Case No. 205\/8731\/22 dated December 3, 2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the right to use housing and the elimination of obstacles to the use of property by eviction.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal to refuse the initial claim of PERSON_1, because she did not apply to the city council to conclude a lease agreement for the disputed apartment, which left the possession of the territorial community against its will. Regarding the counterclaim of the city council for the eviction of PERSON_1 with a minor child, the court of cassation pointed to violations of the norms of procedural law, since the case does not contain a written conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority regarding the possibility of such eviction, which is mandatory when considering disputes concerning the rights of the child. The absence of such a conclusion makes it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant to the proper resolution of the case, therefore the case in this part was sent for a new trial to the court of appeal. The court also refused to satisfy the motion of PERSON_1 to close the cassation proceedings on the complaint of the city council, because it believed that the arguments of the cassation appeal required evaluation during the cassation review.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal regarding the refusal to satisfy the initial claim of PERSON_1 and overturned the decision of the court of appeal regarding the refusal to satisfy the counterclaim of the Dnipro City Council, sending the case in this part for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
Case No. 578\/1357\/21 dated December 3, 2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is a claim for compensation for moral damages caused by the death of a serviceman as a result of the criminal actions of other servicemen.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the military unit, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of awarding moral damages to the widow of the deceased, PERSON_1. The court noted that PERSON_1 had already received compensation for moral damages for the death of her husband in the criminal proceedings against the direct perpetrator of the crime, and repeated recovery of moral damages for the same fact is not provided for by law. The court emphasized that according to civil law, moral damages are compensated once, unless otherwise established by contract or law. At the same time, the cassation court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the award of moral damages to the minor son of the deceased, since this part of the decision was not appealed in the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the payment of compensation for moral damages to the wife of the deceased, but upheld the decision regarding the payment of compensation to the son.<\/p>\n
Case No. 607\/6790\/16-\u0446 dated November 27, 2024<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of theThe subject of the dispute is the division of property of spouses, namely the determination of the right of ownership to the property acquired during the marriage, and compensation for the value of the share of property that was alienated by one of the spouses without the consent of the other.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the land plot and unfinished construction were acquired by the parties during the marriage and are jointly owned property. Since the husband sold this property without the consent of the wife, the courts reasonably recovered from him in favor of the wife compensation in the amount of half the value of the sold property, namely 30,000 US dollars. The court took into account the husband’s receipt for receiving 60,000 US dollars for the property, as well as the testimony of witnesses-buyers, who confirmed this amount. The arguments of the cassation appeal that the receipt is an improper evidence, and the value of the property should be determined on the basis of valuation reports, were rejected, since the courts established the actual value of the property at the time of its alienation. The court also noted that each party bears the risk associated with the failure to perform procedural actions, and the husband did not refute the fact of receiving funds in the specified amount.<\/p>\n
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the recovery of compensation were left unchanged.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 130\/1235\/24 dated 26\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against LLC “Enera Vinnytsia” regarding violation of consumer rights, recognition of the fact of conclusion and termination of the electricity supply agreement.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, as it established violations of the norms of procedural law, namely: PERSON_1 was not properly notified of the date, time and place of the court session in the court of appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing of his case, as well as to be duly informed about court hearings. The court noted that the absence of evidence of proper notification of the plaintiff is a violation of his right to participate in the consideration of the case and the principle of equality of the parties. The reference of the court of appeal to the fact that the participants in the case were properly notified is not confirmed by the case materials. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court decided that the decision of the court of appeal should be canceled, and the case should be sent for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal instance.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 462\/401\/24 dated 08\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the donation agreement for a share of the apartment and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights to this share.<\/p>\n
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his rights.
\nin concluding the donation agreement, did not provide evidence of the agreement’s non-compliance with the will of the parties, or its conclusion to conceal another transaction. The court took into account the previous decision in the case between the same parties, where it had already been established that the will of the donors corresponded to their intentions, and the agreement was not concluded to conceal another transaction. Also, the court noted that the right to appeal to the court regarding the fictitiousness of the transaction, in view of the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Cultural Heritage,” belongs to the relevant department of the Lviv City Council, and the plaintiff did not prove that this directly affects his rights. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute their conclusions.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
Case No. 447\/3137\/21 dated 05\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damages caused by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the court, where the plaintiff died during the consideration of the case.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since the right to compensation for moral damages is not inherited if such compensation was not awarded by the court to the testator during their lifetime; since the plaintiff died at the stage of consideration of the case, procedural succession for the claim for compensation for moral damages is not allowed; the appellate court rightfully took into account that the ruling of the court of first instance does not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests, and obligations of the appellant, since the right to compensation for moral damages was not awarded to the plaintiff during their lifetime; the court of cassation also noted that the non-appearance of a participant in the court proceedings, duly notified of the time and place of the case consideration, is not an unconditional basis for the cancellation of a court decision made in the absence of a representative of the disputing party, as this is a discretionary power of the court.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 201\/5151\/23 dated 01\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the dissolution of the marriage between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which closed the proceedings in the case of divorce due to the death of the plaintiff (PERSON_1). The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that the cancellation of the divorce decree after the death of one of the parties, when the legal relationship does not allow for succession, contradicts the principle of legal certainty and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court gave preference to formal procedural 3. The court reversed the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 591\/5206\/21 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff had not proven the amount of lost profits, as the evidence provided did not confirm that he could actually receive income in the claimed amount during the period when his notarial activity was suspended. At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to award moral damages, taking into account the established illegal inaction of the state authority, which led to the plaintiff’s mental suffering due to the impossibility of carrying out professional activities. Regarding the costs of professional legal assistance, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court mistakenly reduced their amount without a corresponding petition from the other party, which is a violation of the principles of dispositiveness and adversarial proceedings established by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and does not correspond to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court amended the decision of the appellate court regarding the allocation of court costs, increasing the amount to be recovered in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the ruling of the appellate court regarding the allocation of court costs for professional legal assistance, increasing the amount of such costs to be recovered from the state in favor of the plaintiff, and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged in other respects.<\/p>\n Case No. 754\/15364\/23 dated 12\/04\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the reclassification of the defendant’s actions. The court noted that to qualify actions under Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, intent to cause grievous bodily harm is necessary, which was not proven in this case. The court took into account that the conflict arose suddenly The court upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/14570\/24 dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court partially granted the defendant’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial. The reasons for this decision are not stated in the text, but it can be assumed that the court of cassation found certain violations of substantive or procedural law committed by the appellate court in the consideration of the case, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case that are relevant for the correct resolution of the dispute, or the incorrect application of the law. A full text of the court decision with justification of the Supreme Court’s position is needed for a more accurate analysis.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/4765\/22 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially granted the application for foreclosure on the funds of Petrol Avtotrans LLC in favor of Apf-Group LLC to repay the debt of Oil Tradition LLC, since it was established that Petrol Avtotrans LLC has an outstanding debt to Oil Tradition LLC in the amount of UAH 190,000, which is confirmed by the evidence in the case, in particular, bank statements, payment orders and reconciliation reports. The court of cassation emphasized that, in order to satisfy the application for foreclosure on funds, the fact of the existence of debt does not necessarily have to be confirmed by a court decision, but can be established on the basis of other evidence, which the appellate court duly assessed. The court also noted that Petrol Avtotrans LLC did not prove the fact of termination of the obligation to Oil Tradition LLC with proper evidence, and its arguments regarding the offsetting of counterclaims were rejected, as no evidence of the relevant transaction was provided. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the term for fulfilling the monetary obligation of Petrol Avtotrans LLC to Oil Tradition LLC had expired.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Petrol Avtotrans LLC and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 285\/1101\/16-\u043a dated 02\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense lawyers, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances properly examined and assessed the evidence, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and protocols of investigative experiments. The court of cassation instance noted that the expert opinions clearly indicate a causal link between the actions of the convicted person and the death of the victim, and the loss of the medical record does not disprove the reliability of these opinions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts adhered to the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the defense are reduced to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court. The court also emphasized that the appellate court thoroughly checked the admissibility of the evidence and did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense lawyers.<\/p>\n Case No. 359\/12379\/23 dated 01\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the issue of rectifying the deficiencies of the appeal, since the criminal procedural law does not define a clear form for rectifying such deficiencies. The court noted that the defense lawyer complied with the requirements of the ruling on leaving the appeal without motion by submitting a statement clarifying the claims, and this was sufficient to continue the appellate proceedings. In addition, the court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court did not require the submission of a new appeal, and the issues regarding the requirements to the court of appeal instance can be clarified during the appellate review. As a result, the court of cassation instance concluded that the appellate court violated the convicted person’s right to appeal, which is a significant violation of the criminal procedural law.<\/p>\n The court reversed the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 179\/1192\/23 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision regarding the claims for the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer, but upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the rejection of the claims for recognition as invalid. 3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision regarding the claims for the transfer of the buyer’s rights and obligations, but left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances regarding the denial of the claims for invalidating the gift agreement and recovering the land plot.<\/p>\n Case No. 523\/12464\/22 dated 29\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the child’s place of residence with one of the parents after the dissolution of the marriage.<\/p>\n 2. The court, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, proceeded from the following: both parents have equal rights and obligations regarding the child, but in this case, the best interests of the child are served by residing with the mother, considering the conclusions of the guardianship authority and the psychologist; the father obstructed the mother’s communication with the child; the mother has a stable income and housing, and is also positively characterized; determining the child’s place of residence with the mother does not deprive the father of parental rights and obligations, and he can participate in the child’s upbringing; in case of changes in circumstances, the child’s place of residence may be reviewed. The court also noted that the father’s filing of an application to declare the mother incapacitated may be regarded as dishonest behavior if the purpose is to influence the resolution of the dispute over the child’s place of residence.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, and left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence with the mother.<\/p>\n Case No. 761\/39934\/24 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a person as not having accepted the inheritance, and the invalidation of the certificate of inheritance by law.<\/p>\n 2. The court denied the claim, as the defendant applied to the notary with a statement of acceptance of the inheritance within the six-month period, which is calculated from the date of the amendment to the death record, when the identity of the deceased was identified. The court took into account that before the amendment to the death record, the defendant had no legal grounds to apply to the notary, as the register contained information about the death of an unknown person. The court also noted that the very fact that the defendant was aware of the death of his son and conducting funeral 3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n Case No. 755\/838\/25 dated 01\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which returned the application to establish the fact of death, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the peculiarities of the separate proceedings, where the provisions on adversarial proceedings do not apply, and the court has the right to independently collect evidence. The courts of previous instances unreasonably demanded from the applicant documents that he objectively could not obtain, and did not take into account his request for the retrieval of evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should have opened proceedings in the case and already within its framework assess the validity of the application and requests for the retrieval of evidence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of opening proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 638\/2527\/24 dated 26\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim for deprivation of parental rights, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s deliberate evasion of parental duties. The courts did not take into account the notarized statement of the defendant about the absence of objections to the deprivation of her parental rights, as well as the conclusion of the guardianship authority on the expediency of such deprivation, considering them insufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, pointing out the need to take into account the passive behavior of the defendant, her lack of interest in the child, as well as existing court decisions regarding the deprivation of her parental rights in relation to other children. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the best interests of the child and the need to ascertain his\/her opinion in such cases. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not examine all the available evidence in their entirety and did not give a proper assessment of the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 352\/160\/25 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property and the establishment of facts of legal significance.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim without consideration due to non-payment of court fees, indicating that the courts did not take into account the property status of the plaintiff and incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law. The Supreme Court noted that the courts should have considered the dispute on its merits and distributed the court fee in proportion to the satisfied claims, and the denial of access to justice due to financial considerations violates the essence of the right to judicial protection. The court also emphasized that information from the State Register of Individuals – Taxpayers is sufficient proof of the absence of income, and the courts must take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms. In addition, the court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to justice without excessive financial obstacles.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of the first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12761\/24 dated November 26, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine to eliminate obstacles in the use of state property, namely premises in the building at 34 Khreshchatyk Street, Kyiv, by evicting the All-Ukrainian Public Organization “Ukrainian League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs” from there.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of the Ministry, based on the fact that there were loan relations between the state and the AUOO “Ukrainian League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs”, which were terminated by the state represented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the legality of the eviction of the All-Ukrainian Non-Governmental Organization “Ukrainian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs” from the premises owned by the state.<\/p>\n Case No. 202\/5645\/23 dated 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for hooliganism, causing bodily harm to a law enforcement officer, and illegal handling of explosives.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the verdict without changes, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances reasonably found PERSON_5 guilty of committing the crimes imputed to him, based on the totality of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, protocols of inspection of the scene and search, and expert opinions. The court of cassation instance noted that the local court thoroughly checked PERSON_5’s version of non-involvement in the crimes and refuted it, taking into account the testimony of witnesses, the results of examinations and other evidence. Also, the court of cassation instance took into account that the criminal proceedings on the statements of PERSON_5 about illegal actions of police officers were closed due to the absence of a crime. The court of cassation instance agreed with the qualification of the actions of PERSON_5 and considered the imposed punishment fair, taking into account the severity of the crimes, the identity of the perpetrator and the absence of mitigating circumstances.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the convict and left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 758\/5829\/24 dated 27\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of alimony for the maintenance of a minor son, since the plaintiff (father) asked to reduce the amount of alimony he paid.<\/p>\n 2. The court of appeal instance, canceling the decision of the court of first instance and partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff’s marital status changed, namely, another child was born, who is dependent on him, which affects his financial situation. The court took into account that after the elder son reaches the age of majority, from the \u043f\u043e\u0437 4. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 523\/5341\/20 dated 11\/19\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly acquired property of the spouses, namely an apartment acquired during the marriage. Case No. 212\/4318\/24 dated 12\/03\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between the bank and an individual. Case No. 369\/9360\/21 dated 08\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the decision of the village council to transfer the land plot to the defendant, which partially overlaps with the plaintiff’s plot, violates the plaintiff’s rights as a landowner, guaranteed by the Constitution and the Land Code of Ukraine. The court found that at the time of the adoption of the disputed decision of the village council, the defendant’s plot already overlapped with the plot that belonged to the plaintiff since 1997 on the basis of a state act. The court also took into account the expert opinion, which confirmed the fact of overlapping land plots. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the plaintiff’s lack of ownership, since the plaintiff’s plot is considered to be formed, albeit without a cadastral number, and he has been openly using it since 1997. The court emphasized that state registration of rights is not the basis for acquiring ownership, but only certifies an already acquired right.<\/p>\n The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 524\/8743\/23 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the appeal to the plaintiff, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not eliminate the deficiencies of the complaint within the established period. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not provide proper evidence of the plaintiff or his representative receiving the ruling on leaving the appeal without movement. The court emphasized that the return of the appeal is possible only if the person received the relevant court ruling and familiarized himself with its content, but evaded fulfilling the requirements. Since the appellate court did not properly prove the fact that the plaintiff received the ruling on leaving the complaint without movement, it had no legal grounds for returning the appeal. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the procedure for serving court decisions to the parties to the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case to the appellate court to continue the proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 487\/6063\/21 dated 03\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
\nviolation (improper notification of the defendant), failing to consider that the renewal of marriage after the death of one of the spouses is impossible. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not verify whether the satisfaction of the appeal of PERSON_2 would be justified in the circumstances that have changed since then (the death of the plaintiff), and whether it would meet the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court of cassation also took into account that the appealed ruling affects the property rights of the heirs of PERSON_1.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of lost profits and compensation for moral damages caused by the unlawful inaction of the state authority regarding the restoration of the plaintiff’s notarial activity.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the reclassification of a person’s actions from intentional grievous bodily harm (Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to negligent grievous bodily harm (Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
\nthe blow was not deliberate, and the serious consequences resulted from the victim’s fall, which indicates a reckless form of guilt. The court also took into account the lack of evidence of the defendant’s professional boxing activities, which could indicate awareness of the consequences of the blow. The prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence were rejected, as the appellate court confirmed the validity of the conclusions of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on funds belonging to a person who has a debt to the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim).<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of returning the appeal of the convicted person’s defense lawyer in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer under the contract of sale of a land plot and the recognition as invalid of the gift agreement for the same plot.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the gift agreement and the recovery of the land plot. The court stated that the appellate court correctly concluded to deny the claims for the transfer of the buyer’s rights and obligations, but erred in the reasons for such denial, as the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements for state registration of the transfer of the preemptive right to purchase the land plot. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not prove the violation of their rights and interests at the time of the disputed gift agreement, and the lease agreement had already expired at that time. Regarding references to abuse of rights in concluding the gift agreement, the court pointed out their unsubstantiated nature.<\/p>\n
\nRecognition of the body does not affect the calculation of the term for accepting the inheritance, since the amendment to the civil status record is of legal significance. The court also took into account that the plaintiff applied to the notary with a statement of acceptance of the inheritance after the amendment to the civil status record. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the erroneous reference to the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine did not affect the correctness of the dispute resolution on the merits.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a person’s death in court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the deprivation of parental rights of the mother in relation to her minor child.<\/p>\n
\n\u0456\u043d\u0438 “\u041f\u0440\u043e \u043e\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0443 \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0430\u0439\u043d\u0430” [On Lease of State and Communal Property] prohibits the transfer of state property for gratuitous use. Also, the courts took into account that the Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine acquired the right to use the disputed premises on the basis of the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the lease agreement, and the All-Ukrainian Non-Governmental Organization “Ukrainian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs” creates obstacles in the use of this property. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal of the All-Ukrainian Non-Governmental Organization “Ukrainian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs”, noting that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the established circumstances of the case indicate that there are grounds for protecting the violated right of the Ministry.<\/p>\n
\nSupport is collected from the plaintiff for his minor son in the amount of 1\/4 of his income, and 1\/6 of his income is also collected for his adult son who continues his studies, which together constitutes 42% of the plaintiff’s income. The appellate court noted that, considering the defendant’s income, the plaintiff’s newborn child would be in a worse financial situation than the children from the first marriage. Considering the equal obligations of parents to support children, the appellate court decided that reducing the amount of alimony for the minor son to 1\/6 of the plaintiff’s income would be in the child’s best interests and ensure equal rights for all the plaintiff’s children.<\/p>\n
\n2. The appellate court, reversing the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the very fact of acquiring property in marriage is not an unconditional basis for recognizing it as jointly owned property. The court found that the disputed apartment was purchased with funds received from the sale of the wife’s personal property, namely an apartment in Russia. The husband’s account was used only for the convenience of the transaction, since the wife is a foreign citizen. Witnesses also confirmed that the husband did not have enough funds to purchase the apartment, and it was purchased for the mother-in-law to live in. The appellate court concluded that the wife rebutted the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses’ property by providing sufficient evidence of the personal origin of the funds for the purchase of the apartment.
\n3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, recognizing the apartment as the personal private property of the wife.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, in particular, it did not send the defendant a copy of the ruling on the opening of appellate proceedings and a copy of the appeal, which deprived her of the opportunity to fully exercise her right to defense. In addition, the appellate court did not assess the arguments set forth by the defendant in the response to the appeal and did not resolve the issue of accepting this response for consideration. Also, the appellate court took into account new evidence provided by the bank, but did not give the defendant the opportunity to submit objections or her own evidence to refute the circumstances set out in this evidence. Given these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court did not comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of participants in the trial, which is unacceptable.
\n3. The cassation appeal is granted, the decision of the appellate court is cancelled.
\nHowever, the case was referred for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\nSubject matter of the dispute – recognition as invalid of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership, cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership to this plot and cancellation of entering information about it into the State Land Cadastre, since this plot overlaps with an already existing plot owned by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is a claim for cancellation of state registration of a land plot and ownership of it.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to permanent use of the apartment on the terms of a residential lease as a family member of the main tenant.<\/p>\n
\nin the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since they considered the case on the merits with the participation of a deceased person, without involving the legal successor of the deceased in the case, which is a violation of the norms of procedural law. The court emphasized that the civil capacity of an individual ceases at the moment of their death, and in the event of the death of an individual who was a party to the case, the court is obliged to involve the legal successor in the case. Also, the courts of previous instances did not establish all the factual circumstances of the case and did not contribute to a comprehensive and complete clarification of the circumstances of the case. The court of cassation instance does not have the procedural possibility to establish new circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances, to collect and evaluate evidence, and the violations of the norms of procedural law were committed by both courts, which did not ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case.<\/p>\n