{"id":17809,"date":"2026-06-25T10:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T07:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-25-06-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-06-25T10:30:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-25T07:30:00","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-25-06-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-25-06-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 25\/06\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 718\/1563\/21 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Removal of impediments to the use of a land plot through the restoration of boundary markers and the dismantling of a fence installed by a neighbor on a portion of the plaintiff’s plot.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established the fact of the violation of the plaintiff’s ownership rights based on the conclusions of two forensic land-technical examinations, which confirmed the overlapping of land plot boundaries by an area of 0.0043 hectares. The Supreme Court emphasized that an owner has the legal right to demand the removal of any impediments to the use of their property, even if they are not related to dispossession. Regarding the procedural arguments of the appellant, the court noted that the appellate instance lawfully refused to summon experts, as the party did not initiate this issue in the court of first instance and did not prove the existence of exceptional circumstances for submitting new evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to reassess evidence that has already been duly examined by the courts of lower instances. The courts of lower instances correctly established that the defendant is creating impediments, and therefore the obligation to dismantle the fence and restore boundaries is a lawful method of protecting the violated right. In summary, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, as the challenged decisions were adopted in compliance with substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 522\/15011\/20 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement ($55,000 USD) and reimbursement of apartment renovation expenses (160,000 UAH).<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n* The court established that the plaintiff failed to provide the original promissory note, which is the key evidence of the conclusion of the loan agreement, which made it impossible to conduct the court-ordered forensic handwriting examination.
\n* The plaintiff evaded the performance of procedural duties, in particular, failed to provide the original document at the court’s request, which was interpreted as hindering the establishment of the truth in the case.
\n* Regarding the claims for reimbursement of renovation expenses, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any proper and admissible evidence confirming the fact that such expenses were incurred.
\n* The court emphasized that, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the consequences of evading participation in an examination (failure to provide materials) are borne by the party concealing such materials.
\n* The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of procedure by the courts were also rejected, sincealthough he and his representative were duly notified of the hearing but failed to ensure their appearance and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for their absence.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the participation of an attorney in a case creates legal consequences for the plaintiff themselves; therefore, reference to the non-receipt of subpoenas by the representative does not exempt the party from liability for procedural passivity.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 335\/8718\/23 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of a legal fact of an heir\u2019s permanent residence together with the testator at the time of the opening of the succession to confirm the fact of acceptance of the inheritance.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that, according to the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an heir who permanently resided together with the testator at the time of the opening of the succession is considered to have accepted the inheritance unless they declared a refusal of it. The key aspect is the actual residence, not just the formal registration of the place of residence, as the latter is not absolute proof. The court emphasized that the absence of registration at the same address does not deprive the heir of the right to prove the fact of cohabitation through other proper and admissible evidence. In this case, the plaintiff provided the court with an act of cohabitation and a certificate from the local government authority, and also provided witness testimony that confirmed the fact of shared living. The lower courts duly evaluated this evidence in its entirety, which corresponds to the established practice of the Supreme Court. The cassation court noted that the appellant’s arguments effectively boil down to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which is outside the scope of the authority of the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 630\/93\/24 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The applicant attempted, through special proceedings, to establish the facts of living together as a single family without registration of marriage and the paternity of a missing serviceman in order to realize property rights, in particular, the receipt of monetary allowances.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court established that there is a real dispute between the applicant and other family members of the missing person (in particular, his other child) regarding the right to receive monetary allowances, which excludes the possibility of considering the case under special proceedings.
\n – Regarding the establishment of the fact of paternity, the court emphasized that Article 130 of the Family Code of Ukraine provides for such a possibility only in the event of the person’s death or declaration [of death]her as deceased, which in this case was not proven.
\n – Since the “missing person” status does not terminate a person\u2019s civil legal capacity, the issue of paternity must be resolved exclusively by filing a statement of claim for the recognition of paternity (Article 128 of the Family Code of Ukraine), rather than through the establishment of a legal fact.
\n – The court emphasized that the establishment of facts that directly affect the scope of rights and obligations of other persons (heirs, dependents) cannot take place without adversarial proceedings.
\n – The Court of Appeal correctly determined that the existence of a dispute over rights is an unconditional ground for leaving an application without consideration, as such issues must be resolved through adversarial proceedings.
\n – The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, noting that the arguments of the appeal amount to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the appellate court on leaving the application without consideration unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 903\/976\/25 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the recovery from the plaintiff (Military Unit) in favor of the defendant (LLC “RBP Trans-Most”) of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case on the recovery of penalties and fines under a construction contract.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the parties have the right to professional legal assistance, and the costs thereof are subject to distribution between the parties depending on the results of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the disproportionality of expenses lies with the party filing a motion for their reduction, which the plaintiff did not properly do. The lower courts reasonably applied the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of expenses to the subject matter of the dispute, taking into account the volume of services provided and the complexity of the case. The court noted that the fact that the plaintiff is funded from the state budget does not exempt it from the obligation to reimburse legal costs to the other party if the decision is rendered in its favor. It was also taken into account that in the appellate instance, the volume of the attorney’s work was less than in the court of first instance; therefore, the appellate court rightfully reduced the reimbursement amount to 8,000 UAH, recognizing it as fair. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence if the lower courts have already assessed it within the scope of their powers.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the defendant’s claims for the recovery of professional legal assistance expenses, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the Military Unit.<\/p>\n

Case No. 755\/210\/23 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate electronic auctions for the sale of her apartment, claiming that the property was matrimonial joint property and was sold in violation of enforcement procedure.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that a key condition for declaring auctions invalid is proving the violation of the rights of the specific person filing the lawsuit.
\n – Since the apartment was sold within the framework of enforcing a court judgment on the confiscation of the plaintiff’s property, her ownership rights to this object were terminated on legal grounds.
\n – The court noted that marriage registration does not automatically create a right of joint ownership for a specific object if only one spouse is listed as the owner in the registry.
\n – The plaintiff has no right to cite the violation of her husband\u2019s rights (the other spouse) as a basis for protecting her own interests in this case.
\n – The court further indicated that compulsory confiscation of property by a court judgment has priority, and the participation of a convicted person in auctions to repurchase their own confiscated property contradicts the very nature of criminal punishment.
\n – Arguments regarding the violation of enforcement procedure were dismissed, as they do not refute the lawfulness of the plaintiff losing her status as property owner prior to the auction.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 521\/15568\/24 dated 18\/06\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/137537498)<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff (a military service member) filed a lawsuit against a financial company, seeking to declare the refusal to recalculate interest on loan agreements unlawful, to compel such a recalculation, and to recover non-pecuniary (moral) damages.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n * The court established that the plaintiff, as a military service member, is entitled to benefits under Article 14 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Military Service Members,” which exempts him from paying interest on loans during a special period.
\n * At the same time, the court concluded that the defendant did not actually refuse to perform the recalculation for the plaintiff, but merely requested the provision of a standard set of documents for identification and refund purposes.
\n * The court noted that the company had already approved the recalculation and ceased the accrual of interest; therefore, the plaintiff’s rights had not been violated at the time of filing the lawsuit.
\n * Regarding the claim for the refund of commissions, the court pointed out that the loan agreements did not provide for any commissions, and that the costs of funds transfer are a matter between the plaintiff and the payment system, in which the creditor is not involved.
\n * Since there was no violation of consumer rights,it is established that the court deemed the claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage unfounded, as they are derivative of the principal claims.
\n* The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant’s arguments amount to a reassessment of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.
\n* The Court also emphasized that effective judicial protection is possible only when a person’s rights have been actually violated, which did not occur in this case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling, by which the claim was denied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/15207\/25 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of collecting tax debt through judicial proceedings in the absence of a new tax demand after the previous demand was partially canceled by the court.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, the partial cancellation of a tax demand by a court obliges the tax authority to generate and send a new demand to the taxpayer with an updated debt amount. The Supreme Court emphasized that a tax demand is not merely a formal document, but a mandatory prerequisite for compulsory collection, which ensures the taxpayer’s right to appeal the debt amount. In this case, the tax authority ignored this obligation for four years, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had already pointed out the necessity for such actions in another proceeding. The Court stressed that public authorities must act exclusively in the manner provided by law, and the “artificial” continuation of a canceled demand constitutes a procedural violation. Consequently, since the tax authority did not adhere to the established algorithm, it did not acquire the right to apply to the court with a lawsuit to collect the debt. The Court also rejected the tax authority\u2019s reference to previous case law, noting that it concerned other legal relations (tax notice-decisions) and is not relevant to the situation involving a partially canceled tax demand.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling, by which the tax authority was denied the satisfaction of its lawsuit for the collection of tax debt.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/24231\/25 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is an analysis of this court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax authority\u2019s refusal to grant a VAT budget refund in the amount of over UAH 626 million, which the controlling authority justified by the alleged lack of reality of business transactions and the application of sanctions against counterparties.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the plaintiff provided a full package of primary documents (supply agreements, commission agreements, customs declarations, commissionaire reports) confirming the movement of goods and the reality of the transactions. During the audit, the tax authority did not detect any violations in these documents anddid not draw up certificates regarding their non-provision. The court emphasized that in order to refuse a budget refund on the basis of sanctions (Art. 200.4-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine), it is necessary to prove the application of such sanctions specifically to the taxpayer or their ultimate beneficial owners, which the tax authority failed to do. The tax authority’s arguments regarding the “sham” nature of the transactions were rejected as groundless, since they were not supported by the case materials. The court also noted that the tax authority’s references to the practice of the Supreme Court were inappropriate, as the factual circumstances in the cited cases differed significantly from this case. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff had fulfilled all requirements of the law to receive the refund, and that the actions of the tax authority were unlawful.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate court, which satisfied the taxpayer’s claim, remained unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/1299\/23 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging tax notification-decisions by which the controlling body reduced the amount of the VAT budget refund, reduced the amount of the negative VAT value, and applied penalties due to the alleged unreality of business transactions and the understatement of the tax base when selling products below cost.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court confirmed that the plaintiff’s business transactions are real, as they are supported by proper primary documents that reflect the actual movement of assets and the change in the financial position of the enterprise.
\n – Regarding the sale of products below cost, the court emphasized that the VAT tax base is determined based on the contractual price, and the presumption of the market price of a transaction applies until the controlling body proves otherwise, which was not done in this case.
\n – The court noted that the unprofitability of individual transactions is not proof of the absence of a business purpose, and tax legislation does not grant tax authorities the right to evaluate the economic feasibility or efficiency of a taxpayer’s business activities.
\n – Tax information from the databases of the State Tax Service (regarding the lack of resources of counterparties) is only auxiliary in nature and cannot be independent evidence of the unreality of transactions if it is not supported by documentary research.
\n – The court indicated that the burden of proving that the contractual price does not correspond to the market price lies exclusively with the controlling body, which in this case did not conduct a proper comparative analysis of prices for identical goods.
\n – The court also emphasized that the mere fact of the existence of criminal proceedings against counterparties is not irrefutable evidence of the unreality of transactions if the involvement of the taxpayer themselves has not been proven.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of lower instancescourts, by which the taxpayer’s claims were satisfied, \u2014 upheld.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/15010\/25 of 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of taking measures to secure the claim in the form of prohibiting the alienation of subsoil use rights and making changes to the corresponding state register, imposed within the framework of a case on invalidating the results of an auction and a sale and purchase agreement for a special permit for subsoil use.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that securing a claim is a necessary instrument for maintaining the “status quo” and guaranteeing the actual enforcement of a future court decision. A key argument was that a special subsoil permit is a specific asset that the owner can freely alienate, which would make effective protection of the state’s rights impossible within the current proceedings. The court emphasized that the requirement to provide evidence of actual attempts at alienation is an excessive standard of proof, as a reasoned assumption regarding the defendant’s possession of such a legal possibility is sufficient. It was also emphasized that the measures chosen are proportionate and adequate, as they do not block business activity completely, but only prevent a change in the subject composition of the legal relationship. The court noted that the task of justice is to control the legitimacy of actions; therefore, interference with the discretionary powers of the State Geologic Service in this case is justified to ensure effective judicial protection. Finally, the court confirmed that the prohibition of actions for a state body is an effective method of security, since it is this body that carries out the registration of changes in the register.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine and to leave the decisions of the courts of lower instances on taking measures to secure the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 140\/7632\/25 of 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of recovering expenses for professional legal assistance within an additional court decision after the completion of the case proceedings on the merits.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, in its decision, was guided by the fact that, in accordance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, a party is obliged to declare its intention to recover expenses for legal assistance and, as a general rule, to provide evidence of their incurrence before the conclusion of the judicial debates. The court emphasized that a mere indication of an estimated calculation of expenses in the statement of claim is not a proper application for their distribution, as it does not express a clear procedural intention of the party. Furthermore, the court established that the plaintiff did not provide any valid reasons that would have prevented it from submitting evidence of expenses in a timely manner, even though these documents existed before the decision on the merits was rendered. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mechanism for submitting evidence within five days after the decisionis merely a means of confirming expenses already declared, and not an opportunity to initiate this matter “retroactively.” Since the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements regarding timely notification to the court concerning the allocation of expenses, the appellate court rightfully left the motion without consideration. Thus, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the consistency of its position that the absence of evidence and a corresponding motion prior to the conclusion of the case proceedings precludes the possibility of rendering an additional decision.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Ekovist” and left the appellate court\u2019s ruling unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 911\/3058\/24 of 06\/02\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is a claim by a member of a Collective Agricultural Enterprise (CAE) to invalidate a decision of the CAE general meeting dated 17.06.2013 regarding the transfer of land plots into the ownership of third parties for the maintenance of real estate objects belonging to them.<\/p>\n

**2. Court\u2019s Arguments**
\nThe Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for granting a claim is proving the fact of a violation of the plaintiff’s rights or legitimate interests by the contested decision. The court established that real estate objects belonging to third parties by right of ownership are located on the disputed land plots. Pursuant to the principle of the unity of the legal status of a land plot and the real estate object located thereon (Articles 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine and 377 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), the owner of a building has a legal right to formalize rights to the land beneath it. Since the plaintiff failed to prove that the contested decision of the general meeting violates his specific property or corporate rights, his mere disagreement with the decision does not constitute grounds for invalidating such a decision. The absence of a violation of the plaintiff\u2019s rights is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of compliance with the procedure for convening the meeting or the presence of a quorum. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts should not have focused exclusively on procedural issues, as the claim lacks a substantiated violation of the plaintiff\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate commercial court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, amending its reasoning part on the grounds of an unproven violation of the plaintiff\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

Case No. 920\/170\/26 of 06\/12\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the challenging of actions of state registrars regarding amendments to information about the head of a city council and the refusal to perform such actions, initiated by the mayor as an individual.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the key criThe criterion for determining jurisdiction is the nature of the disputed legal relations and the composition of the parties. The court established that a city mayor is not a holder of corporate rights in relation to a city council; therefore, this dispute cannot be considered corporate and does not fall under the jurisdiction of commercial courts. Since the dispute arose between an individual and a subject of authority (a state registrar) regarding the legality of administrative actions, it has a public-law character. The court emphasized that the participation of a subject of authority and the challenging of registration actions in the sphere of public administration bring the case within the competence of administrative courts. The plaintiff’s arguments that the dispute is corporate were rejected as a misinterpretation of legislation. The court also noted that the previous legal positions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant concerned private-law disputes and are therefore not relevant to the present case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court regarding the refusal to open proceedings unchanged, confirming that the case is not subject to consideration under commercial procedural law.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 911\/827\/25 of 10\/06\/2026**<\/a>
\nProvided below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A prosecutor filed a lawsuit to invalidate a village council decision and cancel the state registration of the right of communal ownership to land plots which, in the opinion of the prosecutor’s office, belong to forestry lands of state ownership.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The court emphasized that the selection of a proper method of protection by the plaintiff is key to resolving a dispute, and the selection of an ineffective method constitutes an independent ground for the dismissal of a lawsuit.
\n * The Supreme Court reaffirmed established practice, according to which, in disputes regarding the illegal registration of ownership rights to real estate to another person, the proper method of protection is a vindication claim (recovery of property from another’s illegal possession).
\n * A demand to cancel registrar decisions and entries in registers is not, in itself, an effective method of protection, as it does not lead to the automatic restoration of the plaintiff’s ownership right or possession.
\n * In the case of partial overlapping of land plots, a claim must be directed at recovering specifically that part of the land which overlaps, with mandatory identification of its boundaries and coordinates.
\n * The court noted that a court decision should not create legal uncertainty or require the performance of additional reconciliation actions between the parties to resolve the conflict.
\n * Although the courts of lower instances dismissed the lawsuit, they erroneously evaluated evidence regarding the belonging of lands to the forest fund, whereas the decisive issue was precisely the selection of an improper method of protection.
\n * The Supreme Court left the operative part of the decisions of the lower instances…the same unchanged (refusal of the claim), however, it amended their reasoning parts, pointing to the incorrect justification by the courts of lower instances of the grounds for refusal.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, while leaving their operative parts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/1867\/26 dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of a bank\u2019s refusal to apply a moratorium on the foreclosure of collateral (vehicles) and the taking of measures to secure the claim by prohibiting the bank and the private enforcement officer from taking actions to sell this property until the case is resolved on its merits.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n * The court proceeded from the fact that the institution of securing a claim is a mechanism for preventing unfair actions by the defendant that could make the execution of a future court decision impossible.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that security measures must be proportionate to the stated claims and should not substitute a decision on the merits; however, they must guarantee the real protection of the plaintiff\u2019s rights.
\n * It was established that in the event the pledged property is sold before the completion of the judicial proceedings, the plaintiff would lose the possibility of effectively protecting their rights, and the execution of the court decision would become practically impossible.
\n * The court recognized that prohibiting enforcement actions regarding the collateral does not violate the bank\u2019s property rights, since the status of the pledged property remains unchanged, and only the possibility of its alienation is restricted.
\n * The appellate court correctly noted that the absence of a proposal for counter-security is not an absolute ground for canceling the ruling, as the bank has the right to file a corresponding motion separately.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly assessed the risks and maintained a balance of the parties’ interests, taking into account the specifics of the plaintiff\u2019s activities under martial law.
\n * The court emphasized that the execution of a court decision is an integral stage of justice; therefore, securing a claim is a necessary instrument for guaranteeing the effectiveness of judicial protection.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, which imposed measures to secure the claim, and dismissed the bank\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 183\/501\/25 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of an individual for disseminating information about the movement and location of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine under martial law.tion (Part 3 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. The cassation court concluded that the previous court decisions are lawful and well-founded, based on the following arguments:
\n* The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court did not violate the right to defense, as the accused was duly notified of the hearing, and her defense counsel was present and did not file any motions regarding the necessity of her participation.
\n* The Court emphasized that the cassation instance is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined by the courts of first and appellate instances.
\n* Regarding the qualification of the crime, the court deemed the convicted person\u2019s intent proven, as she deliberately sent data to a hostile chatbot, receiving confirmation from it regarding the importance of the provided information.
\n* The nature of the Telegram channel to which the convicted person subscribed was recognized by the court as hostile and propagandistic, which excludes the possibility of the person\u2019s actions being accidental.
\n* The Court noted that the convicted person could not but be aware that the information she transmitted regarding the movement of military equipment would be used by the aggressor state to the detriment of Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
\n* All defense arguments regarding the absence of intent were refuted by the courts of lower instances based on the totality of the collected evidence, which complies with the requirements of the criminal procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by the defense counsel and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court without changes.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/2163\/24 dated 19\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
\nThe subject of this judicial proceeding is the resolution of the plaintiff’s application for the recovery of professional legal assistance expenses incurred during the cassation review of the case from the defendant (JSC “Bank Alliance”).<\/p>\n

**2. Court\u2019s arguments**
\nThe Supreme Court confirmed that since the dispute arose as a result of the defendant’s improper actions, the expenses for legal assistance must be borne by the defendant in accordance with Part 9 of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the court took a critical view of the amount of 200,000 UAH claimed by the plaintiff, noting that it appeared to be an artificial “alignment” of the number of hours to the desired fee amount rather than a reflection of the actual cost of services. The court emphasized that the amount of expenses at the cassation stage cannot be four times higher than the fee established for the more complex stages of the case review in the courts of first and appellate instances. Furthermore, the court indicated that the plaintiff’s reference to the amount of expenses previously claimed by the defendant is legally untenable, as this is not a criterion for determining the reasonableness of the cost of services. The Supreme Court stressed that the compensation of expenses should not turn into a method of undue enrichment or a source of income for a party. Guided by the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionalityand the court independently determined the amount of expenses subject to reimbursement, taking into account the actual scope of work performed by the attorney.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court partially granted the plaintiff’s motion, ordering JSC “Bank Alliance” to pay 50,000 UAH in professional legal aid expenses in the plaintiff\u2019s favor, while denying the recovery of the remaining 150,000 UAH.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/1046\/25 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of a security deposit in double the amount and 3% per annum due to the failure to conclude the principal share purchase agreement within the specified timeframe.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the preliminary agreement provided for a clear sequence of actions: the buyer submits a security deposit, after which the seller is obligated to provide the original documents for the shares and meeting minutes, which is a prerequisite for concluding the principal agreement. Since the seller did not fulfill these key obligations, the deadline for concluding the principal agreement did not arrive, which excludes the buyer’s fault in the failure of the deal. The defendant’s arguments that the buyer had not received approval from the National Bank of Ukraine were rejected by the court, noting that this does not release the seller from fulfilling their primary obligations. Furthermore, the court deemed the references to the impossibility of performance due to the seizure of the shares groundless, as the defendant failed to prove that this specific seizure was the obstacle to concluding the agreement. The court confirmed that the obligation to return funds in foreign currency equivalent is lawful, as the parties had clearly defined the price in US dollars. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant was in default and is therefore obligated to return the security deposit in double the amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to satisfy the claims and dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 918\/537\/24 dated 11\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate a supply agreement concluded as a result of a public procurement due to anti-competitive concerted practices of the participants and the application of the consequences of an invalid transaction, which contradicts the interests of the state.<\/p>\n

2. **** In this case, the Supreme Court effectively solidified a departure from previous practice, relying on the position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court dated 19.12.2025 in case No. 922\/3456\/23. The Court emphasized that Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is an exceptional sanction of a confiscatory nature, which cannot be applied automatically solely on the basis of a decision of the Anti-Monopoly Committee regarding anti-competitive actionsj. The court noted that anti-competitive behavior is not always synonymous with the intent to cause harm to the interests of the state; therefore, for the application of such a strict provision, it is necessary to prove the existence of an intent by the parties specifically to undermine the economic foundations of the state. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor failed to prove the infliction of actual property damage to the state or the fact of overpayment for goods, which precludes the causal link required to qualify a transaction as one that is knowingly contrary to the interests of the state. Furthermore, the application of confiscation without a court verdict in criminal proceedings in this case was recognized as a disproportionate interference with the right to property, which is contrary to the practice of the ECHR.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision, in which it completely denied the satisfaction of the prosecutor’s claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 916\/1951\/25 of 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a construction contract for the reconstruction of a fire alarm system, as well as penalties, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court established that the fact of the performance of works is confirmed by the certificates signed by the parties (form KB-2v) without objections, which creates a presumption of proper performance of obligations by the contractor.
\n – The customer’s obligation regarding the final settlement arose from the moment of signing the certificate of compliance verification for fire protection systems, which was drawn up on 03\/03\/2025.
\n – The court rejected the defendant’s reference to tax service letters regarding possible violations by the subcontractor, as this matter goes beyond the civil-legal relations between the parties to the contract.
\n – The appellate court rightfully recalculated the penalty sanctions, clarifying the period of delay, since the initial date was determined by the plaintiff erroneously.
\n – Regarding legal aid expenses, the court recognized them as partially justified but reduced the amount to 12,000 UAH, applying the criterion of proportionality and reasonableness, since the case did not require highly complex analytical work.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellant’s arguments amount to disagreement with the factual circumstances established by the lower courts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, and the cassation appeal \u2014 unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/3305\/22 of 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Dniprovski Energy Services” in favor of PrJSC “NEC ‘Ukrenergo'” of debt under a contract for the provision of electricity transmission services, includingand of the penalty accrued for late performance of monetary obligations.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that the reduction of the amount of a penalty is a discretionary right of the court, which is exercised taking into account the principles of justice, reasonableness, and proportionality. The court established that the defendant had fully repaid the principal amount of the debt even before the decision was rendered, which is a significant factor for reducing punitive sanctions. Objective circumstances were also taken into account, in particular, the introduction of martial law and quarantine restrictions, which negatively affected the payment discipline of consumers, which, in turn, complicated the defendant\u2019s settlements with the plaintiff. The court emphasized that a penalty has a compensatory, rather than a punitive, nature; therefore, its amount should not create an excessive financial burden for the debtor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of reducing a penalty depends on the individual circumstances of each case; therefore, there is no universal “maximum” or “minimum” threshold for such a reduction. Since the appellant failed to prove the similarity of the legal relations in the cases cited by them to the circumstances of this case, the court concluded that there were no grounds for overturning the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings regarding the grounds provided for in Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, and in the remaining part, to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 332\/5214\/23 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of holding the head of the legal department disciplinarily liable in the form of reprimands for improper organization of the department’s work and the recovery of moral damages.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that in order to impose a disciplinary sanction, the employer is obliged to prove the fact that the employee committed a culpable misconduct that directly relates to their employment duties. In this case, the defendant failed to clearly define the scope of the plaintiff\u2019s job duties, as the relevant job descriptions were absent. The court established that the employer approached the procedure formally, failing to conduct a proper internal investigation to identify the specific culpable person among the department’s staff. It was also emphasized that the orders imposing the reprimands did not contain a specification of the violations, which is a violation of the requirements of Article 149 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. Since the employee’s guilt was not proven, and the reprimands themselves were the result of improper work organization on the part of the employer, the court recognized them as unlawful. Furthermore, the court took into account that the plaintiff herself identified errors in the work of subordinates and reported them, which excludes intentional inaction on her part.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the reprimands were canceled and the claim for compensation for moralnon-pecuniary damage \u2014 partially satisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/19604\/25 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax authority\u2019s accrual of monetary liabilities for income tax of foreign legal entities and penalties due to the taxpayer\u2019s application of a reduced tax rate in accordance with an international convention, which the tax authority deemed unfounded.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that the controlling authority violated the limitation periods for conducting an audit and determining tax liabilities established by Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the expiration of the 1,095-day period is a completed legal fact that grants the taxpayer the right to be considered free from obligations, and this right is subject to protection as a property asset. The Supreme Court rejected the tax authority\u2019s arguments regarding the application of a new version of the law, which extends the period to 2,555 days, as giving this provision retroactive effect violates Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The court underscored that legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the taxpayer are priority, and an audit conducted outside the established time limits is unlawful. Consequently, tax notice-decisions adopted on the basis of such an audit cannot be considered lawful.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new decision, which fully satisfied the taxpayer\u2019s claims, declaring the contested tax notice-decisions unlawful and canceling them.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/46809\/24 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of the dispute:<\/strong> Challenging a tax notice-decision by which the Company was additionally charged income tax on foreign legal entities (royalties) due to the tax authority’s non-recognition of the right to apply a preferential tax rate in accordance with the Convention between Ukraine and the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n

2. Arguments of the court:<\/strong>
\n * The court emphasized that for the application of benefits under international treaties, it is necessary to investigate whether the primary purpose of the transaction was to obtain tax advantages (the so-called “principal purpose test”).
\n * The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts did not provide a proper assessment of the criteria for related parties and did not establish whether the plaintiff exercised actual control over the non-resident\u2019s business decisions.
\n * The court underscored that the tax authority\u2019s conclusions regarding the non-resident\u2019s lack of status as a beneficial owner must be based on facts, not on assumptions regarding the company\u2019s structure of income and expenses.
\n * It is important that the lower courts ignored the evidence provided by the plaintiff (in particular, the non-resident\u2019s letters and documents regarding the economicpresence), which refuted the non-resident’s status as a “nominee holder.”
\n * The Court pointed out that the mere fact of transferring funds by a non-resident to other persons is not automatic proof of the absence of beneficial status without an analysis of the substance of the business transactions.
\n * Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not fully investigate these circumstances, they violated the principle of official ascertainment of all facts of the case.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to establish new circumstances on its own; therefore, the case requires a retrial taking into account the specified shortcomings.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 560\/9502\/24 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the imposition of penalties by the tax authority on the enterprise for the alleged retail trade of fuel without a license and for the violation of requirements regarding excise warehouse equipment.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the controlling authority did not provide proper and admissible evidence of the fact of fuel sales by the plaintiff, as the provided photo and video materials did not contain data on the time, place of recording, or the person who performed the recording. Furthermore, the courts established that the plaintiff had no hired employees and no settlement documents that would confirm the conduct of business activities related to the sale of fuel. Since the fact of fuel sales was not proven, the plaintiff cannot be considered a taxpayer of excise duty or a manager of an excise warehouse, and therefore, the requirements for the registration of equipment and the warehouse itself do not apply to it. The court also noted that the police materials, initiated upon the request of tax officials, did not confirm the existence of an offense. Regarding legal assistance expenses, the appellate court reasonably reduced their amount to UAH 15,000, recognizing this sum as commensurate with the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the lower courts correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had canceled the tax notice-decisions.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/13570\/24 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared from a professional standpoint:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the court of cassation instance and the assessment of their proportionality.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that although a party has the right to freereimbursement of attorney’s fees, the amount of which must meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality to the complexity of the case. The Supreme Court noted that since the defendant’s legal position remained consistent throughout the proceedings, the attorney did not need to spend significant time re-analyzing legislation or preparing new arguments. The Court critically assessed the claimed amount of time spent on preparing the response and attending the court hearing, indicating that it was inflated compared to the actual scope of work performed. The plaintiff\u2019s motion to reduce the costs was also taken into account, as the burden of proving disproportionality was duly substantiated. As a result, the court exercised its discretionary powers to reduce the fee amount based on the principles of fairness and procedural economy.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to partially grant the application, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant UAH 66,734.24 in legal assistance costs instead of the claimed UAH 133,468.48.<\/p>\n

Case No. 908\/38\/24 of 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed overview of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a supply contract for gas masks, concluded as a result of a tender, due to anti-competitive concerted actions by the participants, and to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of recovery of funds into the state revenue.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court of cassation was guided by the legal position established by the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in case No. 922\/3456\/23, which significantly changed the approach to the application of Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which provides for confiscatory sanctions, cannot be applied automatically solely due to the fact of a violation of legislation on the protection of economic competition.
\n – The Court noted that anti-competitive behavior of tender participants does not always aim to cause harm to the interests of the state or society within the meaning of this provision.
\n – In order to apply such severe consequences, the prosecutor had to prove that the transaction was inherently illegal and that the state, as a result of its conclusion, suffered actual property damage or received sub-standard goods.
\n – Since the prosecutor did not prove the parties’ intent to violate public order and did not justify that the contract was unprofitable for the state, there were no grounds to invalidate it based on Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
\n – The Court also rejected the prosecutor’s motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, as it did not see grounds to depart from the position set forth by the Joint Chamber in the aforementioned case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the lower courts in the part regarding the invalidation of the contract anand rendered a new decision dismissing the claim in this part, while closing the cassation proceedings in the remaining part due to the lack of an appeal.<\/p>\n

****
\nIn this decision, the Supreme Court applied the legal position set forth by the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in case No. 922\/3456\/23, which effectively clarified and limited the practice of applying part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, departing from previous approaches that allowed for the automatic invalidation of contracts due to violations of competition law.<\/p>\n

Case No. 200\/4206\/25 dated 18\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to prepare and provide an updated certificate of the amount of the military serviceman\u2019s monetary allowance for the recalculation of his pension, taking into account the subsistence minimum established as of January 1, 2024.<\/p>\n

In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the priority of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service…” and the Law on the State Budget over the subordinate acts of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that paragraph 4 of the CMU Resolution No. 704, in the version that introduced a fixed calculation value (1762 UAH), contradicts laws of higher legal force. The Court stressed that when calculating monetary allowance, the amount of the subsistence minimum established by law as of January 1 of the relevant calendar year must be applied. Since the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of January 1, 2024, is 3028 UAH, this serves as the basis for the pension recalculation. The Court also referred to its legal position established by the Judicial Chamber in case No. 520\/5814\/24, which confirms the necessity of using the original version of Resolution No. 704. Consequently, the inaction of the border authority was deemed unlawful, as the plaintiff has a legal right to the updating of the certificate of monetary allowance.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and ordered the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to prepare and submit to the Pension Fund an updated certificate of the amount of the plaintiff\u2019s monetary allowance as of January 1, 2024.<\/p>\n

Case No. 580\/12354\/25 dated 18\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s termination of the monthly supplement in the amount of 2000 UAH, provided for by CMU Resolution No. 713, following the recalculation of the plaintiff\u2019s pension in execution of a court decision.<\/p>\n

2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the purpose of Resolution No. 713 is to gradually reduce disparities in the amounts of pensions granted before 01.03.2018, and this supplement must be paid if the pension recalculation was not related to…with the increase of monetary support under new regulatory legal acts. The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between two types of recalculations: those caused by changes in the components of monetary support (which cancel the additional payment), and those carried out in execution of court decisions to eliminate violations of the right to an appropriate pension amount, the right to which arose before March 1, 2018. In this case, the recalculation of the plaintiff\u2019s pension was aimed precisely at restoring the violated right, and not at implementing new increases in monetary support. Therefore, there were no grounds for terminating the payment of the UAH 2,000 supplement. The court of appeal erroneously equated these two recalculations, which differ in their legal nature, which led to the incorrect application of substantive law.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims for the resumption of the additional payment were satisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 752\/15110\/22 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the defense counsel’s appellate appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance in criminal proceedings on charges of committing a crime provided for in Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court, verifying the legality of the actions of the appellate instance, proceeded from the fact that the right to appellate appeal is a fundamental guarantee of access to justice. The Court established that when returning the appeal, the appellate court committed violations of procedural law that hindered the realization of the defense’s right to a review of the verdict. In particular, compliance with the deadlines and requirements for the form of the appellate appeal established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine was analyzed. The Supreme Court concluded that the grounds for returning the appeal, cited by the appellate court, were not sufficiently substantiated or did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. Thus, a violation of the right to defense and the right to a fair trial was stated. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the procedure that ensures a real opportunity for participants in the process to appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990S\u0421G\u0421\/21\/25 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is a judge’s appeal against a decision of the High Council of Justice, which upheld the disciplinary penalty imposed on him by the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice.<\/p>\n

In rendering its decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the procedure for holding a judge disciplinarily liable was observed within the scope of powers defined by law. The Court analyzed the appellant’s arguments regarding violations during the disciplinaryproceedings and concluded that they do not refute the lawfulness of the High Council of Justice’s findings. It was established that the judge’s actions, which served as the grounds for the disciplinary sanction, indeed contained signs of a violation of professional ethics or procedural norms. The court emphasized the importance of judges adhering to standards of conduct that ensure trust in the judiciary. It was also confirmed that the decision of the High Council of Justice is well-founded and the imposed sanction is proportionate to the severity of the committed misconduct. As a result, the court found no grounds for overturning the challenged decision, as it complies with the requirements of current legislation and the principles of judicial disciplinary liability.<\/p>\n

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the judge’s appeal and uphold the decision of the High Council of Justice.<\/p>\n

Case No. 375\/2255\/25 dated 06\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise legal analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The applicant attempted, within the framework of special proceedings, to establish the fact of being a single parent raising a child in order to obtain social benefits, in particular, for discharge from military service.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court established that the establishment of such a fact is impossible in special proceedings, as it is inextricably linked to a dispute of right regarding the performance of parental duties.
\n – Since there was already a judicial dispute between the child’s parents (in particular, regarding the deprivation of the mother’s parental rights), the existence of a conflict of interest is evident.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that issues of child-rearing and the performance of parental duties by parents cannot be resolved in an undisputed manner, as this directly affects the rights and interests of the child.
\n – The court noted that the institution of special proceedings cannot be used to create prejudicial facts that could subsequently be used to resolve other disputes, for example, regarding discharge from military service.
\n – The applicant’s reference to judicial formalism was rejected, as the courts of lower instances provided a proper assessment of the evidence and substantiated the impossibility of considering the application in the chosen manner.
\n – The court also pointed out that the guardianship and custody authority was properly involved in the case, which refutes the arguments regarding a violation of procedural rights.
\n – Ultimately, the cassation court confirmed that a dispute of right must be considered exclusively under the procedure of adversarial proceedings, rather than through the establishment of a legal fact.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the correctness of leaving the application without consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/11027\/18 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery fromdamages from former executives and related parties of the bank, caused by the intentional acquisition of knowingly loss-making securities, which led to the bank’s insolvency.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n * The court established that the defendants’ actions regarding the purchase of illiquid bonds were intentional, economically unjustified, and aimed at siphoning the bank’s funds to related companies.
\n * The appellate court confirmed that the Deposit Guarantee Fund has the full right to file lawsuits for damages both in the interests of the bank and in the interests of creditors, even after the official liquidation of the bank and the entry of its termination into the register.
\n * The court recognized the elements of a civil tort as proven: unlawful conduct, the existence of damages, the fault of the defendants, and a causal link between their decisions and the bank’s financial collapse.
\n * Regarding the amount of damages, the court accepted the Fund’s updated calculation, which takes into account the actual remaining unsatisfied creditor claims after partial debt repayment by other shareholders.
\n * The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the impossibility of hearing the case due to the termination of the bank as a legal entity, noting that liquidation does not release guilty parties from liability for the damage caused.
\n * The court also rejected procedural objections regarding the signing of the decision by a judge who did not participate in the proceedings, explaining this by the objective absence of the primary judge due to leave and the existence of a relevant order from the court president.
\n * The court emphasized that the legal position regarding the liability of related parties is well-established and supported by the current practice of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, which partially satisfied the Fund’s claims, while closing the proceedings regarding claims against other defendants due to the lack of a subject of dispute (as a result of voluntary debt repayment).<\/p>\n

[Case No. 920\/45\/25 of 06\/11\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/137536742)<\/p>\n

Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of Dispute:** The plaintiff applied to the court with a demand to invalidate the decision of the general meeting of the Condominium Association (OSBB) regarding the creation of a repair fund and the setting of contributions, citing that the meeting minutes contained an incorrect court case number to which the commencement of this fund was linked.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n – The court established that a technical clerical error regarding the court case number had indeed been made in the minutes of the general meeting; however, the OSBB subsequently officially corrected this error at a subsequent meeting.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of a technical or grammatical error in documents is not an absolute ground for canceling a meeting decision if the essence of the co-owners’ intent is clear.
\n – The lower courts proved that the disputed decision was adopted by the necessary number of votes (more50%), and its purpose\u2014to settle financial issues following the cancellation of previous contributions\u2014is in the interests of the majority of co-owners.
\n – The court applied the principle of proportionality, noting that the interests of an individual owner should not prevail over the interests of the entire community, which requires proper maintenance of the building.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized the inadmissibility of excessive formalism, as courts must evaluate the actual substance of decisions, not merely their literal formatting.
\n – It was established that the plaintiff’s rights were not violated, as the accrual of contributions occurred under conditions common to all co-owners, and the plaintiff herself participated in the voting and was aware of the agenda.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the legality of the condominium association’s (OSBB) actions.<\/p>\n

Case No. 761\/39684\/24 dated 06\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the application by lower courts of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of a sentence below the lowest limit) to a person who committed a fatal traffic accident while in a state of alcoholic intoxication.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts made a mistake by automatically applying Art. 69 of the Criminal Code solely on the basis of several mitigating circumstances and positive personal characteristics. The Court emphasized that the application of this provision is an exceptional measure and is possible only when mitigating circumstances so significantly reduce the degree of gravity of the crime that imposing even the minimum sentence within the sanction of the article would be unjust. In this case, the courts did not properly assess the increased public danger of the act committed by a person in a state of intoxication who had grossly violated traffic rules. The Supreme Court emphasized that positive data about the individual and the absence of complaints from the victims cannot negate the gravity of the consequences in the form of the death of a person. Consequently, the appellate court’s decision was found to be unfounded due to the lack of convincing motives for such a lenient sentence. As a result, the cassation instance declared an incorrect application of the law on criminal liability, which led to a lack of proportionality between the sentence and the gravity of the crime.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.<\/p>\n

Case No. 474\/1673\/23 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of practice, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedingsin the theft proceedings (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) due to the defense\u2019s disagreement with the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and a violation of their right to defense.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court failed to fulfill its duty regarding the proper review of the case, as it ignored the necessity of directly examining the evidence relied upon by the defense. The court of first instance questioned witnesses but failed to provide an assessment of their testimony in the verdict, and the appellate court, instead of correcting this error, limited itself to summarizing the defense counsel’s arguments without examining the case files. The Supreme Court stressed that the absence of a motion from the parties for re-examination does not deprive the appellate court of the right to independently examine evidence if it is necessary to establish the truth. In particular, the witness testimony was critically important for clarifying the subjective side of the crime \u2014 the presence or absence of intent to commit theft. Since the appellate court did not analyze this evidence and did not provide reasoned responses to the defense’s arguments, the decision was deemed premature and not in compliance with the requirements of procedural law. As a result, the case was returned for a new trial to ensure the completeness of the judicial review and adherence to the adversarial principle.<\/p>\n

3. **Court\u2019s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/14613\/24 dated 09\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from JSC “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “Teofipol Energy Company” of debt under an electricity purchase and sale agreement at a “feed-in” tariff, as well as inflationary losses and 3% per annum.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n* The court emphasized that an act of reconciliation of settlements is not a primary accounting document, but merely a technical tool, and therefore it cannot be the sole proof of the reality of business transactions and the amount of debt without confirmation by primary documents (purchase and sale acts).
\n* The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of lower instances did not properly verify the plaintiff\u2019s calculations and did not evaluate the defendant\u2019s counter-calculations, which is a violation of the requirements regarding a comprehensive consideration of the case.
\n* It was established that the courts did not examine whether purchase and sale acts existed for the entire disputed period, which calls into question the validity of the amount recovered.
\n* The court emphasized that when recovering inflationary losses and 3% per annum, courts are obliged to verify the accrual base and the calculation methodology, which was not done in this case.
\n* The court also drew attention to the fact that at the time the lawsuit was filed, the payment deadline for a portion of the periods had not yet arrived, as the cost of services had not been approved by the NEURC (National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission), yet the courts did not take this fact into account when determining the debt amount.
\n* As a result of the identified violations<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 718\/1563\/21 dated 06\/16\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** Removal of impediments to the use of a land plot through the restoration of boundary markers and the…<\/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-17809","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\/17809","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=17809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}