{"id":17969,"date":"2026-06-29T10:24:06","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T07:24:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-29-06-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-06-29T10:24:06","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T07:24:06","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-29-06-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/06\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-29-06-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 29\/06\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 1-24-7-5\/297-06-7817 dated 05\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the results of auctions for the sale of a bankrupt’s integral property complex and the sale and purchase agreement for this property due to violations of the conduct procedure and an improper method of protecting creditors’ rights.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that an effective method of protecting creditors’ rights in bankruptcy proceedings must be aimed at replenishing the liquidation estate, rather than merely formally invalidating the auction.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that if the property has already left the debtor’s ownership and has been alienated to third parties (in particular, the Odesa City Council), then a lawsuit to invalidate the auction without a demand for the recovery of property (vindication) is ineffective.
\n – The court of first instance committed a procedural error by groundlessly refusing to accept additions to the application in which the creditor demanded the recovery of property from the final acquirer.
\n – The courts of lower instances did not properly investigate whether the chosen method of protection (invalidating a transaction without applying restitution or vindication) is sufficient to restore the rights of creditors.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of procedural economy: the judicial process must finally resolve the dispute to avoid the need for filing new lawsuits to return the property.
\n – Since the courts did not consider the demand for the recovery of property and did not assess all circumstances in their entirety, the decisions cannot be considered lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Odesa Region for a full and comprehensive examination of all creditor claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 903\/371\/24 dated 06\/09\/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 analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of closing the proceedings in a natural person’s insolvency case due to the absence of an arbitration receiver and the passive behavior of creditors.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of natural person insolvency aims at the rehabilitation of a bona fide debtor, and not merely at satisfying the claims of creditors, therefore the procedure has a priority nature.
\n – The courts of lower instances mistakenly applied the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code regarding the “absence of a subject of the dispute,” since the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine (BPCU) contains an exhaustive list of grounds for closing a case, among which the absence of an arbitration receiver is not a ground for terminating proceedings.
\n – The inaction of creditors regarding the election of a new arbitration receiver should not become an obstacle to the realization of the debtor’s right to discharge.from debts.
\n – The Court emphasized that the commercial court has sufficient procedural tools, in particular the automated selection of an arbitration manager, to ensure the continuation of the procedure rather than closing the case.
\n – References by lower courts to the practice in case No. 5006\/27\/97b\/2012 were deemed incorrect, as there were objective circumstances in that case (loss of materials, occupation of territory) which are absent in the present case.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that closing a case without duly exhausting all procedural possibilities violates a person’s right to access justice and contradicts the purpose of bankruptcy legislation.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the Commercial Court of Volyn Region for further consideration at the stage of the debt repayment procedure.<\/p>\n

Case No. 922\/59\/22 (922\/2078\/25) dated 11\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to cancel the state registrar’s decision on the registration of the defendant’s ownership rights to land plots, believing that it violated her right to register her own share in the same property.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that state registration of rights is not the basis for the emergence of ownership rights, but merely an official certification of an already acquired right; therefore, the mere cancellation of registration entries does not resolve a dispute over ownership. Since the ownership right to the disputed plots had already been registered to the defendant, he is considered their “record owner,” and the plaintiff cannot eliminate these obstacles solely by canceling the registration. The court emphasized that in such cases, a proper and effective method of protection is a vindication claim \u2014 that is, a demand for the recovery of property from another’s illegal possession. Furthermore, it was established that previous transactions cited by the plaintiff did not create legal consequences for the current owner, who acquired the property legally through a bankruptcy procedure. The court emphasized that granting a demand for the cancellation of registration without resolving the issue of ownership would create a legal gap in the State Register. Thus, the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff was deemed ineffective, as it does not restore her legal position as an owner.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had fully dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 922\/5110\/21 (922\/4755\/23) dated 26\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Declaring invalid a gift agreement for non-residential premises concluded by the debtor, and the recovery of this property fromof unlawful possession by another party within the framework of an individual\u2019s insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n – The court established that the debtor\u2019s insolvency procedure was used in bad faith, not for the genuine restructuring of debts, but as an attempt to revisit a dispute concerning the division of marital property that had already been resolved by the court.
\n – Since the insolvency proceedings were closed due to the debtor’s established bad faith, the claim filed by the arbitration manager in execution of the restructuring plan lost its procedural basis.
\n – The court emphasized that in such disputes, the arbitration manager acts as a procedural representative of the debtor, and since the main insolvency case is closed, further consideration of this claim has become moot.
\n – The Supreme Court stressed that considering the claim outside the scope of the insolvency proceedings in this instance would not achieve the legitimate objective defined by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.
\n – In view of this, the court concluded that there is no subject matter of the dispute, which, pursuant to Clause 2, Part 1, Article 231 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, constitutes grounds for closing the proceedings.
\n – This decision was made to ensure adherence to the principle of procedural economy and to prevent contradictory judicial conclusions regarding property whose legal status has already been determined by another final and binding court decision.<\/p>\n

3. **Court\u2019s Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 903\/25\/25 (903\/659\/25) of 05\/28\/2026**<\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Below is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the invalidation of supply agreements concluded between the debtor (Volyntabak LLC) and the counterparty (DL Solution LLC), as well as the recovery of UAH 488.17 million from the latter as a consequence of the invalidity of the transactions, which the liquidator deems fraudulent (committed to the detriment of creditors).<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s Arguments**
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases under Article 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP), the key factor is not the formal existence of primary documents, but the actual property consequence of the transaction for the debtor.
\n* The court stressed that a transaction is fraudulent if it leads to the disposal of the debtor\u2019s assets without an equivalent property result, which renders the satisfaction of creditors’ claims impossible.
\n* The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court erroneously equated the existence of invoices and tax documents with the proof of the reality of the business transaction, ignoring the lack of economic expediency and the inability to identify the received goods during inventory.
\n* The court noted that the counterparty\u2019s possession of resources (warehouses, personnel) does not refute the fact of causing harm to creditors if, during the period of insolvency, the debtor transfers significant funds without receiving an actual asset.* The Supreme Court upheld the position of the court of first instance, which comprehensively evaluated the timing of the conclusion of the agreements, the existence of accounts payable, and the results of the inventory, which, in the aggregate, indicate bad faith in the actions of the parties.
\n* The court also confirmed that the application of the consequences of invalidity of legal transactions in this case constitutes a proportionate interference, as it is restitutive rather than punitive in nature and is aimed at protecting the rights of creditors.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court granted the liquidator\u2019s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court\u2019s ruling, and upheld the decision of the commercial court of first instance, by which the agreements were declared invalid, and the funds are subject to recovery into the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.<\/p>\n

Case No. 918\/174\/25 of 05\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of amending an already approved and partially executed debt restructuring plan of an individual upon the application of a creditor whose claims were recognized by the court only after the approval of said plan.<\/p>\n

**2. Court Arguments**
\nThe Supreme Court emphasized that the debt restructuring procedure for an individual is based on a compromise between the debtor and creditors, where the restructuring plan is a key document that must be approved by the creditors’ meeting and agreed upon by the debtor. The court noted that although the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures does not prohibit amending the plan, such amendments cannot be adopted in contravention of the established procedure. Since the amendments proposed by LLC “Um Factoring” were not subject to consideration at the creditors’ meeting and did not receive the debtor’s consent, they cannot be approved by the court. The court emphasized that a creditor who missed the deadlines for filing their claims has no right to unilaterally dictate terms for amending an already active plan that is currently being executed. It was also emphasized that it is important to maintain a balance of interests: the insolvency procedure should not turn into an instrument for debt evasion, but it also cannot be blocked due to the passivity of creditors. Ultimately, the court indicated that in the absence of the debtor’s consent and a decision of the creditors’ meeting, the court has no grounds for forced adjustment of the restructuring plan.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which denied the application of LLC “Um Factoring” to amend the debtor\u2019s debt restructuring plan.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/4248\/25 of 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 detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Declaration of conclusion of an agreement on the shared use of technological electrical networks between the distribution system operator (PJSC “DTEK Kyiv Grids”) and the main consumer (State Enterprise “INFORMATION_2”).<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court establnoted that the defendant is a “primary consumer” within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine “On the Electricity Market,” as their networks are used to distribute energy to a sub-consumer (Private Enterprise “INFORMATION_3”).
\n – In accordance with current legislation and the Retail Market Rules, a primary consumer is obliged to conclude a standard agreement for joint use of networks and does not have the right to refuse such conclusion to a system operator.
\n – The court emphasized that a pre-contractual dispute is subject to resolution by the court if there is a direct legislative obligation for a party to conclude an agreement, and the defendant evades doing so.
\n – The appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were rejected, as the legal relations in those cases are not similar (different subject matters of the dispute: interpretation of terms, recovery of debt, etc.).
\n – The court also noted that the absence of all data required to complete the annexes to the agreement does not exempt a party from the obligation to conclude it, as the terms may be specified by the parties later through the conclusion of supplementary agreements.
\n – Regarding procedural issues, the court emphasized that it sees no grounds for overturning the decisions due to the alleged inadmissibility of evidence or the failure to involve third parties, as these arguments were not confirmed in the case files.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the references to the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and in the remaining part, upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the mandatory nature of concluding the agreement.<\/p>\n

Case No. 440\/14429\/24 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute:**
\nThe dispute concerns the lawfulness of the military unit’s inaction regarding the non-payment of indexation of monetary provision in a fixed amount to a serviceman for the period from April 2019 to April 2021.<\/p>\n

**2. Court arguments:**
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the indexation mechanism is a state guarantee, and the right to receive “indexation-difference” arises if the amount of income increase in the month of salary increase (March 2018) was less than the amount of possible indexation.
\n* The court noted that the lower courts mistakenly qualified the plaintiff’s claims as “premature,” as the issue of accrual of indexation is not within the discretionary powers of the military unit but constitutes mandatory payments subject to judicial protection.
\n* A key error of the lower courts was their failure to establish the factual circumstances: the amount of the plaintiff’s income increase in March 2018 and the amount of possible indexation, which makes it impossible to correctly resolve the dispute.
\n* The court emphasized that for the calculation of the indexation-difference, the decisive factor is the time of the last revision of the tariff rate for the position, rather than individual changes in the income of a specific serviceman.
\n* Since the courts of previous instancesthe courts did not examine the collected evidence and did not establish the key digital indicators for the calculation, the Supreme Court is deprived of the possibility to independently make a decision on the merits.
\n* Therefore, the decision was overturned in the part concerning the refusal of the claim, and the case was sent for a new trial to conduct a proper examination of the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

**3. Court decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the part concerning the refusal of the claim, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish the factual circumstances.<\/p>\n

Case No. 380\/28883\/23 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 a tax notification-decision, by which the controlling authority reduced the amount of the negative value of the object of taxation for income tax, adopted as a result of an audit conducted during the period of the quarantine moratorium.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the order for the appointment of the audit was issued during the period of the moratorium established by paragraph 52-2 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which had higher legal force than the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 89. The court emphasized that conducting an audit in violation of the moratorium established by law is an independent ground for recognizing its results as unlawful, since such an audit cannot give rise to any legal consequences. The audit report, drawn up in violation of the procedure, was recognized by the court as inadmissible evidence, which automatically entails the cancellation of the tax notification-decision adopted on its basis. The Supreme Court confirmed that in such cases, the court is not obliged to verify the merits of the additional assessment of tax liabilities, as the procedural violation is critical. The court also applied the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality when resolving the issue of reimbursement of legal expenses, significantly reducing the amount of recovery due to inflated indicators of the time spent by attorneys.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, recognizing the tax notification-decision as unlawful and canceling it, and also partially satisfied the plaintiff’s application for reimbursement of legal expenses.<\/p>\n

Case No. 400\/4833\/23 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of tax notification-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Mykolaiv Oblast regarding LLC “Mineralis,” which the taxpayer challenged in court.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and the assessment of evidence provided by both parties during the consideration of the case in the courts of first and appellate instances. The Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts, which had already established the absence of grounds for the additional assessment of tax liabilities.The panel of judges concluded that the tax authority failed to provide proper and admissible evidence that would refute the reality of the plaintiff\u2019s business transactions or confirm violations of tax legislation. The court also took into account that the conclusions of the courts of lower instances are based on a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case. Thus, the arguments of the tax authority set forth in the cassation appeal were deemed unfounded and insufficient to refute the correctness of the previously adopted judicial acts.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n

Case No. 918\/876\/25 dated 16\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of Rivneteploenerho LLC to invalidate the decision of the gas distribution network operator regarding the additional accrual of natural gas volumes due to a detected meter malfunction.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that an emergency operating mode of the gas metering unit was recorded during the inspection, including extraneous noise and damage to the meter housing. Based on the results of an extraordinary verification, the meter was officially declared unfit for use, which is a direct violation of the requirements of the Gas Distribution Systems Code. The court noted that the readings of the gas volume corrector cannot be considered reliable if they are based on data from a faulty meter. Since the fact of the malfunction and the emergency operating mode was documented, the gas distribution system operator had legal grounds to recalculate the consumed gas. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the functionality of the corrector do not refute the fact of incorrect accounting due to the malfunction of the meter itself. Ultimately, the court indicated that it has no authority to reassess evidence that had already been duly examined by the courts of lower instances.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/1126\/25 dated 16\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the local self-government body’s decision to refuse the renewal of a land lease agreement and the compulsory recognition of an additional agreement to this contract as concluded in the tenant’s wording.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the current version of Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” grants the tenant only a preemptive right to conclude a new agreement, rather than an automatic renewal of the previous one, which requires mandatory agreement on essential terms by both parties. Since the settlement council did not adopt a decision on the renewal of the agreement, and the terms proposed by the tenant (term and rent) were not agreed upon by the lessor, the court…there are no grounds for interfering in contractual relations and recognizing the agreement as concluded. Furthermore, the court emphasized that challenging a council decision regarding the refusal to renew a contract is an ineffective method of protection, as the annulment of such a decision does not automatically create leasehold rights without the intent of the landowner. The court also noted that after the legislative amendments of 2020, the “tacit consent” mechanism for the renewal of municipal land lease agreements was significantly limited, and the procedure for exercising the right of first refusal requires active steps by the parties to conclude a new legal transaction. The court dismissed the appellant\u2019s arguments regarding violations of the law, indicating that they essentially amounted to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which the lower courts had conducted within the scope of their authority.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claim was denied in full.<\/p>\n

Case No. 752\/9138\/19 dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court judgment. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is a lawsuit filed by a former high-ranking official of the Security Service of Ukraine regarding the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, the retraction of inaccurate information disseminated in a journalistic investigation, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the Court**
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff is a public figure; therefore, the limits of acceptable criticism regarding him are significantly broader than those for an ordinary citizen, and the public interest in the activities of such persons justifies close scrutiny by the media.
\n* The court distinguished between factual statements and value judgments, noting that the latter (criticism, assumptions, satire) are not subject to retraction or proof of their truthfulness, as they represent the author’s subjective attitude.
\n* Regarding the information about the plaintiff’s relatives possessing Russian citizenship and real estate, the court found that it was not refuted by the plaintiff, and the evidence provided by the defendants (in particular, letters from the SBU and rulings of investigating judges) confirmed the validity of the disseminated information.
\n* The court indicated that the use of the terms “family” or “relatives” by journalists in a journalistic style does not require strict adherence to legal definitions, but rather serves to designate close persons in the context of public discussion.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not a “court of fact” and cannot re-evaluate evidence, and the appellate court correctly applied the norms of law, taking into account that the disseminated information concerned the activities of a state body and was of public importance.
\n* The court also drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff attempted to compel the defendants to retract information in a manner that did not correspond to the content of the disputed phrases, and also ignored the fact that the television program in which the report was disseminated had ceased airing.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, aswas refused in satisfying the claim, \u2014 unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 824\/13\/26 dated 06\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging a court ruling on securing a claim by seizing corporate rights and property of Ukrainian enterprises within the framework of an arbitration dispute regarding the performance of a share purchase agreement in a foreign company.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the stated demands, and the applicant is obliged to prove the real threat of non-enforcement of a future court decision, which was not done in this case.
\n – The court pointed out the inadmissibility of applying security measures against persons who are not parties to the arbitration proceedings without proper justification of the “piercing the corporate veil” doctrine.
\n – It was established that the applicant did not provide evidence of the defendant’s abuse of the corporate structure to avoid the fulfillment of obligations, and all arguments were based solely on assumptions.
\n – The court critically assessed the fact that the seizure was imposed on property that is not the subject of the dispute, and the value of the seized assets significantly exceeds the amount of the claim.
\n – Separately, the court drew attention to the existence of similar security already granted by the Cyprus court, which led to an inadmissible “double security” of assets.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that securing a claim should not paralyze the business activities of enterprises that are not parties to the dispute, nor should it violate the balance of interests of all participants.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the appeals, cancelled the ruling of the appellate court, and refused to satisfy the application for securing the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 670\/610\/24 dated 06\/03\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of a foster mother\u2019s dependency on a deceased serviceman for the purpose of receiving a one-time financial aid.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances approached the case formally by refusing the claim solely due to the applicant’s receipt of a pension and the existence of other children, without investigating the actual financial state of the family. The court emphasized that in separate proceedings, the court has an active role: it is obliged to independently take measures to fully clarify the circumstances, rather than simply evaluating the evidence submitted by the parties. In particular, the courts did not analyze the movement of funds in bank accounts, nor did they establish the regularity of assistance from the deceased and its share in the applicant\u2019s total budget. It was also noted that the existence of other income (a pension) does not exclude the possibility of recognizing a person as a dependent if the serviceman’s assistance was the primary source of means forexistence. Since the courts did not establish these key facts, their decisions were deemed premature and inconsistent with the requirements of procedural law.<\/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. 278\/3900\/23 of 19\/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 analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of cohabitation of a woman and a man as a single family without marriage registration for the subsequent recognition of property as common joint property and the exercise of inheritance rights.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the establishment of legal facts is possible only when it generates real legal consequences for the applicant. The Court emphasized that the mere fact of cohabitation as a single family does not grant the right to inherit in the first priority, as such persons belong only to the fourth line of heirs. Since in this case the second-priority heir (the brother of the deceased) had already accepted the inheritance, the establishment of the fact of cohabitation does not automatically grant the plaintiff the right to inheritance without challenging the actions of the heir. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that such a fact is necessary and justified for another purpose \u2014 the recognition of property acquired during cohabitation as common joint property. The courts of lower instances correctly evaluated the evidence (testimony, certificates, photos) confirming the reality of family relations. However, the Supreme Court pointed out the erroneous reasoning of the lower courts regarding inheritance rights, as they did not take into account the order of succession. Therefore, the Court upheld the decisions but significantly amended their motivational parts, excluding references to the possibility of automatic inheritance.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the motivational parts of the decisions of the lower courts while upholding the fact of cohabitation as a single family established in essence.<\/p>\n

Case No. 454\/5\/20 of 09\/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 concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the conviction of a person for intentional murder for mercenary motives (clause 6, part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the observance by the appellate court of the procedural rights of the defense during the review of the verdict.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the appeal, failing to provide a proper assessment of the defense’s arguments regarding the absence of a mercenary motive and the questionable procedure for the seizure of physical evidence. The court of appellate instance unreasonably refused the re-examination of a key witness who could have confirmed the defense’s version regarding the violation of the detention and search procedure by police officers. Such a limitation of the adversarial nature of the proceedings and the ignoring of argumentsrights of the defense is a substantial violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The court of appeal failed to fulfill its duty regarding a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, which made it impossible to render a lawful and reasoned decision. Consequently, the cassation instance concluded that the findings of the court of appeal do not meet the requirements of being well-reasoned as provided for by Article 419 of the CPC of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, while simultaneously selecting a preventive measure in the form of detention for the convicted person.<\/p>\n

Case No. 380\/3691\/25 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue of the distribution of court costs, namely the recovery of the court fee paid by the plaintiff for filing a cassation appeal after the Supreme Court rendered a decision on the merits of the dispute in favor of the taxpayer.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that when rendering the judgment on the merits of the case, the issue of the distribution of expenses for the payment of the court fee for filing a cassation appeal was not resolved, which serves as a procedural basis for rendering an additional decision. In accordance with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, the court of cassation is obliged to perform the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the review of the case. The court established that the plaintiff documented the fact of payment of the court fee in the amount of 13,877.50 UAH via the corresponding payment instruction. Since the claims of the individual entrepreneur (FOP) PERSON_1 were satisfied and the decision of the court of appeal was overturned, the expenses incurred by the plaintiff are subject to reimbursement at the expense of the budgetary allocations of the subject of authority. Thus, the court concluded that the application was well-founded and that there was a necessity to impose the duty of reimbursement of expenses on the defendant.<\/p>\n

3. The court rendered an additional judgment by which it satisfied the plaintiff’s application and recovered 13,877.50 UAH of court fee in their favor at the expense of the budgetary allocations of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Lviv Oblast.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/989\/25 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 910\/989\/25:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by a public organization to declare invalid lease agreements and reimbursement of expenses for property maintenance, concluded by it with JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia,” due to the alleged exceeding of authority by the head of the organization and the absence of a real purpose for the transactions.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the head of the organization possessed full civil capacity at the time of signing the agreements, and their authority was not limited by the charter or decisions of the governing bodies. The courts emphasized that the information in the Unified State Register regarding the head is reliable for third parties; therefore, there are no grounds for declaring the transactions invalid due to a lack of authority. Regarding the argument concerning the “double lease” of the premises, the court ascertained that the previous cooperation agreement with the university was not a lease agreementand did not provide for the transfer of property for use on a paid basis. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the conclusion of the disputed agreements violated his rights or legitimate interests. The court noted that the organization’s correspondence with the defendant indicates the plaintiff’s awareness of the terms of the agreements and their performance, which effectively confirms their approval. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s arguments boil down to a reassessment of evidence, which is beyond the scope of the cassation instance’s authority.<\/p>\n

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

**Case No. 320\/11934\/23 dated 06\/24\/2026**<\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the legality of applying financial sanctions to LLC “CASINO ‘PREMIER PALACE'” for the alleged sale of unaccounted alcoholic beverages.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts failed to clarify a key procedural point: whether the fact of non-submission of documents during the audit was properly recorded. According to the provisions of the Tax Code, in the event of a taxpayer’s refusal to provide documents, the controlling authority is obliged to draw up a corresponding act in any form, which is a mandatory procedural action. The courts did not verify whether the tax authorities performed these actions, although this is critical for proving the fact of a violation. The Supreme Court emphasized that liability under Article 20 of Law No. 265\/95-VR arises for the sale of unaccounted goods or for the failure to provide documents confirming accounting, and these facts must be properly documented. Since the courts did not examine this issue, they failed to fulfill the requirement regarding the active role of the court in administrative proceedings. Therefore, the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances were deemed premature due to an incomplete establishment of the factual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 21-32-2\/44-10-2632 dated 06\/24\/2026**<\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the lower courts to recognize additional monetary claims of a creditor against a debtor, consisting of inflationary losses and 3% per annum accrued during the period of the bankruptcy procedure.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that from the moment bankruptcy proceedings are initiated, a moratorium is imposed, which expressly prohibits the accrual of any financial sanctions, including inflationary losses and 3% per annum, on competitive claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine (BPC) is a special law that has priority over the general norms of the Civilpursuant to the Code of Ukraine regarding the accrual of sanctions during liquidation proceedings. The Court noted that upon declaring a debtor bankrupt, the accrual of any interest and economic sanctions ceases by virtue of a direct provision of the law. The appellant\u2019s arguments regarding the excessive duration of the proceedings (over 15 years) and the violation of property rights were rejected, as the law does not provide for exceptions to the accrual of such amounts even in the event of a delay in the case. The Court also pointed out that the appellant failed to prove an incorrect application of legal norms by the courts, and her arguments amounted to a disagreement with the current legislative regulation. At the same time, the Supreme Court drew attention to the systemic problem of the duration of bankruptcy proceedings, emphasizing that courts should more actively use procedural tools to prevent delays in cases, citing the practice of the ECHR.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 910\/12394\/25 dated 06\/24\/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 appellate commercial court’s refusal to open appellate proceedings due to the appellant’s failure to submit a motion to restore the deadline for appellate review.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the right to appellate review is a fundamental principle of judicial proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The Court noted that although the appellant did indeed fail to file a separate motion to restore the deadline, the appellate court committed a procedural error by failing to clearly specify in the ruling on leaving the appeal without movement the necessity to rectify this specific deficiency. In the ruling on leaving the appeal without movement, the appellate court focused only on the payment of the court fee, although it should have explained to the appellant the method for rectifying the deficiency regarding the missed deadline. The Supreme Court emphasized that a formalistic approach to procedural documents should not hinder access to justice, especially when the appellant has effectively filed the appeal within the statutory time limit (taking into account the date of receipt of the full text of the decision). Thus, the refusal to open proceedings was deemed premature and in violation of the party’s procedural rights.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance to continue proceedings from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/8484\/25 dated 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 2,192,605.31 under a supply contract between LLC “Komplekt Avtomatika” and JSC “NNEGC Energoatom”.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the case materials confirm the fact of proper performance by the plaintiff of its obligations regarding the supply of goods, which was recorded by the relevant docu-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 1-24-7-5\/297-06-7817 dated 05\/26\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the results of auctions for the sale of a bankrupt’s integral property complex and the sale and purchase agreement for this…<\/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-17969","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\/17969","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=17969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}