{"id":17150,"date":"2026-06-11T11:10:39","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T08:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-11-06-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-06-11T11:10:39","modified_gmt":"2026-06-11T08:10:39","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-11-06-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-11-06-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 11\/06\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 153\/397\/25 dated 27\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the legal fact of an adult sister being dependent on her biological brother, a serviceman who died while defending the Motherland, for her subsequent receipt of lump-sum monetary assistance from the state.<\/p>\n

The Court proceeded from the ground that in order to receive such a social benefit in the status of a dependent, the applicant must meet the strict criteria of incapacity for work, which are defined by the specialized law on pension provision for military personnel. The panel of judges established that at the time of her brother’s death, the young woman was already of full age, and the case materials contained no evidence of her incapacity for work or disability. Furthermore, prior to her reaching the age of majority, the duty of her maintenance was officially performed by a state-appointed guardian rather than her brother. The Court also emphasized that the financial assistance and gifts provided by the brother to his sister during her studies at a medical college were merely additional support, rather than a permanent and sole source of her livelihood. Finally, the Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber, according to which only those family members of the deceased who, due to their incapacity for work, have a statutory right to a survivor’s pension are entitled to the lump-sum assistance as dependents.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the young woman’s cassation appeal, confirming the lawfulness of the appellate court’s decision to refuse to establish the fact of dependency.<\/p>\n

Case No. 756\/7148\/24 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is a father’s application for the judicial establishment of the fact of sole upbringing of a minor child in order to obtain the right to a deferment from conscription during mobilization.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court emphasized that under the procedure of separate (non-contentious) proceedings, only those legal facts can be established that are uncontested and are not linked to the subsequent resolution of a dispute over a right. The Court noted that the family legislation of Ukraine enshrines the equality of rights and duties of both parents regarding the child, as well as the principle of the inalienability of parental duties, the performance of which cannot be waived by agreement. The establishment of the fact of the sole upbringing of a child by the father directly affects the rights and interests of the mother and the child themselves, as it involves proving the fact of non-performance of duties by the mother. For this reason, in such cases, there is always a latent or manifest dispute over the right to raise the child, which cannot be resolved in a simplified, uncontested manner. The Court emphasized that even in the presence of new norms of mobilization legislation, this fact must be established exclusively within action proceedings, which ensure proper procedural guarantees for all parties and the protection of the best interests of the child. Thus, the courts of previous instances were absolutely right…rectly refused to initiate special proceedings, explaining to the applicant his right to file a lawsuit in court on general grounds.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal on the refusal to initiate proceedings unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 334\/5199\/24 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject matter of this dispute is a father’s application for the judicial establishment, within special (non-adversarial) proceedings, of the legal fact of independent upbringing and maintenance of two minor children for the purpose of subsequently obtaining a deferral from conscription during mobilization.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the fact of sole upbringing of children directly affects the rights and duties of the mother, and therefore, in such cases, there is always a dispute over a right, which cannot be resolved under the simplified procedure of special proceedings. The judges emphasized that the family legislation of Ukraine is based on the principle of equality of rights and duties of both parents in respect of the child, as well as on the inalienability of family duties, the performance of which cannot be waived by agreement. To confirm the status of a father who is raising a child on his own, there must be objective circumstances that deprive the mother of the opportunity to exercise her parental legal capacity, such as her death, deprivation of parental rights, or declaration as missing. Any other life situations related to the mother’s evasion of raising children must be examined exclusively through action proceedings with the involvement of guardianship and trusteeship authorities for the mandatory protection of the best interests of the child. In addition, the panel of judges noted that the institution of special proceedings cannot be used for the artificial creation of prejudicial facts in order to obtain a deferral from mobilization.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal, and left the resolution of the court of appeal to leave his application without consideration unchanged, explaining to the applicant his right to file a lawsuit in court on general grounds.<\/p>\n

Case No. 442\/7418\/25 dated 01\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the legal fact of an incapacitated grandmother being dependent on her serviceman grandson, who died while defending Ukraine, which is necessary for the applicant to receive a lump-sum financial aid and to apply for a survivor’s pension.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the current legislation allows a person to be recognized as a dependent if the assistance from the deceased was their permanent and primary source of livelihood, even if they received their own old-age pension. The Court took into account that the applicant lived together with her grandson as one family, shared a household with him, and her own pension was meager compared to the income of the deceased, who…fully provided for her. The court also rejected arguments regarding the obligation of an adult daughter to support her mother, as this daughter is herself a retiree, resides separately, and lacks the financial capacity to provide such assistance. In addition, the panel of judges emphasized that the evaluation and examination of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of lower instances, and the court of appeal made its decision based on fully and comprehensively established circumstances of the case. Finally, the court noted that the Ministry of Defense’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court are groundless, as the factual circumstances of those cases differ significantly from the present case.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and upheld the resolution of the court of appeal establishing the fact that the grandmother was supported by her deceased grandson.<\/p>\n

Case No. 906\/358\/25 dated 03\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of “Divochky – Sad” Limited Liability Company to declare invalid four contracts of purchase and sale of agricultural machinery and equipment concluded with “DIUK I K” Private Enterprise, due to the director exceeding his authority and artificially splitting one significant transaction into several smaller ones to avoid mandatory approval by the general meeting of participants.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court emphasized that the law explicitly prohibits artificially splitting one significant transaction into several smaller ones, and if instead of several contracts the company could have entered into one significant transaction, then each of such contracts is legally deemed significant. The judges stressed that in order to clarify this issue, courts should not limit themselves merely to a formal assessment of the price of each individual contract. Instead, courts need to comprehensively analyze the time intervals between the transactions, the identity of their subject matter, the real purpose, economic feasibility, as well as the relatedness of the persons who signed these documents. The Supreme Court pointed out that the court of appeal completely ignored these criteria and failed to evaluate in any way the plaintiff’s arguments that the signatories on both sides were the same persons, and the property was alienated using identical templates within a short period of time. Due to this, the findings of the lower courts regarding the absence of violations by the director and the genuineness of the transactions were deemed premature and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, set aside the resolution of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new consideration for a detailed examination of all circumstances.<\/p>\n

Case No. 754\/8156\/25 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the judicial establishment of the legal fact of death of a citizen of Ukraine who died on the territory of the Russian Federation, for the purpose of subsequent state registration of this fact by Ukrainian civil registry offices and the formalization of inheritance rights.<\/p>\n

The Court proceeded from… from the fact that the applicant already possesses a copy of her mother’s death certificate, which was issued by an authorized body of the Russian Federation in the city of Saint Petersburg. Guided by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 107 dated February 04, 2023, the court noted that during martial law, documents issued in the Russian Federation are accepted in Ukraine without an apostille or consular legalization if, as of February 24, 2022, they were accepted without such certification. Thus, the foreign death certificate held by the applicant is a valid document on the territory of Ukraine and does not require additional confirmation. Since the fact of death has already been officially registered by a foreign state, and the relevant document is recognized in Ukraine, there are no legal grounds for the repeated judicial establishment of this fact. The court emphasized that the applicant is not deprived of the opportunity to use the existing foreign certificate in any legal relations on the territory of Ukraine, in particular for applying to a notary public with an application to open the estate. Furthermore, the panel of judges noted that such a legal position is absolutely established and fully consistent with the prior case law of the Supreme Court in similar cases.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the applicant’s representative and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances refusing to establish the fact of death unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 906\/377\/25 of 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of these judicial proceedings is a motion by an individual entrepreneur for the recovery from the prosecutor’s office of UAH 40,000 in professional legal assistance costs incurred during the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court concerning a dispute over the lease of defense lands.<\/p>\n

The court was guided by the principle that the right to reimbursement of legal assistance costs is one of the fundamental principles of commercial judicial proceedings to ensure the effective protection of the parties’ rights. The panel of judges took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the amount of reimbursement should be determined in accordance with the terms of the contract, where the parties agreed specifically on a fixed amount of the attorney’s fee. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s objections regarding the absence of a detailed hourly description of work, since the fixed amount of remuneration by agreement of the parties does not depend on the amount of time actually spent. The judges established that the defendant had submitted relevant and sufficient written evidence to confirm the costs incurred, including the contract, an additional agreement, and a bilateral act of acceptance of services. In addition, the court concluded that the claimed amount of UAH 40,000 is entirely commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of work performed by the attorney, and the criteria of reasonableness and reality of such costs.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court fully granted the entrepreneur’s motion and ordered the recovery in his favor from the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Defense Sphere of the Central Region of UAH 40,000 in legal assistance costs.<\/p>\n

Case No. 521\/12137\/23 dated 01\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a former orthopedic physician to declare unlawful and set aside the order on his dismissal for systematic non-performance of labor duties, reinstatement in employment, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.<\/p>\n

The court proceeded from the premise that in order to dismiss an employee for systematic violation of discipline, the employer must prove the existence of at least two infractions for which active disciplinary or public sanctions have previously been applied. Although one of the plaintiff’s previous sanctions was set aside by a court, another reprimand dated December 28, 2022, for failing to enter patient data into the Electronic Health Care System, remained in force and was not set aside. In addition, the court took into account the decision of the trade union committee regarding the physician’s violation of deontology and the job description, which constitutes a measure of public sanction and additionally confirms the systematic nature of his conduct. The new violation, which served as the immediate ground for dismissal, consisted in the improper provision of assistance to a patient during on-call duty in February 2023 and the repeated disregard of the duty to enter information into the electronic system. The court established that the hospital had fully complied with the dismissal procedure, conducted an internal investigation, and provided the employee with the opportunity to submit explanations, of which he did not avail himself. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the biased attitude of the management were refuted by the case materials, as the administration of the institution had for a long time attempted to resolve conflicts through the labor collective without immediately resorting to extreme measures.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts denying reinstatement in employment unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 183\/10744\/24 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is a father’s application for the judicial establishment, within the framework of separate (non-adversarial) proceedings, of the legal fact of his sole upbringing and maintenance of his minor daughter for the purpose of obtaining a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilization.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court emphasized that only those legal facts which are undisputed and not related to the resolution of a dispute over a right may be established by way of separate proceedings. The court noted that the family legislation of Ukraine is based on the principle of equality of rights and duties of both parents regarding a child, as well as on the principle of the inalienability of family duties, the performance of which cannot be renounced by one’s own consent. Establishing the fact of the sole upbringing of a child by the father directly affects the rights and interests of the mother and the child herself, since it is linked to proving the mother’s non-performance of her parental duties. To confirm such a fact, the existence of circumstances is required that deprive the mother of her parental legal capacity (for example, death, pdeprivation of parental rights, declaration of [a person] as legally incapable or missing), as confirmed by the relevant acts or court decisions. Any agreements between the parents or the establishment of such a fact under the rules of special proceedings pose a threat of violating the best interests of the child. Thus, in this category of cases, there is always a dispute over the right regarding the parents’ participation in the child’s upbringing, which must be resolved exclusively under the rules of contentious (adversarial) proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to refuse to institute proceedings unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 922\/2036\/25 dated 02\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the prosecutor’s claims in the interests of the Kharkiv City Council to declare the land lease agreement invalid, to remove obstacles to the use of the land plot by recognizing the community’s ownership of the unauthorizedly constructed car wash, and to oblige the defendant to return this property to the city.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court emphasized that the construction of real estate on a land plot that was not allocated for this purpose is an independent ground for declaring the facility an unauthorized construction, which significantly violates and restricts the rights of the land owner. The Court stressed that state registration of ownership rights in itself does not generate this right and cannot legitimize unauthorized construction if it was erected without proper title documents to the land or building permits. The panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the court of first instance established in detail the absence of documents on commissioning the facility, assigning an address to it, and allocating land for it until 2024. In contrast, the court of appeal, in reversing this decision, failed to properly examine the evidence collected in the case at all and did not refute the findings of the local court, limiting itself only to the general statements of the defendant. Such a superficial attitude of the appellate instance to the evaluation of evidence and virtual evasion of resolving the dispute on its merits is a direct violation of the rules of procedural law and the right to a fair trial. Due to the incomplete establishment of the circumstances of the case by the court of appeal, the Supreme Court is deprived of the opportunity to independently establish the truth within the scope of its powers.<\/p>\n

As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office, vacated the resolution of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new appellate review for a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances.<\/p>\n

Case No. 932\/8806\/20 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the Joint-Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank” for the eviction of a woman and her minor child from the disputed apartment, which is the subject of a mortgage, without providing them with other housing premises.<\/p>\n

The Court was guided by the fact that according to the provisions of the Housing Code of Ukraine, the eviction of residents from a secured…under a mortgage of housing without the provision of other permanent accommodation is impossible if this property was not acquired at the expense of credit funds. In this case, it was established that the defendant had acquired ownership of the apartment back in 2003, i.e., four years before the conclusion of the loan and mortgage agreements, which completely rules out the fact of its purchase with the bank’s credit funds. Since the bank did not provide the court with any evidence of the defendants having other housing and did not offer alternative accommodation for their relocation, there are no legal grounds for their eviction. Separately, the court emphasized the protection of the child’s rights, noting that the registration of the defendant’s minor son in the disputed apartment after the conclusion of the mortgage agreement is lawful and complies with the requirements of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence with the mother. The court also emphasized that the right to housing is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the loss of housing is an extreme measure of interference, which in this case is disproportionate. In addition, the panel of judges noted that the lack of the bank’s consent to the registration of the child cannot be an independent ground for depriving them of the right to use the dwelling.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “PrivatBank” and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances refusing to evict the residents unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 911\/3280\/23 dated 03\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a member of a gardening partnership to oblige this partnership to enter detailed personal data of all its members into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted that the right to judicial protection directly depends on the existence of a violated right or legitimate interest of the plaintiff, without proof of which the claim must be denied. At the same time, the court emphasized that the assessment of the existence of such a violation must be carried out through the prism of a detailed analysis of the disputed legal relations and the arguments of the parties. In this case, the plaintiff substantiated his interest by the fact that the absence of official information about the members of the partnership in the register allows the management to manipulate the quorum at meetings and violates his right to management. However, the court of appeal evaded evaluating these arguments and did not ascertain whether the law indeed obliges gardening partnerships to register their members and whether this is related to the plaintiff’s corporate rights. In addition, the panel of judges refuted the procedural allegations of the appellant, clarifying that the court of appeal has a legal right to simultaneously modify the reasoning part of the decision and leave its operative part unchanged. Since the court of appeal limited itself only to a formal conclusion about the absence of a violated right without a proper examination of the merits of the dispute, the Supreme Court found such a decision to be premature.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court partially gra…granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, vacated the resolution of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 739\/1032\/24 dated 27\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the judicial establishment of the fact that a minor child was dependent on a deceased servicemember, for the purpose of her mother receiving a share of a one-time lump-sum financial aid in the amount of 15 million hryvnias.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court emphasized that within the framework of special (non-litigious) proceedings, courts may hear cases on the establishment of legal facts only when this does not involve the subsequent resolution of a dispute over a right. At the same time, in the event of a conflict between the parties regarding a subjective civil or property right, such claims must be considered exclusively under the rules of adversarial proceedings. The Court drew attention to the fundamental principle of dispositivity, according to which the plaintiff independently determines the nature of their claims, chooses the method of defense, and disposes of their procedural rights. In this case, the plaintiff filed specifically a lawsuit, since there is a real dispute between her and another relative of the deceased regarding the right to receive monetary aid from the state, which is also confirmed by the existence of a related judicial proceeding in the administrative court. Thus, the establishment of the fact of the child’s dependency directly affects the property rights of other claimants to the payment, and therefore the case cannot be considered in a simplified non-litigious procedure. In view of this, the panel of judges agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the refusal of the court of first instance to institute proceedings was erroneous.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the resolution of the appellate court on remanding the case to the court of first instance for consideration on the merits under the rules of adversarial proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 185\/2856\/22 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the legal fact of a man and a woman living as one family without marriage registration for the subsequent receipt of a survivor’s pension and the issuance of a certificate of a family member of a deceased servicemember.<\/p>\n

Substantiating its decision, the Supreme Court noted that to establish such a fact, the decisive factors are proof of cohabitation, running a joint household, and the existence of mutual rights and duties of spouses. The Court pointed out that these circumstances are fully supported by the written evidence in the case file and the testimonies of witnesses who documented the couple’s cohabitation from March 2021 until the day of the husband’s death at the front. In addition, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting the interests of a minor child, whose paternity had been officially acknowledged by the deceased during his lifetime. The judges also dismissed the arguments of the interested person regarding the violation of their inheritance rights, since the establishment of th…this fact in the specific case does not affect the inheritance. Lastly, the panel of judges agreed with the court of appeal regarding the non-admission of new evidence from the appellant, which had been submitted in violation of procedural time limits without valid reasons.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the interested party and to leave the ruling of the court of appeal on granting the application unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 405\/239\/22 dated 06\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this legal dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor daughter after the divorce of her parents, where the mother and the father filed cross-claims regarding the child’s residence with each of them.<\/p>\n

In ruling in favor of the father, the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that primary consideration must be given to the best interests of the child rather than the formal equality of the rights of her parents. The Court took into account that the girl has been continuously residing with her father for four years, is fully adapted to this environment, is successfully studying at a lyceum, and has an established social circle. Furthermore, during direct communication in the court hearing with the participation of a psychologist, the child clearly expressed affection for her father and a desire to continue living with him. The Court also took into consideration the official opinion of the guardianship and custody authority, which confirmed that residing with the father would serve the best interests of the girl. At the same time, the mother failed to provide the court with up-to-date information regarding her living conditions and did not prove that separating the child from her half-brother would harm her, as no emotional attachment had been established between them. Lastly, the panel of judges rejected the mother’s arguments regarding the alleged abduction of the child by the father and his attempts to evade mobilization through the court as completely groundless and unsubstantiated by evidence.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of appeal, which determined the place of residence of the minor child with her father.<\/p>\n

Case No. 552\/6352\/22 dated 20\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the plaintiff’s claims against JSC “Ukrainian Railways” for the recovery of UAH 992,400 in compensation for moral damage caused by the death of her grandfather as a result of being struck by an electric train.<\/p>\n

Guided by the provisions of the law, the court noted that the railway, as the owner of a source of increased danger, is obliged to compensate for moral damage regardless of fault, unless it proves the intent of the victim or the event of force majeure. The court recognized the granddaughter’s right to such compensation, since the case materials confirmed the fact of her cohabitation and sharing a common household with her deceased grandfather as a single family. At the same time, the courts took into account that a contributing cause of the tragedy was the negligence of the deceased himself, who violated safety regulations by walking along the railway track and failing to react to the train’s signals. In assessing the amount of compensation,… the court indicated that the plaintiff had failed to provide proper evidence to confirm such deep and prolonged mental suffering as to justify the recovery of almost one million hryvnias. The court emphasized that the amount of compensation for moral damages must comply with the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and justice, without turning into an instrument of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the amount of 30,000 hryvnias determined by the courts was recognized by the panel of judges as fully proportionate and justified under these specific circumstances.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, upholding the legality of the decisions of the lower courts to recover 30,000 hryvnias of moral damages in her favor.<\/p>\n

Case No. 372\/4226\/24 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of the prosecutor in the interests of the state to eliminate obstacles to the use of a land plot of forestry destination and nature reserve fund with an area of 0.25 hectares by canceling its state registration and returning it to the possession of the state from the private ownership of an individual.<\/p>\n

The court was guided by the fact that the protection of the violated rights of the state to land must be carried out exclusively through an effective remedy that corresponds to the nature of the committed violation. Since the private property right to the disputed forest land plot is registered in the name of the defendant, the state, represented by the authorized body, has actually lost registered possession of this real property. Under such circumstances, in accordance with the well-established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the proper and effective remedy is precisely a vindicatory action \u2014 that is, a claim for recovery of property from another’s unlawful possession based on Article 387 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Conversely, the negatory action filed by the prosecutor for the removal of obstacles to the use of property and cancellation of the state registration is ineffective, as it does not correspond to the essence of the legal relationship where the owner is completely deprived of possession. The plaintiff’s choice of an improper remedy is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim. At the same time, the court noted that such dismissal does not prevent the prosecutor from re-applying to the court, but this time with proper claims for the recovery of the land plot.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to dismiss the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 686\/24747\/25 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a citizen against the state, represented by the State Treasury Service, for the recovery of 35 million hryvnias in moral damages caused by the prolonged non-execution of a previous court decision, by which 1,000 hryvnias had been recovered in his favor.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that the procedural law strictly prohibits re-examination of identical disputes between the same parties, with… of the same subject matter and on the same grounds, if there are already decisions on them that have entered into legal force. Since the plaintiff had previously repeatedly litigated for the recovery of moral damages for the period from August 2022 to August 2025, the court of appeal quite lawfully terminated the proceedings in this part of the claims. Regarding the new period of non-enforcement of the decision, which lasted slightly over two weeks, the court emphasized that the burden of proving the existence of moral damage, its amount, and the causal link lies precisely on the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the mere fact of non-receipt of funds due to a lack of budgetary funding does not constitute automatic proof of unlawful inaction by a state body. Since the plaintiff did not provide any proper evidence of his mental suffering or deterioration of health during this short period of time, his claims in this part are absolutely groundless.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of prior instances on the dismissal of the claim and the partial termination of the proceedings unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/32143\/24 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to declare the inaction of local government authorities and a sports school unlawful and to compel them to bring an anti-radiation shelter in the city of Boryspil into proper condition for the protection of the population.<\/p>\n

The court noted that the prosecutor may represent the interests of the state in the person of a state body only when this body itself possesses the legal right to appeal to court with similar claims. Having analyzed the provisions of the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine, the panel of judges concluded that the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SES) is not vested with the authority to independently file a lawsuit with a demand to compel bringing protective structures into a state of readiness. The legislation clearly limits the right of the SES bodies to appeal to the court only to specific cases, such as denial of access to inspections or suspension of the operation of facilities, and these powers cannot be interpreted broadly. Since the authorized body itself has no right to assert such claims, the prosecutor cannot substitute for it or artificially expand the limits of its legal competence. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s reference to the previous case law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 2019, as it was based on other factual circumstances and provisions of legislation that have now lost their force. Even under martial law, the constitutional principle of legality requires that state bodies act solely within the limits and in the manner directly prescribed by the laws of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office and left the decisions of the courts of prior instances on the return of the lawsuit unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/110\/26 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the ruling of the Disciplinary Cham…ts of the High Council of Justice on the refusal to open disciplinary proceedings against a judge upon a citizen’s complaint and the plaintiff’s attempts to set aside this decision through judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the current legislation of Ukraine, in particular the specialized Law on the High Council of Justice, contains an imperative prohibition on appealing the decisions of its Disciplinary Chamber to refuse to open disciplinary proceedings. The judges noted that although the complainant has the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings, they are not a direct participant in the legal relations concerning holding a judge liable; therefore, such a decision does not create direct legal consequences for them. In addition, the Grand Chamber confirmed its established case-law, according to which judicial review does not extend to those decisions of the HCJ disciplinary bodies, the appeal of which is expressly prohibited by law. The Court also referred to the case-law of the ECtHR, emphasizing that the right of access to court is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted by the state to ensure procedural certainty. At the same time, the Grand Chamber pointed out an error of the court of first instance, which justified the refusal by the rules on returning a complaint without consideration, rather than the rules on the refusal to open proceedings, which required amending the reasoning part of the decision.<\/p>\n

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, but amended the reasoning part of the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to open proceedings, restating it in its own wording.<\/p>\n

Case No. 826\/25177\/15 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nI cannot perform an analysis of this court decision, as the provided text consists only of the introductory and operative parts of the resolution and does not contain the reasoning part, which sets out the arguments of the court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 916\/3317\/23 dated 03\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the claims of a private company to invalidate the results of an electronic auction and a lease agreement for a warehouse yard with an area of over 44 thousand square meters in the port of “Chornomorsk”, as well as to recover nearly 20 million hryvnias of paid contributions from the state budget.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the disputed lease agreement was concluded under the influence of a material mistake of the lessee regarding the consumer properties of the property. The judicial land-technical expertise clearly confirmed the presence of active landslide processes in the leased territory, which make it impossible to use the yard for its intended purpose without major engineering protection. The Court emphasized that the state bodies violated the legislative principle of full and accurate information by stating a knowingly inaccurate “satisfactory” condition of the property in the auction announcement. The conduct of the lessee, who immediately after discovering the hidden geological defects refused to sign the transfer and acceptance act of the proper…, recognized by the court as entirely acting in good faith and with due diligence. Since the contract was declared invalid, the guarantee and advance payments paid by the plaintiff must be returned to them from the State Budget of Ukraine as funds held without sufficient legal basis. At the same time, the panel of judges confirmed that the plaintiff’s expenses for an independently ordered technical report cannot be compensated, as this document does not have the status of a forensic expertise.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the “Chornomorsk” Port, closed the proceedings on the tenant’s appeal, and upheld the resolution of the court of appeals, by which the lease agreement was declared invalid and 19,878,669.40 hryvnias were recovered from the state budget in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Case No. 926\/921\/25 dated 04\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the recovery from the Department of Infrastructure and Improvement of the Chernivtsi City Council in favor of a private enterprise of outstanding debt for the performed construction works of a pumping station and a sewer pipeline, as well as accrued inflation losses, annual interest, and penalties in connection with the customer’s unjustified evasion of payment thereof.<\/p>\n

The Court proceeded from the fact that the contractor had duly performed the construction works provided for by the contract and handed over the corresponding acceptance certificate to the customer; however, the latter did not sign it within the established three-day period and did not provide any reasoned refusal. Pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in the event of an unjustified refusal of the customer to sign the certificate, such document, signed by one party, constitutes a proper ground for the arising of an obligation to pay for the works. Furthermore, the customer themselves handed over the adjusted cost estimate documentation to the contractor, which indicates their consent to change the scope and cost of the works. An important evidence of the actual performance of the works was the note of the technical supervision engineer, who confirmed the compliance of the scope and quality of the actually performed works with the design documentation. Therefore, since the customer did not prove the existence of justified claims regarding the quality or scope of the works at the time of receiving the certificate, their evasion of payment is a direct breach of contractual obligations.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Department of Infrastructure and Improvement of the Chernivtsi City Council, and to leave unchanged the decisions of the courts of prior instances on the full satisfaction of the contractor’s claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 638\/6560\/21 dated 26\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is the legality and validity of sentencing a person to imprisonment for repeated fraud committed by abuse of trust, as well as the presence of procedural violations during the consideration of the case by the courts of first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted that the guilt of the convicted person in taking possession of the mobile phone was fully proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the collected t…but of evidence properly evaluated by the courts. The Court dismissed the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the commodity expert evaluation report, pointing out that the study had been conducted by a qualified expert on the basis of an investigator’s ruling, which lawfully precluded the need to conclude an agreement or pay for services. The panel of judges found no violations of the secrecy of the deliberation room, as the court of first instance retired to the deliberation room to render a verdict only after deciding on motions, holding oral arguments, and granting the accused the right to make a final statement. Arguments concerning the unlawfulness of the appellate review conducted via videoconferencing were also refuted, as the accused actively participated in the hearing, spoke during oral arguments, and his defense counsel did not express any doubts regarding the identity of his client at that time. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the sentence imposed is fair, and the lower courts did not commit any material violations of the criminal procedure law that could have affected the correctness of the judicial decisions.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense counsel, and to leave the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kharkiv and the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court regarding the convicted person unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 906\/849\/25 dated 26\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the gas distribution company’s billing of the cost of unaccounted natural gas in the amount of UAH 105,277.44 due to the operation of the entrepreneur’s meter in an abnormal mode, as well as the consumer’s counterclaims to cancel the decision on this billing.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the fact of the meter’s abnormal operation and its metrological unfitness were properly confirmed by a violation report and an official certificate of the standardization center. The Court emphasized that under such circumstances, the volume of consumed gas must be calculated based on the nominal capacity of the consumer’s gas equipment in accordance with the requirements of the Gas Distribution Systems Code. The panel of judges found the conclusion of the appellate court that such calculation strictly requires only the manufacturer’s technical passports of the appliances to be erroneous. Instead, the court noted that the nominal capacity of the equipment was clearly recorded in the act of demarcation of balance sheet ownership, which is an integral part of the contract signed by the parties and contains agreed technical specifications. Since the entrepreneur did not provide any evidence to refute these technical data or the calculation itself throughout the entire proceedings, the appellate court had no legal grounds to cancel the charges. In addition, the Supreme Court confirmed its established practice, according to which demarcation acts are a proper source of information on equipment capacity for conducting such recalculations by the gas distribution system operator.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the gas distribution company and set aside the resolution<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 153\/397\/25 dated 27\/05\/2026 The subject matter of this dispute is the establishment of the legal fact of an adult sister being dependent on her biological brother, a serviceman who died while defending the Motherland, for her subsequent receipt of lump-sum monetary assistance from the state. The Court proceeded from the ground that in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}