Case \u2116459\/2793\/14-\u043a dated 09\/12\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal regarding a person accused of theft and robbery, in view of compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, in particular, regarding the disclosure of pre-trial investigation materials to the defense.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, since the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the courts of previous instances reasonably established that the prosecution did not disclose the pre-trial investigation materials to the defense in accordance with Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a significant violation of the procedural rights of the accused. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the evidence presented by the prosecution is inadmissible, since the defense was not given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with it before the indictment was submitted to the court. The court of appeal also took into account previous decisions of the Supreme Court in this case, which already indicated violations of the requirements of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances, and its task is only to verify the correct application of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court properly considered and rejected the prosecutor’s arguments, citing the justification for the decision.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116127\/17616\/24 dated 09\/12\/2025<\/p>\n
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for criminal offenses under Part 2 of Article 110 (infringement on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine) and Article 436 (propaganda of war) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, took into account that the appellate court did not fully verify the arguments of the defense’s appeal. The court of cassation pointed out the need for a thorough verification of the arguments regarding the validity of the accusation, the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence, as well as the correct application of the criminal law. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to defense and a fair trial. Given the identified violations, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the ruling of the court of appeal and order a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
The court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
\nCase No. 632\/844\/24 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for PERSON_6, convicted of illegal logging and offering unlawful benefits to an official.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, agreeing that the imposed punishment of 3 years of imprisonment is justified and fair, considering the gravity of the crimes (of medium gravity), the circumstances of their commission (including the state of alcohol intoxication), data about the convicted person (participation in the ATO with subsequent unauthorized abandonment of the unit), as well as the absence of sufficient grounds for applying conditional release from serving the sentence. The court also noted that release from serving the sentence on probation is impossible, since PERSON_6 was found guilty of committing a corruption criminal offense. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court took into account all the circumstances relevant to the choice of punishment and reached a reasonable conclusion about the impossibility of correcting the convicted person without actual imprisonment.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.<\/p>\n
Case No. 536\/1500\/17 dated 12\/10\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and the recognition of the loan agreement as invalid.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for recovering the debt from one of the defendants, the former husband of the borrower, since in the previous court case it was established that the funds under the loan agreement were received in the interests of the family and are the joint common property of the spouses, which has preclusive significance for this case. The court noted that the defendant did not dispute the loan agreement in the previous case, therefore he cannot dispute it in this case. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the appellate court did not assess the arguments regarding the application of the statute of limitations and the expert opinion, since the defendant did not file an application for the application of the statute of limitations in the court of first instance, and the court had no grounds for ordering examinations in view of the preclusive significance of the court decision in the previous case. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court incorrectly did not indicate the grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims for compensation for moral damage.<\/p>\n
3. The cassation appeal is partially satisfied, the decisions of the courts of previous instances are amended in the reasoning part.<\/p>\n
Case No. 459\/2793\/14-\u043a dated 12\/09\/2025<\/p>\n
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of committing
\ntheft and robbery.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation appeal. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments relied upon by the court of cassation, but states that the full text of the ruling will be announced later. It can be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proof of the person’s guilt, or did not find sufficient grounds to overturn or change their decisions. The lack of detailed reasoning in the operative part precludes a more detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s position at this stage.<\/p>\n
The Court ruled: to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
Case No. 638\/5481\/21 dated 26\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Kharkiv City Council to exclude an apartment from the number of service apartments, the recognition as illegal of the certificate of ownership of the apartment, and the cancellation of the record of registration of ownership.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the Kharkiv District Administrative Court filed a lawsuit to recognize as illegal the decision of the executive committee to exclude an apartment from the number of service apartments, where PERSON_3 with her family was designated as the tenant. The court noted that since the executive committee’s decision directly affects the rights and obligations of PERSON_3, she should have been involved in the case as a co-defendant, and not only as a legal representative of a minor child. The appellate court did not take this into account, which is a violation of procedural law, and this was the basis for overturning the appellate court’s decision in the part of satisfying the claim. The court of cassation cannot worsen the position of the defendant, whose legal interests are represented by PERSON_3.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part of recognizing the executive committee’s decision as illegal and the distribution of court costs, issuing a new decision to dismiss the claim in this part, and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged in the other part.<\/p>\n Case No. 496\/4559\/20 dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of an acquittal regarding a person accused of official negligence that caused serious damage to state interests.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court formally considered the prosecutor’s appeal, failing to properly assess the arguments of the prosecution and failing to provide convincing reasons for their refutation. In particular, the appellate court did not analyze the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the moment of the emergence of ownership of the goods after the completion of customs clearance and the consequences of this for the case, as well as regarding the criteria for determining t 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 496\/4559\/20 dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance, however, the reasons for such a decision were not stated in the operative part of the ruling. The judges referred to the fact that drafting the full text of the decision requires considerable time, therefore, they announced only the operative part. The full text of the ruling will be announced later. Thus, it is impossible to establish which violations were committed by the appellate court and which arguments of the prosecutor were recognized as valid. Without the full text of the decision, it is impossible to understand why the Supreme Court decided that the appellate court was mistaken in its decision and a new trial is necessary.<\/p>\n The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 686\/6637\/23 dated 11\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found PERSON_7’s guilt proven based on the examined evidence, including the protocols of inspection of Internet resources from the official website of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, which confirm his participation in voting for decisions that led to changes in the borders of the territory of Ukraine and serious consequences. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the deputy’s immunity, noting that functional immunity does not apply to officials of a foreign state in cases of international crimes, violations of jus cogens norms. The court also emphasized that the in absentia procedure was carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding notification of the person, and the right to defense was ensured by the participation of a state-appointed lawyer. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the defendant’s lack of awareness of the crimare unfounded, as the courts took all measures prescribed by law to inform the accused.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7.<\/p>\n Case \u2116369\/10350\/22 dated 10\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instances’ courts, but at the same time released the person from punishment. The court was guided by the fact that the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal responsibility, provided for in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, had expired, and applied Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows release from punishment due to the expiration of these terms. In fact, although formally the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was granted, the decision of the court of first instance was changed not to increase the punishment, but to release from it, which is positive for the accused. The court took into account that a significant amount of time had passed since the commission of the crime, which allows the application of the provisions on release from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, to amend the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, releasing the person from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n Case \u2116369\/10350\/22 dated 10\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, motivating it by the fact that the appellate court, although it explained to the person the right to be released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, did not release him from punishment, which is an incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. The court of cassation referred to the provisions of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, according to which a person is released from criminal liability if two years have passed from the date of the commission of the criminal offense until the judgment enters into legal force. Considering that at the time of the case consideration in the appellate court, the statute of limitations had already expired, and the person did not object to the closure of the proceedings, the court of cassation concluded that it was necessary to release the person from the imposed punishment. The court also referred to the practice of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal 3. The Supreme Court changed the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, releasing the person from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n Case No. 127\/17616\/24 dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as it did not properly assess the arguments of the defender’s appeal regarding the absence of the elements of the incriminated criminal offenses in the actions of PERSON_7, did not refute them properly, but only listed the evidence on which the judgment of the court of first instance was based. In particular, the appellate court did not examine the defense’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Articles 110 and 436 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, did not assess the concepts of “public appeals” and “encroachment on territorial integrity,” and did not substantiate the existence of the qualifying element of “committing actions by prior conspiracy by a group of persons.” In addition, the court of appeal did not provide any response to the arguments of the defender’s appeal regarding the unfounded qualification of the convict’s actions under Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code under the qualifying element – “actions committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons.” Also, the appellate court did not consider the defender’s arguments regarding the unfairness of the imposed punishment.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 569\/19842\/21 dated 11\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation considered the arguments of the convict and his defender regarding the absence of qualifying elements of recidivism and prior conspiracy, but found them unfounded, as the convict pleaded guilty to the circumstances stated in the indictment, and the case file confirms the examination of evidence by the court of first instance. The court took into account mitigating circumstances such as sincere repentance, active assistance in solving the crime, young age, positive characteristics, and the absence of aggravating circumstances. At the same time, the court of cassation took into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code and concluded that it was possible to mitigate the punishment, believing that imprisonment for a term of 3 years would be sufficient for the convict’s correction. 3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, amended the judgment of the court of appeal, and sentenced the convicted person to imprisonment for a term of 3 years without confiscation of property.<\/p>\n Case No. 759\/26805\/21 dated 12\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they based the decision only on the conclusion of the guardianship and trusteeship body, did not take into account important circumstances, such as possible cases of domestic violence in the presence of the child and the psychological state of the child, did not examine the psychologist’s conclusion regarding the child’s attachment to the mother and possible harm from separation. The courts did not ascertain the opinion of the child, who at the time of the appeal hearing was almost 6 years old, and did not properly assess the mother’s arguments about the lack of a stable psychological connection between the father and the child. The court emphasized that in cases involving children, the highest goal is to protect the interests of the child, and the courts must carefully examine all the circumstances of the case and the evidence in their entirety, considering that the child is a subject, not an object, of legal relations.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the counterclaim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 295\/6569\/23 dated 12\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court of first instance, with which the court of appeal agreed, partially satisfied the claim, recognizing PERSON_2 as the father of child PERSON_3 and obliging him to pay alimony. The courts proceeded from the fact that the defendant evaded conducting a forensic genetic examination, which, in accordance with Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, allowed the court to recognize the fact of paternity as established. The courts also took into account other evidence, in particular, the testimony of a witness. The amount of alimony was determined in the amount of 1\/4 of all types of income, but not less than 50% of the subsistence minimum for a child of the corresponding age, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence for the recovery of alimony in the amount of 1\/3 of the share. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that evasion of the examination gives the court the right to recognize the relevant fact as established, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the validity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 917\/503\/24(917\/713\/25) dated 12\/11\/2025**](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132647795)<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the real estate purchase and sale agreement concluded between a farm enterprise (the debtor in the bankruptcy case) and a limited liability company, which is an interested party.<\/p>\n 2. The cassation instance court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for recognizing the purchase and sale agreement as invalid based on Article 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, since the agreement was concluded during the so-called “suspicious period” with an interested party, and at the time of the agreement’s conclusion, the debtor had debt to another creditor. The court emphasized that bankruptcy legislation contains special grounds for recognizing transactions as invalid, which are applied under the special legal regime of the debtor. Also, the court noted that any transaction made by the debtor during the period of the obligation to repay debt, as a result of which the debtor becomes insolvent, may be recognized as fraudulent, i.e., made to the detriment of creditors. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to another case, since the factual circumstances in it were different.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement and the obligation to return the property to the debtor.<\/p>\n [https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132647801″>**Case No. 910\/1460\/25 dated 12\/16\/2025**](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/132647801) The court dismissed the claim, since all legal relations between the bank and the mobile operator arose on the basis of the concluded payment acceptance agreement, and the bank did not provide sufficient evidence that the disputed amount was debited not in connection with the fulfillment of the terms of this agreement. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of conducting a full range of measures to challenge the disputed transactions, in particular, electronic messages from issuing banks with justification for the challenge. Also, the court emphasized the absence of reconciliation statements of mutual settlements that would confirm the existence of the disputed amount of debited funds, and it was not proven that the plaintiff appealed to the defendant with relevant requests regarding the non-signing of reconciliation statements for the entire disputed period. The court indicated that from the available evidence, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the legal nature of the funds during the term of the agreement, as well as the need to agree on issues of the legality of transferring such funds.<\/p>\n The court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Ibox Bank,” and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged. **Case No. 337\/3413\/17 dated 12\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses, which includes apartments, cars, cash deposits, and other property, as well as the recognition of ownership rights to this property.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to close the proceedings regarding the claims related to the recognition as invalid of the act of acceptance and transfer of property rights to the authorized capital of ROYAL GROUP LLC and the cancellation of decisions on state registration of rights to apartments transferred to the authorized capital of the company. The court noted that the dispute arose between the former spouses regarding the division of jointly owned property, and it is related to the violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights to real estate. The appellate court reasonably indicated that the dispute is not subject to resolution in the procedure of commercial court proceedings, as it belongs to the sphere of civil law relations related to the division of jointly owned property of spouses and the protection of the plaintiff’s property rights. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of avoiding situations where several processes in courts of different jurisdictions need to be initiated to resolve one dispute, supporting the principle of “one dispute – one process”. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to the practice of the Supreme Court in other cases, as the circumstances in those cases were not identical.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n **Case No. 910\/11665\/24 dated 12\/16\/2025**<\/p>\n The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.<\/p>\n In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, upholding the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, which was appealed by Lanet Network LLC. The court of cassation, presumably, did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the decisions of the previous courts, confirming the legality and validity of the AMCU decision. At the same time, judging by the absence of detailed arguments in the text of the decision, the cassation court did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the case. Possibly, the courts of previous instances thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case and gave due assessment to the evidence, which became the basis for upholding their decisions. Also, it is important to note that the Supreme Court reviews cases in cassation proceedings, focusing on issues of law, and not on re-evaluation of evidence.<\/p>\n The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of Lanet Network LLC and to uphold the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n **Case No. 362\/1733\/22 dated 12\/15\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the agency agreement, the return 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the dispute is not subject to consideration under the rules of civil procedure, since it arises from commercial legal relations. The court took into account that the agency agreement was concluded between legal entities to ensure the fulfillment of the main obligation, which is a determining factor for classifying the dispute under the commercial jurisdiction. The court noted that the subject composition of the parties to the agency agreement is not decisive, since the legal nature of the agreement arises from commercial relations. The court also considered the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the delimitation of the jurisdiction of courts, where the determining factor is the nature of the legal relationship, and not the subject composition. The arguments of the cassation appeal were recognized as analogous to the arguments of the appeal, to which the court of appeal had already provided reasoned responses.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n **Case No. 161\/12913\/23 dated 12\/15\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the mortgage, the cancellation of the state registration of the mortgage and the encumbrance of real estate, since the plaintiff believes that the obligations under the loan agreement secured by the mortgage have been fully fulfilled.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims, based on the fact that the proper fulfillment of the main obligation secured by the mortgage entails the termination of both the main obligation and the obligation under the mortgage agreement. The court noted that the payment of funds by the plaintiff to the deposit account of a private enforcement officer within the enforcement proceedings was the proper fulfillment of the borrower’s obligations. Also, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts did not take into account the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations, as stated in the resolution of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, since the legal relations in the compared cases are not similar. The court also noted that the creditor has the right to recover 3% per annum and inflationary losses for improper fulfillment of the obligation, but this does not affect the fact of termination of the mortgage after the full fulfillment of the main obligation. In addition, the court emphasized that the fulfillment of the obligation by the property guarantor (plaintiff) is a proper fulfillment, which entails the termination of the mortgage.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n **Case No. 607\/20602\/23 dated 12\/01\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the will made in favor of the defendant as invalid. 2. The court of cassation established that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to invalidate a will in which the testator bequeathed property to two persons, but the plaintiff indicated only one of these persons as the defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases concerning the invalidation of a will made in favor of several persons, all these persons must be involved in the case as co-defendants. Since the plaintiff did not involve all the proper defendants in the case, the court concluded that this is an independent ground for dismissing the claim. The court noted that only if there is a proper composition of defendants can the court decide on the merits of the claims. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances made a reasonable conclusion about the dismissal of the claim, but were mistaken about the reasons for such dismissal.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/4811\/24 dated 12\/16\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court’s arguments are not given in the decision, so I cannot describe them. Only the introductory and operative parts are given in the text.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Scientific and Technical Center of Applied Science and Technology”, and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 338\/558\/24 dated 12\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect his right. Instead of the claim to invalidate the state act and cancel the state registration, the plaintiff should have filed a vindicatory claim for the recovery of the part of the land plot that overlaps his plot. The court noted that satisfying the claims for cancellation of the state act and state registration will not restore the plaintiff’s possession of the disputed part of the land plot. The court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, in disputes about overlapping land plots, the proper way to protect the right is precisely a vindicatory claim. Since the plaintiff did not file a vindicatory claim, the court of cassation decided to dismiss his claims.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and Case No. 902\/17\/24 dated December 10, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to recover unjustly acquired funds from Khmilnytske LLC, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court mistakenly associated the moment when Khmilnytske LLC learned about the groundlessness of enrichment with the moment of invalidation of the agreement, and not with the moment of actual use of the land plot. The court of cassation noted that Khmilnytske LLC should have been aware of the lack of legal grounds for using the land, formalizing the actual lease relations with a sham agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that in such cases, the decisive factor is not the moment of the court decision on the invalidity of the transaction, but the moment of actual possession (beginning of use) of this property. The court of cassation also noted that approaches to the application of Article 1214 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in particular regarding the assessment of the good faith of the acquirer and the determination of the moment of his awareness of the groundlessness of the acquisition (preservation) of property, have already been formed and repeatedly stated in the practice of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation ruled to satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, overturn the decision of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the court of first instance to recover UAH 5,659,709.21 from Khmilnytske LLC in favor of the state.<\/p>\n Case No. 335\/5762\/22 dated December 10, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the courts did not take into account the violation by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of the procedure for reviewing the complaint, in particular, the unfounded renewal of the term for filing a complaint to the person who applied to the Ministry of Justice, and the failure to comply with the terms for reviewing the complaint by the Ministry itself. The court also took into account the prejudicial circumstances established in another case, which indicate a violation of the complaint review procedure. In addition, the court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the satisfaction of the claim for cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on state registration of ownership will lead to the restoration of the violated rights of the person without the use of additional methods of protection, such as the restoration of ownership. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim regarding the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice, cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights and their encumbrances, and satisfied these claims, and in the part of the claims regarding the restoration of ownership, changed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording.<\/p>\n Case No. 185\/8148\/23 dated 11\/26\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The cassation instance court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff, as the heir of a member of the collective agricultural enterprise (KSP), considers her rights to be violated due to the registration of ownership of the disputed property to the defendant on the basis of a sale and purchase agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that, as a general rule, a person who believes that their rights have been violated as a result of the conclusion of a transaction has the right to apply to the court with a claim for recognition of this agreement as invalid. Since the sale and purchase agreement, on the basis of which the defendant acquired ownership, was not recognized as invalid in court, and the circumstances of its nullity were not established, there are no grounds for terminating the state registration of ownership of the immovable property. The court also took into account the presumption of the legality of the transaction, which assumes that the agreement is considered lawful until proven otherwise.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and changed the decision of the court of first instance, stating its reasoning part in a new wording, refusing to satisfy the claim for termination of state registration of ownership.<\/p>\n
\nseverity of the consequences in the form of non-payment of customs duties. The court of appeal limited itself to general phrases about the correctness of the conclusions of the court of first instance, without disclosing the essence of the evidence collected in the proceedings and without analyzing them in the context of the specific arguments stated in the appeal. Such consideration was recognized as formal and not meeting the requirements of Articles 370, 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_8, accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (official negligence).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding the conviction of a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation under Part 3 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (infringement on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the previous instances’ courts in the criminal proceedings regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for inflicting minor bodily injuries, in which the prosecutor asks to release the convicted person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n
\nof the Supreme Court, which confirms the court’s obligation to explain to a person the right to be released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and the consequences of such a decision.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 110 (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine) and Article 436 (propaganda of war) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment regarding a person convicted of illegal distribution of psychotropic substances, in particular, regarding the qualification of actions and the severity of the imposed punishment.<\/p>\n
\nand the prevention of new crimes. The court noted that there were no grounds to deviate from the previous position regarding the incorrect application by the courts of previous instances of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the child’s place of residence with the mother and the removal of obstacles to the father’s communication with the child, determining the method of his participation in upbringing.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute in this case is the establishment of paternity and the recovery of alimony for a child born out of wedlock.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “VF Ukraine” of unduly acquired funds in the amount of UAH 6,365,910.00, which, according to PrJSC “Ibox Bank,” were debited from the bank by payment systems as a result of the transaction dispute procedure by issuing banks.<\/p>\n
\nof previous instances without changes.<\/p>\n
\nof the paid amount, recovery of penalty, and compensation for moral damages.<\/p>\n
\nand a third party.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds and the termination of the contract between Joint Stock Company “Ukrgazvydobuvannya” and Limited Liability Company “Scientific and Technical Center of Applied Science and Technology”.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the overlapping of land plots belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant, and as a result, the claim to invalidate the state act of ownership of land of the defendant and cancel the state registration of her land plot.<\/p>\n
\nUpheld the claim for invalidation of the state act of ownership of the land plot and cancellation of its state registration.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the service agreement and the recovery of unjustly acquired funds.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on the state registration of ownership of an apartment by Credit Initiatives LLC.<\/p>\n
\nThe cassation instance court emphasized the obligation of the Ministry of Justice to ensure the participation of interested parties in the consideration of the complaint by providing proper notification, verifying the deadlines for filing the complaint, and analyzing the information contained in the complaint. The cassation instance court departed from the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which considered that the violations committed by the Ministry of Justice during the consideration of the complaint were not significant and did not affect the final result.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim for termination of state registration of ownership of the grain storage facility, acquired by the defendant under a sale and purchase agreement.<\/p>\n