**Case No. 214\/1109\/18 dated December 3, 2025**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, motivating this by the need to verify the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, which, according to the SC, were not properly examined by the appellate court. In particular, the SC pointed out that the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence that could indicate the absence of intent to kill in the actions of PERSON_7, and also did not verify the validity of the qualification of the convict’s actions under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation also took into account the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incompleteness of the investigation of the case circumstances by the appellate court. The SC emphasized the importance of a comprehensive, complete and impartial investigation of all the circumstances of the criminal proceedings to ensure a fair court decision.<\/p>\n
The court ruled to set aside the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated March 18, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 and to order a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 912\/1941\/24 dated November 27, 2025**
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the closure of proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual entrepreneur based on the provision of unreliable information about the property status in the declaration.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances prematurely closed the proceedings, failing to take into account that the debtor corrected the declaration of property status within seven days after receiving the report of the restructuring manager, as provided for by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court emphasized that the courts should have verified the corrected declarations and assessed whether the discrepancies were eliminated, whether assets were concealed, and also did not investigate the issue of re-registration of property to family members in order to evade debt repayment. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances violated procedural rules by failing to properly assess the corrected declarations and the arguments of the parties, which is important to ensure an objective review of the insolvency case. Given that the courts did not investigate the circumstances of the case fully and comprehensively, the Supreme Court decided that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 759\/21040\/18 dated December 3, 2025**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute in this case is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_7 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction for committing a criminal offense.
\nprovided for in Part 1 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (manslaughter).<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court decided to partially grant the convicted person’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new hearing in the court of appeal; however, the reasons for such a decision are not stated in the operative part. The full text of the resolution will be drawn up later, where the grounds for the decision will be stated. The absence of reasons in the operative part makes it impossible to establish exactly what violations were committed by the courts of previous instances and why the Supreme Court decided that a new appellate review was necessary. This makes it impossible to fully assess the position of the Supreme Court in this case.<\/p>\n
The court decided to overturn the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of June 10, 2025, regarding PERSON_7 and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
Case No. 190\/2056\/24 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal, because the court of appeal, in reinstating the term for appealing to the prosecutor, did not substantiate the validity of the reasons for missing this term, which is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which requires courts to provide reasons for reinstating terms. The court of cassation emphasized that simply stating the existence of “valid reasons” without specifying them is not a proper justification for reinstating the term. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the reinstatement of the term for the prosecutor must take place in the same manner as for a party to the case, with proper justification. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be sent to the court of appeal for reconsideration of the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 463\/7365\/20 dated December 3, 2025<\/strong><\/a> The court closed the cassation proceedings without analyzing the arguments of the cassation appeal on the merits. The decision is motivated by formal requirements of procedural law that do not allow the consideration of this cassation appeal. The court, referring to Articles 424, 433, 434, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, concluded that it is impossible to appeal by cassation the court decisions that were the subject of appeal in this case. The actual circumstances of the case and the essence of the issues raised in the cassation appeal are not disclosed in the ruling.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings based on the cassation appeal of PERSON_6.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/1453\/25 dated November 27, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the prosecutor’s claim to recognize the “Land Rover Range Rover Voque” car as an unjustified asset and to recover its value into the state revenue from the head of the South-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences of the Ministry of Justice and his daughter, in whose name the car was registered. The court of appeal agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that the purchase of the car was made on behalf of defendant-1, and he could perform actions in respect of it that were identical in content to the exercise of the right of disposal. The court of appeal emphasized that the acquisition value of the asset is used to determine its value, and not the minimum market value, since the court established the real value of the car on the date of its acquisition. Also, the court noted that the financial capacity of the legal owner of the property should be assessed in conjunction with other circumstances of the case, and in this case, the arguments of the appellants do not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance that the defendants did not have sufficient legal funds to purchase the car. The court also took into account that defendant-1 did not have the opportunity to purchase the disputed asset and simultaneously save the monetary assets specified in his declaration.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12657\/24 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the Municipal Enterprise “Kyivavtoshliakh\u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442” against the Antimonopoly Committee. The courts of previous instances presumably proceeded from the fact that the decision of the AMCU was lawful and justified, and the plaintiff’s arguments did not refute the circumstances of violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition established by the AMCU. Possibly, the courts took into account the evidence provided by the AMCU, which confirms the violation of competition law by “Kyivavtoshliakh\u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442”. Also, the courts could take into account the practice of applying legislation on the protection of economic competition and previous decisions of the AMCU in similar cases. It is important that the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the legality and validity of the AMCU’s decision.<\/p>\n The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Municipal Enterprise for Repair and Maintenance of Bridges and Roads of Kyiv “Kyivavtoshliakh\u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442”, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 902\/579\/24(902\/281\/25) dated 19\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which had refused to satisfy the claim of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, motivating this by the fact that the accrual of penalty occurred during the period of the moratorium on satisfaction of creditors’ claims, introduced in the bankruptcy case of Vilara LLC, which contradicts the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court noted that the penalty accrued on the amount of unpaid fine for violation of legislation on protection of economic competition is subject to the prohibition established by Part 3 of Article 41 of the CUzPB, which provides that during the period of the moratorium, no penalty (fine, late payment interest) is accrued and other financial sanctions are not applied. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in previous cases, since those decisions were made under other circumstances and without a systematic interpretation of legal norms in the context of bankruptcy legislation. The court saw no grounds for referring the case to the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, as it did not detect conflicting case law.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 904\/3199\/24 (904\/5432\/24) dated 21\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the seizure of the right of claim against TERMINAL BORIVAGE LLC, but left other measures to secure the claim in force. The court proceeded from the fact that the seizure of the right of claim is not a proper way to secure the claim in this case, since it does not meet the requirements of proportionality and sufficiency, and also actually duplicates the already applied measure – a prohibition on performing certain actions. The court also took into account that TERMINAL BORIVAGE LLC did not prove that the fulfillment of the monetary obligation to AGRO KOMPLEKT LLC depends on the identity of the creditor. At the same time, the court agreed that the prohibition on DVORICHANSKE-AGRO LLC from performing actions to execute the assignment agreement and alienation of the right of claim is justified, as this may complicate the protection of the plaintiff’s rights in the event of the claim being satisfied. The court of cassation emphasized that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the claims and must not block the economic activity of a legal entity.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and the court decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 916\/3385\/25 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts did not investigate the validity of the claims, taking into account proportionality, did not establish the rights of the plaintiff violated by the defendant, and the risk of failing to effectively protect these rights. The court pointed out that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendant’s illegal actions aimed at evading the execution of the court decision, as well as the probability of hindering or making the execution of the court decision impossible in the future. The Supreme Court emphasized that the very fact that the defendant has the opportunity to dispose of funds is not proof of the risk of evading the execution of the court decision. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances did not investigate whether there was an abuse of the right to sue by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the measures to secure the claim must clearly correspond to the essence and subject matter of the stated claims, and the plaintiff must substantiate the reasons for applying with such a statement and provide the court with evidence of the existence of factual circumstances with which the stated claims are related.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to satisfy the application for securing the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/3023\/24 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal of the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the refusal to correct a clerical error in the court decision. Case No. 922\/1473\/25 dated 26\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use and disposal of state-owned lands, namely the cancellation of the state registration of the land plot and the obligation 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the Liubotyn City Council illegally transferred the land plot to communal ownership, which was already in the permanent use of the state enterprise “Slobozhanske” based on a state act issued back in 1994. The courts proceeded from the fact that, according to the Land Code of Ukraine, land that is in the permanent use of state enterprises cannot be transferred to communal ownership. The court took into account that the disposal of the disputed land plot by the Liubotyn City Council took place outside its authority, since the owner of this land is the state represented by the Main Department of the State Geocadastre. The court also rejected the arguments of the City Council regarding the need to establish the boundaries of the land plot in kind, since this issue concerns the assessment of evidence that has already been carried out by the courts of previous instances. In addition, the court found the rejection by the court of appeal of the motion to attach new evidence to be justified, since it was filed in violation of procedural deadlines.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, dismissing the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/4637\/24 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the claims of the CRGL against the casino. The court proceeded from the fact that the casino is obliged to pay in a timely manner for licenses to conduct activities for organizing and conducting gambling, which is established by the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Activities Regarding the Organization and Conduct of Gambling” and license conditions. Failure to pay or delay in paying the license fee is grounds for canceling the license. The court also noted that the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 314, which was in effect during the martial law, did not exempt gambling organizers from paying for licenses, but only postponed the payment. Since the casino did not pay for the licenses within the established period, the CRGL rightfully accrued inflation losses and 3% per annum on the amount of the debt. The court also emphasized that the claims of the CRGL were filed within the period established by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Casino “Premier Palace”, and upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 440\/16169\/23 dated 12\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation 3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the period from March 1, 2018, to September 1, 2023, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 924\/1351\/20 (924\/210\/24) of December 2, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court refused to grant the application for the recovery of legal assistance expenses, as the application was filed after the expiration of the five-day period established by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), namely Article 129. The court noted that the term is calculated from the moment of the decision, and not from the moment of its receipt by the participant in the case. Also, the court emphasized that the procedural law does not oblige the court to independently investigate the reasons for missing the procedural deadline, and the applicant did not provide justification for the validity of missing the deadline and did not file a motion for its renewal. The court took into account the absence of any objections to the adoption of an additional decision regarding the claimed expenses for professional legal assistance due to their non-compliance with the requirements of necessity, reality, and reasonableness. The court also noted that in the case of the closure of cassation proceedings, there are no circumstances that would make impossible or negate the general principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the court decision was made.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to leave the application of the Collective Enterprise “Agrofirma “Proskuriv” for the recovery of legal assistance expenses without consideration.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/5946\/25 of December 4, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish specific arguments from the provided text. 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv.<\/p>\n Case No. 924\/181\/25 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. There are no court arguments in the text of the decision, so I cannot provide them.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of Krasyliv Aggregate Plant, overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the claim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and dismissed the cassation appeal of Ukrspecexport.<\/p>\n Case No. 904\/4916\/22 dated 19\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff chose an ineffective way to protect his rights. The court noted that at the time of the hearing, the Dnipro City Council had already made a decision to refuse the transfer of the land plot, which was appealed by the plaintiff in another case, and the decision of the court of first instance in this other case was in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the task of legal proceedings is the effective protection of rights, and if the chosen method does not lead to the restoration of the violated right without the need for additional actions, it is considered ineffective. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was aware of the city council’s decision to refuse the transfer of land and the proceedings in another case regarding this decision. Considering that the plaintiff has already appealed the city council’s refusal in separate proceedings, the court concluded that satisfying the claim in this case will not lead to effective protection of his rights.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 420\/1885\/25 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance cancelled 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n Case No. 916\/2806\/23(916\/2527\/18) dated 11\/28\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the appeal of PERSON_1 against the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court rightfully refused to open appellate proceedings, since the appeal of PERSON_1 was received after the end of the appellate review of the case based on the appeals of other persons, and the arguments stated in her appeal had already been considered by the appellate court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the person was not deprived of the opportunity to express her own arguments and objections and was not limited in her right of access to justice in this case. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty and the inadmissibility of a repeated review of a court decision that has already been reviewed not only in appellate, but also in cassation proceedings, and has entered into legal force. The court also took into account that the complainant was given the opportunity to provide a response, written explanations and objections within the specified cassation proceedings, and in the court session in the videoconference mode, a representative of PERSON_1 was present, who was given the opportunity to express arguments and objections regarding the appealed court decisions on the merits. The court of cassation also noted that its powers should be used to correct fundamental violations, and not to conduct a new trial.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/911\/23 dated 12\/02\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the reimbursement of court costs for professional legal assistance, incurred 2. The court granted the application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, guided by the fact that such expenses were actually incurred, documented, and their amount is reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court took into account that the amount of the fee was fixed, established by agreement between the lawyer and the client, and is not subject to reduction solely on the grounds that the other party considers it excessive. The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the limits of the court’s interference in the relationship between a lawyer and a client when distributing court costs. The court noted that excessive formalism in assessing the detailed description of the lawyer’s work may lead to a violation of the principle of the rule of law.<\/p>\n 3. The court ordered the Joint Stock Company “Poltavaoblenergo” to pay to the Private Enterprise “Raiagrobud” UAH 15,000 for expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/462\/25 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the provided part of the ruling, as the reasoning part of the decision is missing. Only formal aspects of the case, such as the parties, decision numbers, composition of the court, and the decision made, are indicated in the introductory and operative parts. To analyze the arguments of the court, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling, which sets out the justification for the decision. Without the reasoning part, it is impossible to understand why the court decided to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial.<\/p>\n The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/13174\/18 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings, opened on the basis of paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, as it concluded that there were no grounds for cassation appeal of the court decision on this basis. Regarding the cassation appeal filed on the basis of paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss it, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, finding no grounds for their cancellation. The court noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court **Case No. 400\/10817\/24 dated December 3, 2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff without taking into account the legally established minimum subsistence level, as well as claims for recalculation and payment of monetary allowance taking into account such level.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to missing the deadline for applying to the court provided for by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, pointing to the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the calculation of the terms for applying to the court in cases related to violation of labor remuneration laws. The court noted that in such cases, the term is calculated from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their right, and not from the day of dismissal, as the courts of previous instances believed. The court also pointed out the importance of clarifying whether the plaintiff was in military service at the time of applying to the court, as this affects the determination of the start of the term for applying to the court. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the plaintiff’s arguments that she was not dismissed from military service at the time of applying to the court, and did not properly investigate this circumstance.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n **Case No. 380\/20219\/24 dated December 3, 2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n 2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to grant the motion to renew the term for applying to the court, considering the reasons for missing the term invalid, since the plaintiff, in their opinion, should have known about the amount of monetary allowance paid and applied to the court in a timely manner, and indexation is a payment, the amount of which is known to the person who receives it. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, noting that for the correct resolution of the issue of compliance with the term for applying to the court, it is necessary to clarify whether the plaintiff had reliable and documented information about the volume and nature of the amounts paid to him during the disputed period, for example, through pay slips or certificates of accrued and paid amounts. The court indicated that the beginning of the term for applying to the court should be calculated from the moment when the plaintiff obtained such information, and the courts of previous instances did not establish these circumstances. Also, the Supreme Court referred to its previous practice, namely the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 of March 21, 2025, in case No. 460\/21394\/23, where a unified approach to the application of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was formed regarding the term for applying to the court with claims 3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.<\/p>\n **Case No. 918\/1211\/24 dated November 18, 2025**<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132312686](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132312686)<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a limited liability company of funds for equity participation in the development of the city’s infrastructure in favor of the city council.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, recovering funds for equity participation from “Agat Avto” LLC in favor of the Rivne City Council, since the defendant did not pay the equity participation to the local budget, retaining the funds at the expense of the territorial community without sufficient legal grounds, which is a violation of the latter’s rights. The courts took into account that the construction of the object began before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Stimulating Investment Activity in Ukraine”, which established the amount of equity participation, but at the time this law entered into force, a decision of the Rivne City Council was in effect, which provided for a lower percentage of equity participation for commercial objects, therefore, the courts applied this lower percentage when calculating the amount to be recovered. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the cassation appeals, noting that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the arguments of the appellants amount to a re-evaluation of evidence and disagreement with the conclusions of the courts. The court also emphasized that the absence of an agreement on equity participation does not release the developer from the obligation to pay the contribution if construction was started before a certain date.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n **Case No. 904\/4027\/22 dated December 4, 2025**<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132312811](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132312811)<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the suspension of appellate proceedings in a bankruptcy case due to the founder of the debtor being a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to suspend proceedings, considering that the founder of the debtor provided evidence of military service and expressed a desire to participate in court hearings, which is impossible due to service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that from the moment of the introduction of martial law, the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a whole are considered “transferred to martial law” for the purposes of applying paragraph 3, part 1, article 227 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which obliges the court to suspend proceedings if there is evidence of a party being a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and its will to participate in the process. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 754\/947\/22, which should be taken into account when considering similar cases. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s references to previousof the Supreme Court, from which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 916\/3155\/24 dated November 18, 2025**<\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement as invalid, the cancellation of the decision on state registration of the lease right, the obligation to return the land plots, and the cancellation in the State Land Cadastre of the state registration of the land plots.<\/p>\n 2. The court, granting the prosecutor’s claim, proceeded from the fact that for the transfer of communal land plots for lease without land auctions for the placement of multimodal terminals, a decision of the central executive body on the feasibility of such construction is necessary, and the letter of the Ministry of Infrastructure is not such a decision, since it is not properly \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439. In addition, the court found that the location of land plots for the intended use “for the placement and operation of buildings and structures of additional transport services and auxiliary operations” contradicts the Planning Scheme of the Reni district, which provides for the use of the specified territory for “vegetation – other green spaces” and the projected object of the nature reserve fund “Danube Forests”. The court also noted that since the land lease agreement is recognized as invalid, the decisions of the state notary on the state registration of the lease right, as well as the cancellation in the State Land Cadastre of the state registration of land plots, are subject to cancellation. **Importantly, the Supreme Court specified previous conclusions regarding the ineffectiveness of the requirement to cancel the state registration of rights, noting that in this case such a requirement is justified.**<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts to grant the prosecutor’s claim.<\/p>\n **Case No. 904\/3649\/24 dated December 2, 2025**<\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” to recalculate the cost of natural gas consumed by the Condominium “Zirka 51M” in November and December 2021, at prices set for household consumers.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, proceeded from the fact that the Condominium, which provides heat to the residents of the building, is in fact a collective household consumer of natural gas, since it does not have its own consumption and acts in the interests of the residents. The court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On the Natural Gas Market” does not contain a definition of “collective consumer”, but the Condominium, as a non-profit organization that does not carry out commercial activities in heat supply, falls under the category of protected consumers. The court took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where Condominiums were recognized as collective household consumers, to whom preferential conditions established by the state for the period of martial law apply. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part of resolving the dispute on the merits and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of the HOA “Zirka 51M”, and also sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court in the part of the appellate review of the additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/774\/25 dated 02\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, agreeing that the appellate proceedings were closed reasonably, since the appellants did not acquire the status of parties to the bankruptcy case, did not provide evidence of their election as authorized representatives of the founders (participants) of the debtor, and the appealed ruling of the court of first instance did not directly decide the issue of their rights and obligations. The court also rejected the appellants’ arguments about the consideration of the case by an unauthorized composition of the court, since the protocol of automatic case distribution complied with the requirements of the law. In addition, the court found justified the appellate court’s leaving without consideration the motion to postpone the consideration of the case due to the absence of electronic signatures of the applicants, which complies with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation confirmed that the appellants were duly notified of the date, time and place of the court hearing.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/36\/23 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, took into account previous court decisions in cases with similar circumstances, where the plaintiff appealed the decisions on imposing fines for non-compliance with the court decision regarding meetings with the child. The court emphasized that repeated non-compliance with the decision is each subsequent established fact of non-compliance after the first act of non-compliance and imposition of a fine. It is important that the court of first instance established that the child refused to meet, and no evidence of the mother’s influence on this was provided. Taking into account the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n Case No. 560\/13561\/24 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the 1st State Fire and Rescue Squad regarding the non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff and the obligation to accrue and pay such indexation for a certain period.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff in the part of the claims for the payment of indexation of monetary allowance for the period from 20.07.2022 to 18.07.2023, pointing out the need to clarify the circumstances when exactly the plaintiff learned about the violation of his rights to receive indexation, namely, when he received information about the amount and nature of the sums paid to him. The court noted that the beginning of the term for applying to the court should be considered the moment when the plaintiff received reliable and documented information about the amount of sums paid to him, for example, the day of receiving the payslip or certificate of accrued and paid sums. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, set out in the resolution of 21.03.2025 in case No. 460\/21394\/23, where a unified approach to the application of the second part of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is formed. The court pointed out the need to establish the presence\/absence of evidence from the defendant that the plaintiff was familiarized with the amount and components of the accrued and paid monetary allowance in the disputed period.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court and the resolution of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal and send the case for continued consideration to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 916\/4768\/24 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by Veles-Agro LTD. in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n The court of cassation partially satisfied the application of Veles-Agro LTD. for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing the amount of compensation from UAH 116,954.72 to UAH 25,000.00. The court took into account that the legal position of the defendant was consistent, the case did not require analysis of a large amount of legislation, and the defendant’s representative was already familiar with the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal assistance must meet the criteria of reality, necessity and reasonableness, and be commensurate with the complexity of the case and The court decided to recover from Joint Stock Company “DTEK Odesa Grids” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Veles-Agro LTD.” UAH 25,000.00 for professional legal assistance expenses.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/6067\/24 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, as it was not confirmed. Regarding the other ground for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, as it did not establish an incorrect application of substantive law or a violation of procedural law by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, considering them lawful and well-founded. The arguments of the appellant do not refute these conclusions and do not prove the existence of grounds for annulment of the appealed court decisions.<\/p>\n The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 (ruling\/resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/11971\/24 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which also dismissed the claim of “Spetstekhexport.” The courts of previous instances likely proceeded from the fact that the AMCU’s decision was made lawfully, in compliance with the procedure and on the basis of sufficient evidence of violation of antimonopoly legislation. Possibly, the courts also took into account the importance of protecting economic competition and preventing abuse in the market. By rejecting the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the legality and validity of the AMCU’s decision, as well as the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PE “Spetstekhexport,” and to uphold the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/244\/25 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of first instance returned the judge’s statement of claim, as it considered the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing to the court to be invalid. The court noted that appealing separately against the decision of the HQCJ does not affect the deadline for appealing the deciVRP [High Council of Justice] decision on dismissal. The court also took into account that the judge’s previous lawsuit against the VRP was dismissed due to her failure to appear at court hearings, which indicates a lack of interest in resolving the dispute. The Grand Chamber agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that court proceedings that ended with the dismissal of the claim do not interrupt or suspend the statute of limitations for appealing to the court, and the plaintiff’s improper procedural conduct cannot be considered a valid reason for renewing the term. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the “variable practice” of the Supreme Court, as these arguments could be the subject of verification in another case.<\/p>\n 3. The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of real estate by virtue of acquisitive prescription.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of PERSON_6 against the ruling of the district court and the ruling of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recognition of a car as an unjustified asset and the recovery of funds equal to its value into the state revenue.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty from Vilara LLC in the amount of UAH 393,188.67, accrued
\nby the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for overdue payment of a fine for violation of legislation on protection of economic competition.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a ruling on securing a claim in a case on invalidation of an assignment agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the funds of the defendant.
\nand within the amount of the claimed claims for damages caused by the fire in the leased premises.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, stating that only clerical errors that are significant and do not change the content of the court decision are subject to correction, and also noted that grammatical errors that do not distort the text of the court decision and do not lead to its incorrect perception are not clerical errors. The court also emphasized that a failure to take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court is specifically a failure to take into account the conclusion regarding the application of the rule of law, and not any conclusion made by the court of cassation instance to substantiate the reasoning part of the decision. The court of cassation instance emphasized the obligation of participants in the court process to use procedural rights in good faith, and their abuse is unacceptable. The court also indicated that the conclusions in the case mentioned by the complainant and in the case being reviewed, as well as the factual circumstances established by the appellate court that form the content of the legal relations, are different; in each of the mentioned cases, the courts proceeded from the specific circumstances of the case and the factual and evidentiary base, taking into account the arguments provided by the parties, evaluating them in aggregate.
\n3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
\nregarding its return to the state.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of the Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries (CRGL) against the Limited Liability Company “Casino “Premier Palace” in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the right of a serviceman to receive indexation of monetary allowance for a certain period, namely from 06\/21\/2013 to 09\/01\/2023.<\/p>\n
\nestablished that the court of appeal incorrectly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations in the part of the claims concerning the accrual and payment of the monthly indexation-difference for the period from March 1, 2018, to September 1, 2023, and did not establish the circumstances essential to the case, necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute in this part of the claims. In particular, the court did not investigate whether the plaintiff has the right to receive the indexation-difference, taking into account the increase in his monetary allowance in March 2018, and did not verify whether the amount of the income increase exceeds the amount of possible indexation. The court of cassation emphasized that the payment of indexation of monetary allowance is mandatory, and the powers of the military unit regarding the payment of this amount are not discretionary. The court also noted that for the correct application of the rules on indexation, it is necessary to establish the amount of increase in the plaintiff’s income, the amount of possible indexation, and compare these indicators.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Collective Enterprise “Agrofirma “Proskuriv” for the recovery from the Limited Liability Company “Technopark Proskuriv” of expenses for legal assistance in the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 14,123,766.60.<\/p>\n
\nwhat the Supreme Court was guided by, since there is no reasoning part of the resolution. Usually, the court of cassation instance reviews cases for the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law. It can be assumed that the courts of previous instances made certain mistakes during the consideration of the case, which need to be corrected. A complete text of the court decision is necessary for a more accurate analysis.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Krasyliv Aggregate Plant in favor of Ukrspecexport of debt on the return of funds, additional commission fee, interest for the use of funds and reimbursement of expenses.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Dnipro City Council regarding the failure to make a decision on the transfer of a land plot for lease for the completion of the construction of a shopping complex.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Military Academy regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowance and the obligation to recalculate and pay the monetary allowance to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\noverruled the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim due to the expiration of the term for applying to the court, citing Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts did not take into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court, in particular, in the model case No. 260\/3564\/22 and the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 11, 2024, in case No. 990\/156\/23, which stated that the version of Article 233 of the Labor Code, which did not limit the term for applying to the court in cases of wage recovery, applies to legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022, and after that date, the three-month restriction applies. The court also noted that it is necessary to establish the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of payments made, and divide the disputed period into two parts for the correct application of the rules on the terms of applying to the court. **** Also, the court deviated from some previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\nbeing the defendant in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,989,613.56.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine in favor of the Joint Stock Company “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” of the amount of UAH 56,797,842,475.24.<\/p>\n
\nof the city of Kyiv and the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 of the Northern Court of Appeal for Economic Matters.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the recovery of wages.<\/p>\n
\nHe also noted that LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” was to establish a maximum gas price for the HOA, as for a household consumer, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Natural Gas Market” and Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1102 of October 25, 2021. The court indicated that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the definition of an HOA as a collective household consumer.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closure of appellate proceedings on the appeal of the participants of the debtor company against the court’s ruling on declaring this company bankrupt.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the state enforcement officer imposing fines on the plaintiff for repeated non-compliance with the court decision on ensuring meetings of the claimants with the child.<\/p>\n
\nunwillingness of the child to communicate with relatives cannot be considered a disrespectful reason for non-compliance with the decision, as this may lead to psychological pressure. The court also noted that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance, as the “systematic” non-compliance with the decision was caused by valid reasons confirmed by other court decisions.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the scope of services provided. The court also took into account the motion of JSC “DTEK Odesa Grids” to reduce the amount of legal aid.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds by Limited Liability Company “Modern Trucks” from the Kyiv Regional Military Administration and the Kyiv Customs.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the private enterprise “Spetstekhexport.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the actions and decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the qualification assessment and dismissal of a judge from office.<\/p>\n