulfill the obligation to pay annual fees for licenses to conduct activities for organizing and conducting gambling games, which is the basis for recognizing the corresponding debt. The court of cassation also took into account that the decisions on the annulment of licenses of LLC “Casino “Premier Palace” were not appealed in court. The court of cassation emphasized that the previous courts correctly applied the provisions of Article 45 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, which regulates the procedure for submitting and considering creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “Casino “Premier Palace”, and to leave the ruling of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal in the appealed part unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/2991\/24 dated November 27, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim for debt recovery. The court of cassation noted that the requirement to pay 3% per annum is a right of the creditor, which is guaranteed by law, and that the court may reduce the amount of these interest only to the level established by law, i.e., not less than 3% per annum. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that reducing the amount of penalties by the court is a right, not an obligation of the court, and may be exercised by it in each specific case based on the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the evidence provided by the parties to the case. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the validity of the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the criteria of proportionality, reasonableness, and necessity of such expenses. The court of cassation noted that the defendant did not prove the disproportionality of expenses for legal assistance, and the courts of previous instances lawfully reduced them to reasonable amounts.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/1840\/25 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties and fines from LLC “Teploenerhocomplekt” in favor of LLC “Operator of the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine” for alleged improper performance of the contract.<\/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, motivating it by the fact that the delay in the performance of works by LLC “Teploenerhocomplekt” occurred due to the actions of LLC “Operator of the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine”, which abused its rights regarding the detection of defects and did not ensure timely shutdown of the GDS necessary for the performance of works. The court noted that LLC “Operator of the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine” obstructed the performance of works, demanding the elimination of defects, which were often not confirmed, and did not ensure the shutdown of the GDS necessary for the performance of works, which indicates the absence of fault of LLC “Teploenerhocomplekt” in the delay in the performance of obligations. The court also took into account that LLC “Operator of the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine” did not exercise the right to amend the contract or to withdraw from it, which indicates satisfaction with the work of LLC “Teploenerhocomplekt” as a whole. The court of cassation emphasized that it is not a court of fact and does not re-evaluate the evidence, but only checks the correctness of the application of legal norms.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Operator of the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine” and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/4788\/24 dated 11\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the absence of the creditor’s right in connection with the termination of the contract for the assignment of the claim.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation casustained the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim, motivating this by the fact that the claim for recognition of the absence of the creditor’s right was filed in inseparable connection with the claim for termination of the assignment agreement, which is an improper method of protection. The court noted that the claim for recognition of the absence of a right may be a proper method of protection only under certain conditions, in particular, when it is aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty, and not at protecting a violated right. Since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, the claim should be dismissed. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of such a method of protection as the recognition of the termination of the agreement.<\/p>\n 3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 755\/14104\/21 dated 05\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the employee’s dismissal due to staff reduction as illegal and reinstatement.<\/p>\n 2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, considering that the employer proved the fact of changes in the organization of production and labor, and also properly fulfilled the obligation to offer the employee all available vacancies. The Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, indicating that the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff was not offered all vacant positions, including those to which acting officers were appointed. Also, the courts did not properly assess the validity of the trade union’s decision to refuse to consent to the dismissal of the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that the validity of the decision of the trade union body should be assessed by the court, based on the general principles of law and the principles of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new appellate review.<\/p>\n Case No. 761\/36710\/15-\u043a dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_6, accused of fraud committed repeatedly by prior conspiracy by a group of persons in large amounts, through illegal transactions using electronic computing equipment.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, since the appellate court formally considered the prosecutor’s appeal, without properly assessing the arguments of the prosecution regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular, protocols of identification of a person by photographs. The appellate court did not analyze the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the existence of an investigator’s order to conduct an investigative action and did not substantiate why it considered the protocol of identification of a person, where PERSON_9 identified PERSON_6, as improper evidence. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not provide reasoned answers to the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, did not compare them with the conclusions of the court of first instance and the evidence collected in the criminal proceedings. 2. The court quashed the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132237753](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132237753) 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts for the sale of property rights to basement premises in an apartment building as invalid and the recovery of these premises in favor of the association of co-owners of an apartment building ( \u041e\u0421\u0411\u0411 [Association of Co-Owners of an Apartment Building]). [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132238034](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132238034) 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for centralized heating services. [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132238047](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132238047) 1. The subject 2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the claims against the borrower, because the appellate court did not consider the clause on increasing the statute of limitations to 50 years, established by an additional agreement to the loan agreement, and, accordingly, mistakenly concluded that it applied. In addition, the appellate court did not properly examine all the evidence in the case in its entirety and did not verify the conclusion of the court of first instance regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations. Also, the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the appeal regarding the consideration of the case in the order of simplified proceedings. Regarding the claims against the guarantors, the court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the guarantee was terminated on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 559 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the loan term, the total amount of the loan, and remuneration for the provision of a financial instrument were increased without the consent of the guarantors.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the claims against the borrower and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and regarding the claims against the guarantors, it left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12059\/24 dated 11\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim for the collection of a share contribution, motivating it by the fact that the constructed dormitory is part of the integral property complex of the university and, according to the law, the buildings of educational institutions are exempt from paying a share contribution. The court of cassation noted that the determining factor is the functional purpose of the building, and not only its formal classification. It also took into account that educational institutions are obliged to provide students with dormitories, which makes the dormitory a structural component of the educational infrastructure. The court emphasized that the legislator’s goal was to provide preferential treatment not only to objects where the educational process directly takes place, but also to all buildings functionally necessary to ensure the activities of the educational institution. The court also noted that the study of the issue of the proper person of the construction client is not legally relevant for the consideration of this dispute.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12839\/24 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.<\/p>\n **Case No. 911\/417\/24 of 26\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the right of permanent use of the land plot by JSC “Myronivske” and the recognition as illegal of the order to transfer this land plot for lease to PERSON_1.<\/p>\n 2. When considering the case, the court of cassation relied on the following arguments: 3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the initial claim, canceling the decision in the part of satisfying the counterclaim to cancel the order, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance in the part of the counterclaim regarding the recognition of the absence of the right to conclude a lease agreement.<\/p>\n **Case No. 916\/1209\/22 of 17\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the application of liability in the form of compensation for damages requires the existence of a complete set of civil offenses, including unlawful conduct, damages, causation, and fault. The court noted that the prosecutor had not proved the existence of damages to the plaintiffs, since the work under the contract was completed in full and paid for in accordance with the adjusted cost, and the parties had no claims regarding the performance of the contract. The court also took into account that the parties exercised the right to adjust the cost of the work, which was stipulated in the contract, and signed an adjustment act. The Supreme Court agreed that the fact of overestimation of the volume of work under individual acts is not a basis for additional liability, since these amounts have already been adjusted by the parties voluntarily.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to satisfy the cassation appeal of Takom-Gloria Pivden LLC, to overturn the decision of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal, and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 522\/6970\/19 dated 02\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim for foreclosure of the mortgage, because the plaintiff applied to the court after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court proceeded from the fact that the bank, having applied to the court in 2012 with a demand for early recovery of debt under the loan agreement, changed the term of fulfillment of the obligation, and from that moment the statute of limitations began to run for claims for foreclosure of the mortgage. The court noted that the creditor should have known about the violation of his right back in 2012, when he filed a claim for debt recovery, but did not make claims for foreclosure of the mortgage. The court also took into account that the creditor was aware of the violation of his right as of January 2014. The Supreme Court emphasized that the claim for foreclosure of the mortgage (actio in rem) is “subject” to the statute of limitations, to which all relevant rules apply.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 760\/1195\/24 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, indicating that the appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering the numerous previous convictions of PERSON_6, including for similar crimes in the field of drug trafficking, which casts doubt on the sincerity of his repentance and the possibility of rehabilitation without isolation from society. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not substantiate why it considered the prosecutor’s references to PERSON_6’s previous convictions unfounded, and did not take into account that the court of first instance referred to the same circumstances as when choosing the type and amount of punishment. The Supreme Court emphasized that all data about the convict and the circumstances that mitigate the punishment, in this particular case, do not indicate the possibility of PERSON_6’s rehabilitation without isolation from society.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 295\/9580\/24 dated 02\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court partially satisfied the convict’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. In making this decision, the Supreme Court apparently established certain violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. At the same time, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for the convict in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, which may indicate the existence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which give grounds for the application of such a preventive measure. Since the full text of the decision will be announced later, the detailed reasons for the decision are currently unknown. However, the appointment of a new trial by the appellate court indicates that the previous decision did not meet the requirements of the law.<\/p>\n The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for the convict in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.<\/p>\n Case No. 939\/958\/23 dated 01\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that at the time of the conclusion of the agreements there were restrictions or encumbrances on the land plots that he was not aware of, or that the defendant deliberately misled him. 3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 211\/6872\/23 dated 02\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court refused to satisfy the bank’s claim for debt recovery, as the bank did not prove that the client, by her actions or inaction, contributed to the illegal debiting of funds from her accounts. The court noted that the bank did not provide evidence that would unequivocally indicate that the client contributed to the loss or illegal use of the PIN code or other information that allows initiating payment transactions. The court also took into account that the client contacted the police and notified the bank about unauthorized transactions, and law enforcement agencies established that the login to mobile banking was carried out from an IP address that does not belong to the client. In addition, the court reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance recovered from the bank in favor of the client, as it considered that the initially determined amount was excessive. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of moral damages, as the client did not provide sufficient evidence of causing her moral suffering.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance left the bank’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 727\/11966\/21 dated 16\/10\/2024<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation did not agree with the conclusion of the appellate court on the closure of proceedings in the case on the basis of the identity of the dispute with the previous case on the division of property of the spouses. The Supreme Court emphasized that the grounds for the claim in the cases are different: in the previous case, the plaintiff asked to recognize the debt obligations as joint debts, and in this case, he demands compensation for the part of the debt already paid by him. In addition, in the new case, the plaintiff provided evidence that could not be the subject of evaluation in the previous case, since it confirms the fact of debt repayment after the decision was made in the previous 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 487\/1536\/23 dated November 19, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of appellate instance, whose decision was supported by the Supreme Court, established that there were labor relations between PERSON_1 and ZODIAC-SB LLC from September 4, 2020, which is confirmed by the evidence provided by the plaintiff, in particular, passes to the workplace and certificates of the security service of ZODIAC-SB LLC. The court also took into account the logs of shift handover, the log of vehicle departure, and the log of visits to the auto laboratory, which reflected the plaintiff’s duty as a security inspector. The fact of the plaintiff’s dismissal on February 26, 2023, is confirmed by his denial of access to work, as evidenced by a report to the police. The court emphasized that the defendant did not comply with the procedure for dismissal established by the Labor Code of Ukraine, in particular, did not issue an order for dismissal, did not issue a copy of the order to the employee, did not issue a work book and a written notice of the accrued and paid amounts upon dismissal, and did not make a settlement. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the dismissal was illegal and that the plaintiff should be reinstated.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of ZODIAC-SB LLC and upheld the decision of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal of March 12, 2025.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the State of Ukraine for pecuniary and moral damage caused, in his opinion, by illegal decisions of judges in a previous case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of apartment purchase and sale agreements as invalid, the cancellation of decisions and records on state registration of rights and their encumbrances, the termination and recognition of ownership of the apartment, which was the subject of a mortgage.<\/p>\n
\nof the claim but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court noted that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect their rights, since, considering themselves the owner of property that had been alienated, they had the right to file a claim for recovery of property from illegal possession against the last acquirer of the property on the basis of Articles 387 and 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Instead, the claims for invalidation of sale and purchase agreements, cancellation of state registration of ownership, and termination of ownership are not proper remedies in this case. The court emphasized that in cases where the owner and the possessor of the property are not in contractual relations, the owner may use property law remedies, such as recovery of property from illegal possession. Since the plaintiff did not claim recovery of property from illegal possession but chose inappropriate remedies, the court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the recognition of monetary claims of the Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries (CRGL) and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv (MD STS) against the Limited Liability Company “Casino “Premier Palace” in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract, namely the amount of the principal debt,
\n3% per annum and inflation losses.<\/p>\n
\nthat is a violation of the requirements of Articles 370, 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In this regard, the court of cassation found that the appellate review was conducted formally, without proper verification of the prosecutor’s arguments.<\/p>\n
\n**Case No. 361\/1581\/19 dated 11\/26\/2025**<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not take into account the defendant’s statement on the application of the statute of limitations, did not evaluate it, and did not investigate the circumstances justifying the motions to renew the statute of limitations and the motion of the defendant’s representative to apply the statute of limitations. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the disputed premises are auxiliary, and therefore could not be alienated into private ownership, since they are the common property of the co-owners of the apartment building. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments that the \u041e\u0421\u0411\u0411 [Association of Co-Owners of an Apartment Building] is an improper plaintiff, since it acts in the interests of the co-owners of the building. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments about the simultaneous change of the subject matter and grounds of the claim, since the plaintiff only supplemented the claims, but did not change their essence.
\n3. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n
\n**Case No. 466\/6535\/20 dated 10\/16\/2024**<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly returned the appeal, considering that the decision of the court of first instance was rendered in absentia, since there was no ruling on the in absentia hearing of the case, and the decision of the court of first instance explained only the general procedure for appealing the decision, and not the procedure for reviewing the in absentia decision. The court emphasized that the mere indication in the decision to consider the case on the basis of available evidence with the adoption of an in absentia decision, provided that the case is considered in the order of simplified proceedings without notifying the parties and in the absence of a ruling on the in absentia hearing of the case, does not make the decision in absentia. The Supreme Court referred to its own previous decisions, which made similar conclusions. Thus, the appellate court had no reason to believe that the decision was subject to review as an in absentia decision.
\n3. The cassation appeal of PERSON_1 is granted, the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal is quashed, and the case is sent to the court of appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n**Case No. 753\/5712\/20 dated 09\/17\/2025**<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the loan agreement and guarantee agreements.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the joint recovery from the university and LLC “Eurotrans” of funds for a share contribution to the development of the infrastructure of the city of Kyiv.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a court order to open proceedings in a case on the insolvency of an individual and approval of a debt restructuring plan, submitted taking into account the peculiarities of repayment of a foreign currency loan secured by a mortgage on the sole housing.<\/p>\n
\nthe debtor agreed with the decision of the appellate court to overturn the ruling of the court of first instance and to refuse to open proceedings in the insolvency case, as the debtor had not proven that the restructuring plan met the requirements of paragraph 5 of the section “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine. In particular, the restructuring plan in the new version was not sent to the secured creditor, which violated his right to file objections. In addition, the appellate court found that the amount of the creditor’s claims specified in the plan did not correspond to the actual amount of the debt, and that there was a registered mortgage on two apartments, which casts doubt on the status of one of them as the family’s only housing. The cassation court noted that the obligation to prove the grounds for applying the special restructuring procedure rests with the debtor, and failure to fulfill this obligation entails refusal to open proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n
\n * Firstly, PERSON_1 did not prove that he had registered property rights to the disputed land plot or a justified expectation to conclude a lease agreement, and therefore did not prove that his rights were violated by the registration of the right of permanent use by JSC “Myronivske”.
\n * Secondly, since the courts recognized as illegal the order to transfer the land plot for lease to PERSON_1, his expectations of acquiring the right to lease cannot be considered legitimate.
\n * Thirdly, the right of permanent use of JSC “Myronivske” is “property” protected by law, and it cannot be violated by the potential interest of PERSON_1.
\n * Fourthly, the court found violations of procedural law by the courts of previous instances, in particular, the acceptance of evidence in violation of the established deadlines.
\n * Fifthly, PERSON_1 has already exercised his right to receive a land plot for farming without a competition, which makes it impossible to receive land for lease again without participating in the auction.<\/p>\n
\n“Takom-Gloria Pivden” LLC suffered losses in the amount of UAH 339,032.89, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, were caused by overestimation of the cost of work performed under the contract agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of the mortgage (salon-store) to repay the debt under the loan agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the release from serving a sentence with probation of PERSON_6, convicted under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal purchase and storage of narcotic
\nmeans without the purpose of selling).<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convict against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction for criminal offenses under Parts 1, 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of land lease agreements concluded between individuals as invalid due to discovered defects in the land after the conclusion of the agreements.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the condition of the lands. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had been using the land plots for a long time and only after a claim for debt recovery was filed against him, did he file this lawsuit. The court emphasized that the evidence must confirm the existence of grounds for declaring the contract invalid at the time of its conclusion, and not as a result of subsequent circumstances. The court also noted that the contracts contain all the essential terms provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”, and the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant knew about the existence of the drainage system on the plots and its impact on their use.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, as well as challenging illegal debiting of funds from card accounts and compensation for moral damage.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the ex-wife in the order of recourse of a part of the funds paid by the plaintiff for joint debt obligations that arose during the marriage.<\/p>\n
\nin the same case. The court of cassation emphasized that the non-identity of at least one of the factors (parties, subject matter, or grounds of the dispute) does not prevent re-application to the court. Also, the court of cassation referred to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of May 19, 2021, in case No. 161\/8523\/18 (proceedings No. 61-1713sv20).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against ZODIAC-SB LLC for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence, as the plaintiff considered his dismissal illegal.<\/p>\n