{"id":17843,"date":"2026-06-26T10:29:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T07:29:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-06-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-06-26T10:29:32","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T07:29:32","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-06-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-06-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 26\/06\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 379\/1166\/24 dated 06\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared from a professional standpoint:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the premature termination of enforcement proceedings due to the debtor’s alleged full compliance with the court decision on including a building in the plans for maintenance and current repairs.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that a state enforcement officer is obliged to act exclusively within the scope of their authority, ensuring the actual, rather than formal, execution of the court decision.
\n * The Supreme Court established that the courts of lower instances mistakenly equated “maintenance” with “current repair,” ignoring the fact that the debtor provided only a maintenance plan, which did not contain the necessary current repair measures defined by the court decision.
\n * The court stressed that the presence of a specific list of works (roof repair, inter-panel seam sealing, etc.) in the operative part of the court decision requires the debtor to actually reflect them in the plans, which was not done.
\n * It was taken into account that in another case, the court of appeal had already refused to accept the same debtor’s report on the performance of similar obligations, which indicates a lack of proper compliance.
\n * The court noted that the state enforcement officer did not take sufficient measures to verify the completeness of the decision’s execution, limiting themselves to the formal acceptance of a document that does not correspond to the content of the obligation.
\n * The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of first and appellate instances committed misapplication of procedural law norms, as they failed to provide a proper assessment of the discrepancy between the debtor’s actions and the content of the writ of execution.
\n * At the same time, the court clarified that the demand to compel the enforcement officer to resume proceedings is redundant, as the law explicitly provides for the automatic restoration of proceedings by the enforcement officer after the court revokes the resolution on their termination.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new one, by which it recognized as unlawful and revoked the state enforcement officer’s resolution on the termination of enforcement proceedings, while refusing to satisfy the remainder of the complaint’s claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 645\/5702\/24 dated 06\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of this court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of a residential house sale and purchase agreement as a fraudulent transaction, concluded by the debtor to the detriment of the creditor for the purpose of avoiding foreclosure on property.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that private law tools cannot be used to avoid the execution of a court decision, and the actions of the parties must be evaluated through the prism of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Articles 3, 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
\n – The court established[…], that the agreement was concluded on the day following the court\u2019s refusal of the debtor\u2019s motion to review the default judgment on debt collection, which indicates obvious bad faith.
\n– An important factor was the relationship between the parties: the buyer of the house was the debtor\u2019s attorney, who had directly participated in the court hearing and was aware of the existence of the debt.
\n– The court critically assessed the contract price (UAH 50,000), which was clearly non-market, and rejected the argument that the absence of a property attachment at the time of the sale legalizes such a transaction.
\n– The Supreme Court emphasized that the fraudulent nature of a transaction does not depend on whether the parties are relatives, since “relatedness” can take other forms, in particular, the professional relationship between a client and an attorney.
\n– The court noted that the purpose of extra-insolvency challenging is to return the property to the debtor to satisfy the creditor’s claims; therefore, restoring the situation that existed prior to the violation is an appropriate method of protection.
\n– : In this ruling, the court confirmed and specified the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 4, 2026 (case No. 910\/6654\/24) regarding the right of a creditor to challenge a debtor’s transactions based on the general principles of civil legislation, departing from previously existing narrower approaches to this issue.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision granting the claim and declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid.<\/p>\n

Case No. 519\/507\/24 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring invalid a gift agreement for a 1\/3 share of an apartment, concluded between the debtor and his mother, as a fraudulent transaction committed for the purpose of avoiding foreclosure on property to repay credit debt.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court established that the debtor alienated property in favor of a close relative, which is a typical sign of bad-faith conduct aimed at concealing assets from a creditor.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that civil law instruments cannot be used to avoid the execution of court decisions, and such actions are qualified as abuse of right.
\n * The appellate court reasonably rejected arguments regarding the absence of a legal dispute at the time of the gift, as the fact of the existence of debt and the bad faith of the debtor’s intentions are confirmed by the totality of circumstances, and not just by the date of commencement of proceedings.
\n * The court noted that the debtor’s lack of other property that could be used to satisfy the bank’s claims indicates a violation of the creditor’s property interests as a result of the contested transaction.
\n * Regarding references to Article 48 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” (prohibition of foreclosure on a sole residence), the court indicated that this does not deprive the creditor of the rigto challenge fraudulent agreements, as such actions by the debtor are manifestly in bad faith.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the general principles of civil legislation (Articles 3 and 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) to protect the rights of the creditor against the malicious actions of the debtor.
\n * The cassation arguments regarding the incorrect assessment of evidence were rejected, as the court of cassation does not have the authority to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case established by the appellate court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which declared the gift agreement invalid, and dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 549\/414\/23 of 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement on the renewal of a land lease agreement and recognition of the absence of a lease right in a new tenant due to the violation of the preferential right of the previous tenant.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n * The court established that the tenant (LLC “Chornukhinskyi Krai”) had timely and properly notified the lessor of its intention to exercise its preferential right to renew the agreement, attaching a draft of an additional agreement.
\n * The lessor did not provide any objections to this notification within the period established by law and the agreement, which the court construed as “tacit consent” to the continuation of the lease relationship.
\n * The lessor’s evidence regarding an alleged notice of refusal to renew the agreement was deemed improper by the court, as the letter was addressed to a different legal entity, not the tenant.
\n * The court emphasized that the exercise of a preferential right requires compliance with the procedure, and since the tenant fulfilled all requirements and the lessor ignored them, the agreement is considered renewed.
\n * Regarding the new tenant (LLC “Agrokultura Poltava”), the court recognized its lease right as absent, because at the time of the conclusion of the new agreement, the previous agreement, renewed through the preferential right, was in effect.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the choice of the method of protection (negatory claim) is the right of the plaintiff, and interference with their legal right to use property by a third party is grounds for satisfying the claim.
\n * The court noted that the circumstances of this case differ from those cited by the appellant, therefore there are no grounds for overturning the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which satisfied the claim, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the new tenant.<\/p>\n

Case No. 399\/296\/25 of 10\/06\/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 legality of the courts leaving the claim without considerationof the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the recovery of a land plot due to non-compliance with the requirement to deposit the value of the property into the court’s deposit account.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts prematurely left the lawsuit without consideration, as they incorrectly applied the rules of substantive law. The Court clarified that the obligation of prior deposit of the property’s value into the court’s account, provided for by the amendments to the Civil Code, applies exclusively to cases involving the recovery of property from a **bona fide** purchaser. Since the prosecutor insisted in the lawsuit that the defendant acted in bad faith, the issue of whether such bona fide status exists must be resolved by the court during the consideration of the case on the merits, rather than at the stage of initiating proceedings. If, during the proceedings, it is established that the acquirer is not acting in good faith, the requirements regarding the deposit of funds are not applicable at all. Accordingly, the court’s requirement for the prosecutor to mandatorily deposit funds at this stage was unfounded. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts do not have the right to block access to justice by demanding the fulfillment of conditions that depend on the results of the assessment of evidence that has not yet taken place.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for further consideration on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 456\/254\/22 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the owner of land plots to remove obstacles in their use through the return of the land, since the lease agreements, on the basis of which the agricultural firm carried out cultivation, were not signed by the owner.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that since the plaintiff did not sign the lease agreements, she did not express her will to conclude them; therefore, such transactions are non-concluded, and not merely invalid. The court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requisite of the written form of an agreement, and its absence makes it impossible for the rights and obligations of the parties to arise. Since the agreement was not concluded, it does not create legal consequences, and therefore a lawsuit to declare it invalid is erroneous, but the court has the right to protect the rights of the owner through a negatory action. The Supreme Court confirmed that an owner whose property is illegally used by another person without proper legal grounds has the right to demand the removal of obstacles in the use, including through the return of land plots. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the prejudicial nature of previous decisions, as they did not establish the fact of signing or non-signing of the disputed agreements. As a result, the lower courts chose an effective method of protecting property rights, which corresponds to the tasks of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, recognizing them as lawful and well-founded.Case No. 127\/16799\/19 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. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of real estate acquired by one of the spouses before marriage, which was reconstructed during the marriage, and the invalidation of gift agreements for this property to a third party.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to recognize the personal property of one of the spouses as common property (pursuant to Article 62 of the Family Code of Ukraine), it is necessary to prove a significant increase in its value specifically as a result of joint labor or financial expenditures. The Court noted that the appellate instance erred by drawing conclusions based on assumptions regarding the timing of the reconstruction, rather than a proper examination of the evidence. It is important that an increase in property value due solely to market factors (inflation, exchange rates) does not constitute grounds for changing the legal regime of ownership. The Court emphasized that the appellate court failed to evaluate the significant increase in the area of the house (nearly twofold) and failed to ascertain whether the expenditures for these works were joint. Since establishing these facts requires a reassessment of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation court, the case was remanded for a new trial. The Court also indicated the necessity of a clear comparison of the property’s value before and after the improvements to determine the “significance” of such an increase.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 149\/2708\/25 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 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 legality of the court of first instance returning an application for establishing the fact of permanent residence with a decedent due to an alleged inability to confirm the applicant’s registered place of residence.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation reached the conclusion that the lower courts committed a gross procedural error. The Supreme Court emphasized that civil procedural legislation does not provide for the possibility of returning an application solely due to the lack of a registered place of residence of the applicant. If a court cannot establish such a place through registry data, it is obligated to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings, rather than demanding the person to create new evidence or obtain registration. In the event of doubts regarding jurisdiction, the court must act within the limits of Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, rather than blocking access to justice. It was also emphasized that the right to a court is not absolute, but any restrictions must be proportionate, which was not observed in this case. The Court reaffirmed its established practice, according to which the lack of registration is not grounds for refusing to initiate proceedings.or the return of the application.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal, remitting the case to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 196\/1417\/24 dated 06\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of leaving without consideration a prosecutor’s statement of claim for the recovery of a land plot from a bona fide purchaser due to the failure to comply with the court’s requirement to deposit the value of the property into a deposit account.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the enacted Law No. 4292-IX explicitly provides for the plaintiff’s (a public authority or prosecutor’s) obligation to deposit a monetary amount equal to the value of the property being recovered from a bona fide purchaser into the court’s deposit account. The Court emphasized that this law has retroactive effect for cases in which a decision on the recovery of property had not yet been rendered at the time it entered into force. Since the prosecutor in the claim effectively acknowledged the bona fide status of the purchaser and did not change the grounds for the claim, they were obligated to fulfill the court’s requirement to deposit the funds. The court of appeal erroneously believed that the prosecutor lacked such an obligation, ignoring the transitional provisions of the new legislation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s inability or unwillingness to deposit the funds is a lawful ground for leaving the statement of claim without consideration. Thus, the actions of the local court were recognized as correct, while the decision of the appellate instance was deemed based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of law.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the court of appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the claim without consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 496\/5194\/21 dated 06\/19\/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 of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to cancel, through the court, a village council decision, state title deeds, and sale and purchase agreements concerning the defendant’s land plot, which partially overlapped with her own plot.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court established that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the land dispute and the defendant’s claims as early as 2009\u20132010, as evidenced by her numerous appeals to law enforcement agencies and local self-government bodies.
\n – In accordance with the provisions of civil legislation, the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment a person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right, and not from the moment they obtained new evidence or received registration refusals in 2021\u20132023.
\n – The court emphasized that the statute of limitations is not an institution that can be reinstated without valid reasons, and the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of objective circumstances that preventedhad the opportunity to apply to the court earlier.
\n – Regarding the arguments concerning a \u201cnegatory action,\u201d the court noted that the stated claims are by their nature aimed at challenging the legal grounds for the acquisition of ownership by another person, rather than at the removal of obstacles to use; therefore, general statutes of limitations apply to them.
\n – The motion for the application of the consequences of the expiration of the statute of limitations was filed by a proper defendant whose rights were directly affected by the lawsuit, which provided the court with legal grounds to deny the satisfaction of the claims.
\n – The Supreme Court also rejected the motion to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber, as the legal position regarding effective remedies and the application of the statute of limitations in similar disputes is already established and consistent.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, finally denying the satisfaction of the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Case No. 478\/1215\/23 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the invalidation of a land lease agreement, the transfer of rights and obligations of a buyer under a land plot sale and purchase agreement, and counterclaims for the cancellation of the state registration of the lease agreement due to the denial of the fact of its signing by the lessor.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requirement for the written form of a transaction, and its absence or execution by another person indicates that the transaction was not concluded, and therefore, rights and obligations under it did not arise. The court stressed that the non-conformity of the claims with the chosen remedy cannot be grounds for denying a lawsuit if the plaintiff’s goal is clear and the requirements can be interpreted in accordance with the law. It is important that the courts of first and appellate instances erroneously qualified the counterclaims as an ineffective remedy without considering them on the merits. The Supreme Court noted that for the effective protection of the rights of an owner whose property was registered to another person without their expression of will, they may choose various remedies, including claims for the return of property or the recognition of the absence of a lease right. Since the courts of previous instances did not properly examine the evidence, in particular, did not resolve the issue of conducting a handwriting examination to establish the fact of signing the agreement, this made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Court departed from its previous position, confirming that a landowner may protect their rights by filing claims for the recognition of the absence of a lease right or the cancellation of state registration if they were not in a contractual relationship with the person in whose name the right of use was registered.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturnedthe decisions of the courts of lower instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive examination of evidence.<\/p>\n

Case No. 755\/30256\/14-ts dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of substituting the judgment creditor in enforcement proceedings with a legal successor (JSC “Sense Bank”) on the condition that the time limit for submitting the writ of execution for enforcement had expired and had not been extended by the court.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that procedural succession is derivative of substantive succession and is intended to realize the right to the compulsory enforcement of a court decision. The Court emphasized that the substitution of a party to enforcement proceedings cannot occur in isolation from the enforcement stage, and the procedural purpose of such substitution is to obtain the execution of the decision. Since the appellate court had previously denied the extension of the expired time limit for submitting the writ of execution, and this decision was not subject to cassation review, any further actions regarding the substitution of the judgment creditor lose their procedural expediency. The Court underscored that in the absence of a valid writ of execution (or the possibility of its submission), the substitution of the judgment creditor is unfounded. The Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber, which indicates the impossibility of substituting a party if the enforcement proceedings are terminated and the time limit for submitting the writ has not been extended. Thus, the courts of lower instances erroneously carried out the substitution of the judgment creditor, failing to take into account the absence of any real possibility of executing the decision.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the substitution of the judgment creditor and rendered a new decision denying the motion of JSC “Sense Bank” in this part.<\/p>\n

Case No. 643\/11453\/23 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the compensation of court fees paid by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office for filing a cassation appeal in a case concerning compensation for moral damages.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees.” The key argument was that the plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit for compensation for damages caused by the unlawful actions of pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office, was exempted from paying court fees by law. Since the Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s office’s cassation appeal and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to deny the lawsuit, the question of cost distribution arose. The Court applied the provisions of Part 7 of Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides that in the event of a dismissal of a claim against a plaintiff who is exempt from paying court expenses, the expenses incurred by the defendant shall be compensated at the expense of the state. The Court verified the calculation of the paidof the prosecution\u2019s fee, confirmed by the relevant payment instructions, and recognized it as well-founded. Thus, the court concluded that the State must compensate the prosecution office for the court fee expenses incurred in full.<\/p>\n

The court rendered an additional decision, by which it ordered the compensation to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, at the expense of the State, for the court fee in the amount of 21,472 UAH in the manner established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/582\/25 dated 06\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is a judge’s appeal against a decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which upheld a disciplinary sanction in the form of a warning for systematic failure to take measures regarding the timely consideration of administrative offense cases (Art. 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).<\/p>\n

**2. Main Arguments of the Court**
\n* The court confirmed that unjustified delays in case consideration or failure to take measures for their consideration within the time limits determined by law (Art. 38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) constitute a disciplinary misconduct that undermines the authority of the judiciary.
\n* The Grand Chamber distinguished the subjective side of the misconduct: while “delaying” requires proof of intent, “failure to take measures” can be committed through negligence, which was exactly what was established in the judge’s actions.
\n* The court emphasized that a high workload is not an absolute excuse if a judge did not take all possible procedural measures (for example, did not verify the justification of motions for adjournment or scheduled hearings with unjustifiably long intervals).
\n* An important argument concerned the interpretation of the statute of limitations for liability: the court confirmed that the time spent on disciplinary proceedings is not counted toward the three-year limitation period for holding a judge accountable.
\n* The court rejected the arguments regarding the violation of the HCJ’s complaint review procedure, noting that the participation of members of other disciplinary chambers in reviewing the decision is lawful, and formal complaints regarding the organization of the hearing do not affect the legality of the decision itself.
\n* The Grand Chamber emphasized that the HCJ has full jurisdiction to correct errors of the disciplinary body; therefore, the HCJ’s decision is duly reasoned and proportionate to the misconduct committed.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the judge’s appeal and left the decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 295\/3029\/25 dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the declaration of illegality and cancellation of an order on the dismissal of an employee in connection with reorganization, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that upon dismissal under Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 40 of the Labor CodeAccording to the Labor Code of Ukraine, an employer is obliged not only to notify an employee but also to offer them all available vacant positions that correspond to their qualifications. In this case, it was established that during the reorganization, a position of Head of the newly created department emerged, which was the closest to the Plaintiff\u2019s position; however, the employer did not offer it. The court emphasized that “reserving” a position for another employee or internal management decisions do not exempt the employer from the obligation to comply with labor guarantees. The employer must prove that they offered all vacancies that existed throughout the entire notice period for dismissal. Since the Defendant failed to fulfill this proactive obligation, the dismissal was declared illegal. The court also highlighted that verifying compliance with the dismissal procedure is not an interference with the economic activities of the enterprise, but a direct duty of the court.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the illegality of the Plaintiff’s dismissal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 359\/4478\/22 dated 10\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court\u2019s decision to return an appellate complaint due to the applicant’s failure to comply with the requirement to submit the complaint in a “new version” after curing deficiencies.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court displayed excessive formalism, which violated the parties’ right of access to justice. The court noted that the attorney had effectively cured the deficiencies by providing the necessary information (addresses and details regarding the absence of electronic cabinets) and paying the court fee, although she did so in the form of a separate motion rather than by submitting a “new version” of the complaint. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should serve the purpose of justice rather than act as an obstacle to it, especially when the missing information did not affect the court’s ability to communicate with the case participants. It was also noted that in the event of partial rectification of deficiencies, the court had the right to extend the time limit for their full rectification rather than returning the complaint immediately. Reference to the case law of the ECHR confirmed that the requirement to submit a “new version” specifically, in the absence of technical templates in the “Electronic Court” system, should not become an instrument for depriving a person of the right to appeal. Thus, the actions of the appellate court were recognized as inconsistent with the principles of fairness and proportionality.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court to return the appellate complaint and referred the case to the appellate court for the resolution of the issue regarding the opening of appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 277\/1342\/24 dated 10\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of a man and a woman living together as a single family without registering a marriage after its dissolution, which is necessary for the plaintiff to receive a one-time financial aid in connection with the death of a serviceman.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the legislation in force at the time of the serviceman’s death guarantees the right to receive aid to family members, which includes persons who are connected by a common household and have mutual rights and obligations. The Court noted that the dissolution of a marriage does not exclude the possibility of further living together as a single family, provided that the persons effectively continued to maintain a common household and care for a joint child. The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing such a legal fact is a necessary prerequisite for exercising the right to social protection provided by the state. The Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that such a fact does not give rise to legal consequences for receiving aid. Instead, the cassation instance confirmed that a court decision certifying actual family relations is a sufficient basis for recognizing a person as a family member of the deceased. Therefore, the plaintiff proved with proper evidence the existence of established relations inherent to spouses, which entitles her to the corresponding payment.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim to establish the fact of living together as a single family was granted.<\/p>\n

Case No. 663\/2036\/16-ts 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 concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of the court leaving the defendant\u2019s application for review of a default judgment without consideration in the absence of restored case materials.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the consideration of any procedural issues, in particular an application for review of a default judgment, is impossible without the case materials. Since the materials of case No. 663\/2036\/16 were lost, the court of first instance was obliged to first initiate the procedure for restoring the lost judicial proceedings in accordance with Articles 488\u2013494 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The lower courts mistakenly limited themselves only to information from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, which in itself does not replace the case materials. The Supreme Court emphasized that without restoring the proceedings, it is impossible to objectively verify whether the application is indeed a repeated one and whether the party\u2019s procedural rights were previously exercised. Thus, the courts’ conclusions to leave the application without consideration were deemed premature and in violation of the procedural guarantees of access to justice.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the ruling of the Court of Appeal, remitting the case to the court of first instanceof the first instance for the continuation of the proceedings (with the mandatory resolution of the issue regarding the restoration of the lost case file).<\/p>\n

Case No. 462\/7143\/24 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of underpaid insurance indemnity from PrJSC “IC “UNIQA” under a voluntary ground vehicle insurance (CASCO) agreement in connection with the constructive total loss of the vehicle.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court established that, according to the terms of the CASCO agreement, in the event of a total constructive loss of the vehicle, the amount of indemnity must be determined based on the conclusion of an independent expert.
\n – The courts of lower instances reasonably prioritized the forensic expert\u2019s conclusions submitted by the plaintiff, as they were prepared by a specialist with appropriate qualifications who had personally inspected the vehicle.
\n – Conversely, the report submitted by the insurance company was rejected because it was prepared by an appraiser rather than an independent expert, and it was not based on a personal inspection of the damaged property.
\n – The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s expert provided clear answers to questions, substantiated the research methodology (using market data from Ukraine and Europe), and was examined during the court hearing, which removed any doubts regarding the accuracy of his conclusions.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation instance has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish circumstances that have already been examined.
\n – The courts’ refusal to appoint a repeat expert examination was recognized as lawful, as the available evidence was deemed sufficient and reliable by the court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance company\u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts regarding the recovery of the underpaid insurance indemnity.<\/p>\n

Case No. 554\/4824\/21 dated 06\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 554\/4824\/21:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation of a man and a woman as a family without marriage registration and recognition of the right of joint common property over real estate acquired during this period.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for the recognition of property as joint common property of persons living without marriage, it is necessary to prove the fact of cohabitation, the maintenance of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations. The court established that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence: data on the defendant’s registration at the plaintiff’s house for a long period, confirmation of the plaintiff’s payment of utility bills for the disputed property, as well as numerous witness testimonies and photographic materials. The appellate court erroneously ignoignored this evidence, baselessly concluding that it was insufficient. The Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant failed to refute the presumption of commonality of property acquired during de facto marital relations and did not prove that the property was purchased exclusively with her personal funds. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance, which had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case, was recognized as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 523\/1570\/24 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 detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The OSBB (Association of Co-owners of an Apartment Building) attempted to reclaim non-residential premises (a transformer substation and a boiler room) and movable property from another\u2019s illegal possession, which had previously been alienated within the framework of enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of stability of civil turnover and the protection of the rights of bona fide purchasers who acquired property at public auctions.
\n – The Court applied the concept of “vindication immunity”: if property has been sold pursuant to the execution of a court decision, it cannot be reclaimed from a bona fide purchaser, regardless of whether it left the owner’s possession of their own volition or otherwise.
\n – Since the commercial court decision, on the basis of which the recovery took place, is in force and has not been overturned, the purchasers’ ownership rights to the real estate are lawful.
\n – Regarding the movable property, the court established that the dispute between two legal entities (the OSBB and the Bank) concerning ownership rights to the equipment is not subject to consideration under civil procedure.
\n – Consequently, the cassation instance recognized that the appellate court incorrectly applied substantive law, ignoring imperative provisions regarding the protection of property sold through enforcement proceedings.
\n – Since the main resolution of the appellate court was overturned, the additional resolution regarding the recovery of legal assistance costs also lost its legal force.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution, upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse the reclamation of real estate, and closed the proceedings regarding the claims against the bank concerning movable property due to a violation of subject-matter jurisdiction rules.<\/p>\n

Case No. 750\/7802\/24 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 concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with a demand for foreclosure on a mortgage subject (an apartment) to repay the debt under a loan agreement, for which the right of claim he acqby way of concluding agreements on the assignment of the right of claim.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of a court decision on debt collection that has not been executed does not terminate either the principal obligation or the mortgage derivative of it.
\n – The Court stressed that the appellate court erred by going beyond the scope of the claims: the court independently assessed the validity of the agreements on the assignment of the right of claim, even though the parties had not filed claims for invalidation of these transactions.
\n – It was also noted that the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of the parties’ arguments regarding the application of the statute of limitations, which is critical for resolving the dispute on its merits.
\n – The Supreme Court indicated that since the appellate court did not establish all factual circumstances and violated procedural norms, the case requires a retrial.
\n – Importantly, the court confirmed the right of a new creditor (even an individual, if provided for by the agreement) to foreclose on the mortgaged property if the principal debt remains unpaid.
\n – The court also drew attention to the fact that the issue of renewing the deadlines for submitting a writ of execution for enforcement was not subject to consideration; therefore, dismissing the claim solely on the basis of non-execution of the court decision is premature.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 288\/3275\/23 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer 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:** The plaintiffs appealed to the court with a claim to recognize the absence of the defendant\u2019s (Olymp-Agro LLC) leasehold right to land plots, as the lease agreements were concluded without the testator’s expression of will, which was confirmed by the conclusion of a handwriting expert analysis.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a land lease agreement is a transaction that requires a mandatory written form and the signature of the parties, which is an essential requisite for confirming the expression of will. Since the forensic examination established that the signatures on behalf of the lessor were executed by another person, this casts doubt on the very fact of the agreement’s conclusion. The court noted that the appellate instance mistakenly equated the fact of receiving rent payments with the fact of concluding an agreement, failing to take into account the absence of the owner’s expression of will. The Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 456\/252\/22, where it was clearly stated that the receipt of one-time payments cannot be interpreted as the performance of conclusive actions confirming the conclusion of a lease agreement, and rejected the application of the doctrine of “estoppel” (prohibition of inconsistent behavior) in such legal relations. The appellate court failed to provide a proper assessment of the expert’s conclusion; therefore, its decision was recognized as premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot independentlyto duly establish the actual circumstances, and therefore the case requires a retrial.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 730\/779\/24-ts 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 brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the dismissal of the acting director of an experimental breeding station for absenteeism and the claim for his reinstatement.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the plaintiff was absent from his immediate workplace, but was present at the premises of the superior institution \u2014 the Institute of Bioenergy Crops and Sugar Beet of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine. The court concluded that the performance of official duties by the plaintiff (concluding contracts) at the superior institution, which manages the station’s activities, cannot be considered absenteeism. The absence of a duly executed business trip order is not a sufficient ground for dismissal, as the responsibility for improper personnel documentation cannot be placed solely on the employee. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was in a state of conflict with the management, which hindered his access to the enterprise’s documents and registration data. Ultimately, the court emphasized the importance of the principle of good faith in labor relations and the inadmissibility of abuse of the right to dismissal by the employer.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, by which the dismissal order was declared illegal, and the plaintiff was reinstated in his position.<\/p>\n

Case No. 760\/19161\/25 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the manner of parents’ participation in the upbringing of children and their place of residence, as well as the consideration of applications for securing the claim by establishing visitation schedules and prohibiting the child from traveling abroad.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the “best interests of the child” principle, which is a priority in any family disputes in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court emphasized that measures to secure a claim should not effectively resolve the dispute on the merits before the conclusion of the case proceedings, and therefore, claims for the forced return of a child to one of the parents at this stage are premature. The court acknowledged that establishing a video communication schedule is a sufficient and proportionate measure to maintain an emotional bond between children and parents living apart. At the same time, the court emphasized that both parents have the right to personal communication with the child, provided it does not harm the child’s development. Regarding the prohibition on traveling abroad, the court took into account the existing risks and the need to protect the child from non-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 379\/1166\/24 dated 06\/10\/2026 Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared from a professional standpoint: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the premature termination of enforcement proceedings due to the debtor’s alleged full compliance with the court decision on including a building 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-17843","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\/17843","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=17843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}