{"id":18087,"date":"2026-07-02T10:27:11","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T07:27:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-02-07-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-07-02T10:27:11","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T07:27:11","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-02-07-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-02-07-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 02\/07\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 991\/1566\/22 dated 06\/23\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your work:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a group of persons of attempted misappropriation of funds of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” (Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and abuse of office (Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) during the procurement of software.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court established that within a single proceeding, there were two parallel accusations: one supported by the victim (under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code \u2014 embezzlement), and the other by the prosecutor (under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code \u2014 abuse of office).
\n * Regarding the accusation under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court concluded that there were no signs of “gratuitousness” in the misappropriation of property, since a contract was concluded between Vites LLC and JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”, under which the customer received a hardware and software complex that has market value.
\n * The court emphasized that abuse of office, which is not accompanied by embezzlement (gratuitous removal of property), but leads to obtaining other benefits, must be qualified under Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and not under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
\n * Since the victim\u2019s representative did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of embezzlement of funds, the court acquitted the defendants under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the lack of evidence of a criminal offense.
\n * At the same time, the court approved plea agreements under Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, recognizing them as being in the interests of society, in particular due to the defendants’ obligation to transfer significant funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
\n * The court also took into account the voluntary nature of the conclusion of the agreements and the absence of violations of the rights of third parties, deeming the agreed-upon punishment with a probationary period to be fair.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The court acquitted the defendants under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, approved the plea agreements under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposed the agreed-upon punishment with a probationary period, and ordered the transfer of bail funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Case No. 991\/2538\/25 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a professional analysis of the provided court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of assets (a car and four real estate properties) as unfounded and their compulsory forfeiture to the state due to the discrepancy between their value and the official’s legal income.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the defendant (an official) and his family members actually controlled the assets formally registered to third parties, which is confirmed by their systematic use, payment for utility services, and management of the property through the defendant’s wife. The court critically assessed the defendants’ version regarding their possession of significant savings received by inheritance aor from relatives, as these statements were not supported by proper evidence (contracts, bank statements, documents on the origin of funds). The court rejected the expert opinion provided by the defense, stating it was based solely on an arithmetic calculation of income without considering the family’s actual living expenses. The court also drew attention to the illogical nature of the scheme involving the transfer of an expensive vehicle to third parties and the lack of evidence regarding the financial capacity of the nominal owners. Ultimately, the court concluded that the value of the assets significantly exceeds the proven lawful income, and their acquisition took place on behalf of or under the control of the official.<\/p>\n

3. The court partially granted the claim, recognizing the assets as unjustified and ordering their forfeiture to the state, but denied the demand for joint and several recovery, as current legislation does not provide for joint and several liability in civil forfeiture cases.<\/p>\n

Case No. 367\/8026\/16-ts dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the Bucha City Council transferring a land plot into private ownership and the prosecutor’s demand for its recovery in favor of the state due to its status as forest fund land.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the issue of the legal status of lands in the city of Bucha had already been subject to consideration in another case (No. 367\/4187\/14-ts), where the absence of 1st category forest lands on the disputed territory was established. The Supreme Court emphasized that since the prosecutor chose a vindication claim (recovery of property), the demand to cancel the council’s decision is an ineffective means of protection; therefore, the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions was amended in this respect. Regarding the merits of the dispute, the court recognized that since the disputed plot does not belong to the forest fund, there are no grounds for its recovery by the state. The prosecutor’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were rejected, as the factual circumstances of this case are different. The court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined within the framework of prejudicial decisions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions regarding the method of protecting the right, but upheld their decisions to deny the recovery of the land plot.<\/p>\n

Case No. 131\/526\/24 dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the legal facts of cohabitation as a single family without registration of marriage and dependency on the deceasedof the military serviceman for the purpose of exercising rights to inheritance and receiving social benefits.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that civil proceedings are based on the principles of adversarial nature and disposition, where the plaintiff independently determines the composition of the defendants. The Court established that since the deceased left minor children, they are automatically considered to have accepted the inheritance and are therefore mandatory participants in the case. Because the plaintiff did not involve these children in the case as co-defendants, there was a violation of the subjective composition of the parties to the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that filing a lawsuit against an improper defendant (in this case, only the mother of the deceased) is an independent and sufficient ground for denying the claims. At the same time, the cassation instance noted that the appellate court erroneously focused on the analysis of evidence on the merits (the fact of cohabitation), instead of first assessing the procedural correctness of the composition of the parties. Thus, the decision to deny the lawsuit was upheld; however, the reasoning part of the appellate court’s resolution was amended by the Supreme Court on the grounds of procedural violations regarding the subjective composition.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s resolution but upholding the decision to deny the claims due to an improper subjective composition of the defendants.<\/p>\n

Case No. 183\/12045\/24 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute in this case is the correctness of the qualification of a person’s actions under Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized dissemination of information about the movement, transfer, or placement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) and the compliance of the imposed sentence with the requirements of criminal law.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the need for a clear distinction between the objective aspect of the crimes provided for in Articles 114-1 and 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, taking into account the factual circumstances of the act committed. The panel of judges concluded that the defendant’s actions did not contain all the qualifying characteristics provided for in Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code, as the nature of the disseminated information and the method of its distribution corresponded more to the disposition of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations). Considering the degree of severity of the committed offense, the personality of the offender, and mitigating circumstances, the court deemed it possible to apply the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This means that the court chose a path for the correction of the person without actual service of the sentence in places of deprivation of liberty, by establishing a probationary period. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principle of individualization of punishment and its proportionality to the social danger of the committed act.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense’s cassation appeal, reclassifiedreclassified the convict’s actions to a less severe article and released him from serving the sentence on probation.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/7256\/25 dated 06\/18\/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 of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** “Sota Ukraine” Limited Liability Company filed a lawsuit against the Antimonopoly Committee (AMC) to invalidate and cancel the points of the AMC decision, by which the plaintiff was found guilty of committing anti-competitive concerted actions that led to the distortion of bidding results.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court established that during participation in five procurement procedures, the plaintiff and another bidder did not act as competitors, but as concerted entities, which is confirmed by a number of pieces of evidence.
\n * Key evidence included: the use of a single IP address for submitting tender proposals and managing bank accounts, the use of a common telephone number, and the involvement of the same employee for the registration and service of both companies.
\n * The court also drew attention to the presence of identical printing defects and similar errors in the formatting of documents, which indicates that the tender proposals were prepared by the same equipment or by the same person.
\n * Regarding the plaintiff’s arguments about the excessive duration of the case consideration, the court noted that the legislation in force at the time of the emergence of the legal relations did not establish strict deadlines for the duration of the investigation, and the delay was not unreasonable.
\n * The court emphasized that the transfer of the case between the territorial branches of the AMC was carried out within the discretionary powers of the authority and does not violate the requirements of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the courts of lower instances provided a proper assessment of all circumstances, proving the elements of the offense.
\n * As a result, the court concluded that the challenged AMC decision is lawful, well-founded, and adopted within the scope of its authority.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 910\/2010\/19 (910\/10635\/24) 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 detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s demand to invalidate the results of an auction for the sale of a claim right due to the alleged lack of authority of the creditors’ committee that approved the terms of this sale.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that the lawsuit was groundless, based on the fact that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the lack of authority of the creditors’ representatives. Specifically, the courts established that the representative of “Nufarm Ukraine” LLC had a valid power of attorney, and the tech\u2014Technical clerical errors in the minutes of previous meetings did not affect the lawfulness of the decisions, as the terms of sale were approved by a separate set of minutes. Regarding the representative of BASF T.O.V. LLC, the court confirmed his authority on the basis of a warrant that complied with the requirements of the law. Furthermore, the court emphasized the principle of good faith: since the creditor did not object to the representation of its interests by the attorney for a long period of time, this indicates the approval of such actions. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove how the contested violations prevented the sale of the property at the highest price. Ultimately, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant’s arguments essentially boil down to the need for a reassessment of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 921\/236\/20 dated 06\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of an agreement on the assignment of rights of claim under loan agreements and a commission agreement concluded during the liquidation of a bank.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n * The court emphasized that for an appellate appeal by a person who did not participate in the case, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly resolves the issue of their rights, interests, or obligations.
\n * The Supreme Court, referring to its practice (in particular, the position of the Grand Chamber dated 03\/04\/2026), distinguished between the concepts of “resolving the issue of a person\u2019s rights” and “indirect interest.”
\n * The court noted that merely having findings in the reasoning part of a decision regarding a person’s actions does not constitute grounds for recognizing the decision as having been made regarding their rights, if there is no direct adjudication regarding that person in the operative part.
\n * The appellate court erred by involving the Fund and PERSON_1 in the case without proper justification of how exactly the first-instance court’s decision directly affected their rights.
\n * The court emphasized that the potential impact of the outcome of a dispute on future legal relations (e.g., recourse claims) is not synonymous with resolving the issue of a person’s rights within the meaning of procedural law.
\n * Consequently, the appellate court should have first verified the appellants’ right to appeal, rather than reviewing the case on the merits without proper procedural verification.
\n * The court in this case explicitly refers to the fact that it takes into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the criteria for determining a decision as one made regarding the rights and obligations of a person who did not participate in the case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and the rulings on the involvement of third parties, remanding the case for a new trial to theto the appellate court for the proper procedural resolution of the issue regarding the appellants’ right to appellate review.<\/p>\n

Case No. 459\/1751\/24 dated 16\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling to stay the proceedings in a case involving an individual charged with committing criminal offenses related to forgery of documents.<\/p>\n

2. When considering this case, the Supreme Court was guided primarily by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which define the list of court decisions subject to cassation appeal. The Court proceeded from the premise that an appellate court\u2019s ruling to stay appellate proceedings does not fall under the category of decisions that impede further criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Since such a decision does not conclude the consideration of the case on its merits and does not deprive a person of access to justice, it cannot be the subject of a separate cassation review. The legislator has clearly limited the scope of rulings that may be appealed to the court of cassation instance to avoid the abuse of procedural rights and the delay of case proceedings. Therefore, the cassation appeal was filed against a decision that, by its nature, is not subject to appeal separately from the judgment. This procedural limitation is aimed at ensuring the promptness of criminal proceedings and preventing the dissipation of procedural efforts on interlocutory decisions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings initiated by the acquitted person due to the impossibility of appealing the ruling on staying the appellate proceedings in the cassation procedure.<\/p>\n

Case No. 214\/7912\/18 dated 16\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the court of first instance’s judgment and the appellate court\u2019s ruling regarding the qualification of the actions of a convicted person who committed murder and caused grievous bodily harm during a conflict which, according to the defense, occurred under the conditions of necessary defense.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had erroneously qualified the convicted person’s actions as intentional murder and intentional grievous bodily harm, failing to take into account the presence of a state of necessary defense. The Court emphasized that a sudden attack by two persons at night, the blocking of an exit, and physical violence created a real threat to the convicted person, which gave him the legal right to self-defense. In this regard, the Court noted that the presence of intent to cause harm to an attacker does not exclude the state of necessary defense, as the primary motive is precisely the prevention of a dangerous encroachment. At the same time, the Supreme Court recognized that the use of a knife against unarmed attackers was clearly disproportionate to the circumstances, which indicates an exceeding of the limits of necessary defense. Since a significant amount of time has passed since the commission of the crime, andthe reclassified crimes are classified as minor, which served as grounds for the release of the convicted person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, reclassified the actions of the convicted person under Articles 118 and 124 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exceeding the limits of necessary defense), and released him from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Case No. 166\/1168\/25 dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A father filed a lawsuit with the court to determine the place of residence of his minor son with him and to establish the fact of independent upbringing and maintenance of the child in order to obtain grounds for discharge from military service.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that to satisfy a lawsuit on determining the place of residence of a child, it is necessary to prove the existence of a real dispute between the parents, which was not established in this case. The child’s mother did not express objections regarding the son living with his father, and her departure abroad was motivated by the need to earn money for the child’s treatment, which is not evidence of her self-removal from parental responsibilities. The court was also critical of the conclusion of the guardianship authority, as it did not take into account the opinion of the 10-year-old child and did not investigate the situation regarding the other child in the family. Regarding the demand to establish the fact of independent upbringing, the court emphasized that such facts are established only in cases where the mother’s rights are limited or terminated by law (e.g., deprivation of parental rights). Since the mother had not been deprived of parental rights and had not abandoned the child, there were no grounds for satisfying the lawsuit. The Supreme Court emphasized that filing a lawsuit is appropriate only when the plaintiff’s rights are actually violated, and in this situation, the plaintiff attempted to use the judicial process to obtain formal confirmation of circumstances that do not bear the signs of a legal dispute.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the satisfaction of the lawsuit unchanged, and the cassation appeal \u2014 unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 927\/573\/25 dated 06\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 927\/573\/25:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the court to compel the return of a plot of communal land, claiming that the lease agreement was concluded in violation of competitive procedures (without land auctions) and is void.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances took a formal approach to the consideration of the case, focusing only on the issue of the chosen method of protection instead of resolving the dispute on its merits.
\n * The Supreme Court[The Court] emphasized that if a party considers a transaction null and void, it is not obliged to file a separate lawsuit for its invalidation, but may immediately demand the return of property, justifying this by the nullity of the transaction.
\n* The Court stressed that the courts were required to provide a legal assessment of the 2012 lease agreement, taking into account the legislation in force specifically at the time of its conclusion, and to determine whether it was null and void or voidable.
\n* A significant conclusion is that the courts did not investigate the circumstances regarding whether this land allocation was primary (for the establishment of a farming enterprise) or additional (for the expansion of an already existing enterprise), which fundamentally changes the legal qualification.
\n* The Supreme Court noted that courts do not have the right to dismiss a lawsuit solely due to a formal mismatch in the method of protection if the plaintiff\u2019s intent to protect their property rights is clear and justified.
\n* Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not establish all the factual circumstances necessary for the proper qualification of the agreement, the cassation court cannot render a decision on its own.
\n* Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial for a full and comprehensive examination of evidence and to provide it with a proper assessment.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Chernihiv Oblast.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 922\/3108\/24 dated 06\/17\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/137690278)
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided resolution of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of decisions made by an extraordinary general meeting of a garage cooperative regarding the revocation of reorganization and a change in leadership, as well as the cancellation of the corresponding registration actions in the Unified State Register (USR).<\/p>\n

2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
\n* The Court established that the notice of the meeting was brought to the attention of the cooperative members in the manner provided for by the charter (via a notice board), and the former head of the cooperative was aware of the time and place of its holding.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the lack of a quorum and the illegitimacy of the composition of the meeting participants lies with the plaintiffs; however, they did not provide proper evidence to support their assertions.
\n* The court of appellate instance reasonably proceeded from the fact that the evidence available in the case file confirms that those participating in the meeting were indeed members of the cooperative, rather than third parties, as the plaintiffs claimed.
\n* The Supreme Court noted that the court of appellate instance lawfully lifted the interim measures (securing the claim), as the adoption of a decision to fully dismiss the lawsuit serves as an independent ground for their cancellation as having lost their procedural purpose.
\n* Regarding the allocation of legal aid expenses, the court recognized as lawful the partial satisfaction of claims for their [reimbursement]compensation, guided by the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case.
\n* The Court also emphasized that the issuance of a separate ruling is a right, and not an obligation of the court, and the absence of grounds for its issuance in this case is a lawful position.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the plaintiffs and the cooperative, and left the challenged resolution, ruling, and additional resolution of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 183\/12045\/24 dated 16\/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 of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of the legality of the appellate court\u2019s judgment, which revoked the exemption from serving a sentence for a person convicted of disseminating information about the location of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (TCC and SP) in a Telegram community.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court of cassation confirmed that the dissemination of information about the locations of mobilization activities by employees of the TCC and SP effectively constitutes obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
\n – The Supreme Court clarified that the TCC and SP are structural units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; therefore, actions aimed at disrupting their work fall under the signs of a crime against the foundations of national security.
\n – Regarding procedural violations complained of by the defense, the Court noted that the preparation of draft decisions prior to entering the deliberation room does not constitute a violation of the law, and a clerical error in the prosecutor’s surname does not affect the legality of the judgment.
\n – The Court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the bias of the appellate court, having established that the communication was appropriate and that the motion to recuse the judge was considered in compliance with the procedure.
\n – The Court concluded that the actions of the convicted person, which were previously qualified under Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (dissemination of information about the location of the Armed Forces of Ukraine), are subject to reclassification under Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine), since the essence of the act consisted precisely in creating obstacles to mobilization activities.
\n – Taking into account the positive character references of the individual, the absence of a criminal record, and active assistance in solving the crime, the Court deemed it possible to again apply an exemption from serving a sentence with probation to the convicted person.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, reclassified the actions of the convicted person under Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment with an exemption from serving the sentence with a probation period of 3 years.<\/p>\n

Case No. 640\/3355\/19 dated 19\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the compensation for property damage caused to the owner of an apartment as a result of flooding, against the defendant \u2014 the Housing Construction Cooperative (HCC) as the bof the building\u2019s balance holder and a private individual.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of lower instances failed to take into account the presumption of fault of the tortfeasor, established in civil legislation, according to which it is the defendant who must prove the absence of their fault. The Court of Appeal took a formal approach to the evaluation of evidence, in particular, ignoring the expert examination findings, which indicated probable causes of the flooding related to improper maintenance of the building and structural defects. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance failed to provide a properly reasoned assessment of the plaintiff\u2019s arguments regarding the inaction of the Housing and Construction Cooperative (HCC) as the balance holder. It was also noted that the courts failed to comply with the requirements of procedural law regarding the completeness of the investigation of the case circumstances and the justification for rejecting the parties’ arguments. Since the decision on the merits of the claims against the HCC was overturned, this automatically entailed the cancellation of the additional decisions on the distribution of litigation costs, which are derivative of the main decision.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s resolution and the additional decisions regarding the claims against the HCC “Petrivskyi”, and remand the case for a new trial to the appellate court, leaving the decision unchanged in the remaining part.<\/p>\n

Case No. 132\/1925\/23 dated 06\/16\/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 review of the legality of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding the commission of a fatal road traffic accident and the abandonment of a victim in danger.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court significantly violated the requirements of criminal procedural law, which served as the basis for overturning its decision. A key argument was the groundless rejection by the appellate court of the defense\u2019s motion to examine a new expert report, which could have significantly influenced the determination of the person’s guilt. The Court emphasized that in traffic accident cases, the right of the defense to refute prosecution evidence through alternative expert studies is a fundamental element of the adversarial nature of the process. Furthermore, the appellate court took a formal approach to reviewing the appeal, failing to provide a proper assessment of the defense attorney\u2019s arguments regarding the civil lawsuit and the circumstances of the driver being in a state of intoxication. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate instance is obliged to provide reasoned responses to all arguments of the parties, rather than simply duplicating the conclusions of the court of first instance. As a result, due to the lack of proper verification of evidence and arguments, the appellate decision was recognized as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial at the appellate instance, while selecting a preventive measure in the form of detention for the accused.Case No. 990\/324\/25 of 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is an analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to deny a candidate admission to participate in the selection process for the position of a judge due to the failure to submit the mandatory diploma supplement for a higher legal education degree.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the submission of a complete package of documents, as defined by Article 72 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” is a mandatory requirement, and a diploma supplement is an integral part of an educational document. The plaintiff did not prove with proper evidence the fact of technical failures in the electronic system that allegedly prevented her from uploading the document, and the court found the screenshots from messengers provided by her to be subjective and insufficient. The court emphasized the principle of due diligence, according to which a candidate is obliged to independently verify the completeness and correctness of the submitted documents before the deadline expires. The High Qualification Commission of Judges, for its part, provided evidence (data audit) confirming the absence of the uploaded supplement in the system. The court also noted that residing in a border region does not exempt one from fulfilling procedural duties unless a direct causal link between the security situation and the impossibility of submitting documents is proven. Ultimately, the court emphasized that it did not take any procedural actions to request the technical logs of the system, effectively agreeing with the sufficiency of the available evidence.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the claims of Person 1 in full.<\/p>\n

Case No. 210\/1381\/15-\u0446 of 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the foreclosure on mortgaged property (an apartment) to repay debt under a loan agreement, as well as the issue of the legality of issuing a duplicate writ of execution.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that a creditor’s filing of a lawsuit for early repayment of funds changes the terms of the loan agreement, and after the expiration of the loan term, the right to accrue interest and penalties ceases.
\n – The lower courts failed to take into account that the bank had previously applied to an arbitration court regarding the collection of the debt, which effectively changed the term for the performance of the principal obligation.
\n – The debt calculation submitted by the bank included the accrual of interest and penalties for the period after the expiration of the loan term, which is a violation of substantive law.
\n – The court noted that since the decision on the merits of the dispute was overturned, the issue of issuing a duplicate writ of execution is also subject to cancellation, as it is derived from the main decision.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not establish the exact amount of the valid obligation, iis subject to recovery, which makes it impossible to correctly resolve the dispute.
\n – The court also pointed out the need for strict adherence to the adversarial principle and the examination of all evidence, which was not done properly in the lower courts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned all previous decisions in the case, and remanded it for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 911\/3711\/20 dated 03\/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:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to remove obstacles to the use of their land plot by canceling orders and registration records regarding the defendant’s land plot, which partially overlaps with the plaintiff’s plot.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that the choice of the method for protecting rights to immovable property must be effective and correspond to the nature of the violated right.
\n * In the case of overlapping land plot boundaries, when the ownership right to the defendant’s plot is already registered, the appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim (recovery of a part of the plot from another’s illegal possession).
\n * The plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protection by attempting to cancel acts of state authorities and registration records instead of demanding the recovery of a specific portion of the land.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying claims for the cancellation of orders or registrations will not restore the plaintiff’s right of possession; therefore, such claims are ineffective.
\n * The court noted that choosing an inappropriate method of protection is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case.
\n * Regarding the arguments about the violation of procedural rights (the duration of the hearing), the court found them groundless, as the duration of the consideration is not regulated.
\n * Since the lower courts reached the correct result (dismissal of the claim) but with a slightly different reasoning base, the Supreme Court left the operative parts of the decisions unchanged, modifying only their reasoning parts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning parts of the decisions of the lower courts, but left unchanged their operative parts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 638\/2559\/19 dated 22\/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 for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to declare a mortgage agreement partially invalid and to cancel the state registration of the ownership right to immovable property, citing violations during the conclusion of the agreement and the illegality of subsequent registration actions.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court established that the plaintiff did not[… ]violation of their rights or legitimate interests, which is a key ground for dismissal of the claim.
\n* Regarding the procedural aspect, the court concluded that the plaintiff had been duly notified of the court hearings, as summonses were sent to his official registered address, and their return marked “addressee absent” is deemed equivalent to proper service.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff had abused his procedural rights by repeatedly delaying the proceedings, which had been ongoing since 2019.
\n* The court highlighted that it is the plaintiff\u2019s duty to exercise their rights in good faith and facilitate the establishment of the truth, rather than artificially creating conditions to have the claim left without consideration.
\n* The panel of judges noted that considering the case on its merits in the absence of the plaintiff was lawful, as his non-appearance did not hinder the resolution of the dispute, and the defendant did not object to such a hearing.
\n* The court further clarified that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding leaving a claim without consideration due to the plaintiff\u2019s non-appearance should not be used as a tool to avoid an unfavorable court decision after the case has been comprehensively examined.
\n* In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that the courts of lower instances had correctly applied the provisions of law, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of procedural order are groundless.<\/p>\n

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

**Case No. 308\/17670\/23 dated 06\/24\/2026**<\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a summary of the case for your material:<\/p>\n

**Subject of the dispute:**
\nDivision of debt obligations between former spouses (a loan from an individual and a bank loan) that arose during the marriage.<\/p>\n

**Court\u2019s arguments:**
\n1. The court applied the presumption of community of property and obligations of spouses, established by Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine, according to which everything acquired during the marriage is considered joint, unless proven otherwise.
\n2. A key factor was the court’s establishment of a direct link between the receipt of a loan in the amount of 35,000 USD and the purchase of real estate, as these events occurred on the same day, and the property itself had already been recognized as joint and divided previously.
\n3. Regarding the bank loan, the court noted that the defendant did not provide evidence that the funds were spent by the plaintiff exclusively for personal needs rather than for family purposes.
\n4. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the actual cessation of marital relations at the time the debts arose, as the existence of conflicts or separate living does not constitute automatic proof of the cessation of maintaining a common household.
\n5. The burden of proving the personal nature of the debts rested with the defendant, who failed to refute the presumption of the joint nature of the obligations with sufficient evidence.
\n6. The court emphasized that it is impossible to simultaneously claim 1\/share of the acquired property and object to the division of the debt, on account of which this property was acquired.<\/p>\n

**Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the debt obligations were recognized as joint and divided equally between the former spouses.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 160\/28977\/25 dated 06\/24\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/137708641)
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a summary of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Appealing a tax notification-decision by which the controlling authority reduced the amount of VAT budget reimbursement and imposed penalties due to the alleged unreality of the plaintiff’s business operations with a number of counterparties.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n * The court confirmed that receiving a tax benefit requires a combination of factors: the reality of operations, the presence of primary documents, and a business purpose.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of individual liability: a bona fide taxpayer should not be held responsible for violations of tax discipline by their counterparties if the actual movement of assets took place.
\n * The courts of lower instances examined in detail the contracts, work performance certificates, bill of lading\/consignment notes, and other documents provided by the plaintiff, which confirm the reality of the business operations.
\n * The controlling authority did not provide convincing evidence that would refute the actual execution of the operations, but merely referred to tax information regarding the counterparties, which in itself is not evidence of unreality.
\n * The court noted that the tax authority’s references to other Supreme Court rulings are unfounded, as those decisions were based on different factual circumstances, whereas in this case, the reality of business activity was proven.
\n * The burden of proving the legality of the appealed decision in administrative proceedings lies with the subject of authority, and in this case, the tax authority did not fulfill this duty.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim was satisfied.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 912\/630\/25 dated 06\/16\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/137725091)
\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 commercial court closing the proceedings in a natural person insolvency case due to the absence of filed creditor claims within the established deadline.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the natural person insolvency procedure aims at the rehabilitation of the debtor, not just the satisfaction of creditors’ claims; therefore, the court is obliged to ensure a balance of interests of all parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that closing proceedings during a preliminary hearing without proper cnotifying creditors of the consequences of failure to submit claims is premature. The court of first instance failed to follow the algorithm of actions provided for by the practice of the Supreme Court, in particular, it did not order the arbitration manager to additionally notify creditors of the consequences of their passivity. It was also established that the case file does not contain incontrovertible evidence of timely notification of the bank regarding the initiation of proceedings, which violated the creditor’s right to participate in the case. Therefore, the appellate court lawfully overturned the ruling on the termination of proceedings, as it was issued without an assessment of the debtor’s good faith and without compliance with procedural guarantees for creditors.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which remanded the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 908\/450\/25 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from a real estate owner in favor of the city council for the actual use of a land plot without a concluded lease agreement.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the owner of immovable property is obliged to formalize the right of use for the land plot on which it is located and to make the corresponding payment. Since the defendant used the land without an agreement and did not pay rent, they unjustifiably retained funds that should have been deposited into the local budget. Regarding the prosecutor’s participation, the court confirmed that the city council showed passivity by failing to take measures to recover the funds within a reasonable time, which gave the prosecutor the right to represent the interests of the state. The court also took into account that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 12\/03\/2025 regarding the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office has a deferred effect until 2027, and therefore does not affect the current resolution of the case. The appellant’s arguments regarding inconsistency with the conclusions of the Supreme Court were recognized as declarative and insufficient to refute the legality of the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 240\/34791\/23 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute:**
\nThe dispute concerns the lawfulness of the tax authority’s imposition of penalties for the late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices during periods of quarantine restrictions and martial law.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s arguments:**
\n* The court emphasized that the offense of late registration of an invoice is a continuing one, and the duration of the delay affects only the amount of the fine, not the very fact of the qualificatof the violation.<\/p>\n

* The Supreme Court noted that taxpayers were exempted from liability for the late registration of tax invoices during the period of the “COVID” moratorium (from March 1, 2020, to May 26, 2022).
\n* However, after Law No. 2260-IX entered into force (on May 27, 2022), the moratorium on the application of penalties was effectively lifted, which restored liability for taxpayers.
\n* The Court drew attention to the need to consider the transition period until July 15, 2022, established for the registration of tax invoices prepared in February\u2013May 2022, which should also apply to tax invoices prepared earlier but not registered due to the moratorium.
\n* A key issue was that the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper assessment of all instances of violations, in particular for 2019 and the beginning of 2020, and did not verify the correctness of the penalty calculations.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that courts cannot go beyond the scope of the claims, but they are obligated to examine the evidence fully and comprehensively, which was not done in this case.
\n* Due to the procedural inability to independently establish the circumstances and recalculate penalties, the cassation court was forced to set aside the previous decisions.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the tax authority, 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 for a full clarification of the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/5447\/25 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recognition as unlawful the actions of the distribution system operator and the commercial metering administrator regarding the allocation of volumes of consumed electricity to the “supplier of last resort” after the expiration of the time limit for its supply, and the obligation to correct this data in the market management system.<\/p>\n

2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Court established that after the repeal of Ministry of Energy Order No. 148, the imperative provisions of the Law “On the Electricity Market,” which limit the electricity supply term by the “supplier of last resort” to 90 days, were in effect.
\n – The principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* was applied: the special provisions of the Retail Electricity Market Rules (PRREE) regarding the activities of the “supplier of last resort” take precedence over general rules for changing the supplier; therefore, a notification of termination of supply sent by letter constitutes proper performance of the duty.
\n – The Court recognized that since the distribution system operator did not fulfill the duty to disconnect the power supply to consumers after the expiration of the 90-day period, the volumes of energy consumed by them should be attributed to the technological losses of the operator itself.
\n – The method of protection chosen by the plaintiff was recognized as effective, as it is aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty and directly correctingdata in the market management system (MMS platform), which is impossible to perform within other court proceedings for debt collection.
\n – The court rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding the necessity of using exclusively the “Datahub” platform, noting that during the disputed period, the functionality of this platform for such processes was not fully integrated.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of “certified data” is not absolute and is subject to rebuttal in court if it does not correspond to the actual circumstances and provisions of the law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, by which the claims of SE “Ukrinterenergo” were satisfied in full.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/33952\/23 dated 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of the order of the State Tax Service of Ukraine on the dismissal of a civil servant from office for a breach of the Oath due to allegedly improper supervision of the activities of a subordinate unit and failure to conduct briefings.<\/p>\n

In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the defendant did not prove the presence of the constituent elements of a disciplinary offense in the plaintiff’s actions that would correspond in severity and consequences to the criteria of a breach of the Oath. In particular, the court established that the assertions regarding the lack of video surveillance at the excise warehouse were not confirmed by proper evidence, and the very fact of the issuance of a license by the tax authority earlier testified to the object’s compliance with the established requirements. Regarding the failure to conduct briefings, the court found that they were actually conducted, and the absence of signatures in the logbook is merely a technical deficiency in documentation, not a systemic violation. The court emphasized that dismissal for a breach of the Oath is an exceptional measure applied only for actions that undermine the authority of the civil service, which was not established in this case. Therefore, the defendant failed to justify the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction applied to the gravity of the committed act. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the arguments of the tax service amount to an attempt to re-evaluate the factual circumstances established by the lower courts, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, recognizing the plaintiff’s dismissal as unlawful.<\/p>\n

Case No. 567\/1222\/22 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit by landowners for the return of land and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, carried out on the basis of agreements that the plaintiffs did not sign.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requisite of a written legal transaction, and its absence or execution by another person indicates that the agreement was not concludedestablished. The Court emphasized that a transaction for which a party has not expressed its will does not create any rights or obligations, as it is considered non-concluded. An important aspect was that the receipt of rent by the owners cannot automatically be considered “approval” of the agreement if they did not know from whom the funds were being received and believed them to be payment for previous legal relations. The Court rejected the appeal’s arguments regarding the application of the doctrine of “estoppel” (prohibition of contradictory conduct), as there were no grounds for its application in this case. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the appellate instance failed to properly evaluate the evidence and erroneously equated the actual transfer of funds with reaching an agreement on the essential terms of the contract. The Court departed from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of interpreting the receipt of rent as conclusive actions confirming the conclusion of an agreement, citing a new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim was satisfied.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 752\/13642\/18 dated 06\/25\/2026**<\/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 is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation of a woman and a man as a family without registration of marriage, recognition of an apartment as common joint property, and the division of this property between the former spouses (after the husband’s death).<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the principle that in order to recognize property as the common joint property of persons living together without marriage registration, it is necessary to prove the fact of cohabitation, maintaining a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations. In this case, the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence, in particular, certificates of actual residence, information from medical records, data on joint expenses, and testimony of witnesses who confirmed the reality of the family relationship during the period the real estate was acquired. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the property was purchased exclusively with the personal funds of the deceased, since the presumption of common property of spouses was not refuted by proper evidence. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that its commencement does not start from the moment of marriage dissolution, but from the moment a dispute arises between the parties, which in this case occurred only after the husband’s death. The courts of the previous instances correctly evaluated the evidence in its entirety, without violating substantive or procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the factual circumstances established by the courts.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership right.ownership of 1\/2 of the apartment \u2014 unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 564\/2604\/25 dated 06\/25\/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:** Resolution of the issue regarding the issuance of a restraining order against a former spouse in connection with his commission of domestic violence (psychological and physical).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The court established that a restraining order is not a punishment, but a preventive measure to ensure the safety of the victim; therefore, it is applied based on a risk assessment rather than solely on the existence of a court conviction.
\n * The fact of violence was confirmed by the totality of evidence: an excerpt from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations regarding criminal proceedings under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as video and audio recordings of threats and obscene language from the respondent.
\n * The court emphasized that the systematic nature of the violence was proven, and previous reports to the police indicate the ineffectiveness of other methods of influencing the abuser.
\n * Regarding the procedural violations cited by the respondent, the court noted that his interests in the court of first instance were represented by an attorney, therefore the right to defense was not violated.
\n * The court also rejected arguments regarding the need to stay the proceedings due to the respondent’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as no proper evidence was provided that would make the participation of his representative in the case impossible.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the exclusive competence of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court sees no grounds for re-evaluating the established facts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts regarding the issuance of the restraining order unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 580\/10183\/24 dated 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the military unit’s refusal to pay the serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 hryvnias for the period of direct participation in combat operations.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the case, limiting themselves only to checking the presence of territories in the list of combat zones approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court emphasized that an administrative court should not be a passive observer, but is obliged to independently take measures to ascertain the truth, in particular, by requesting evidence if a party is objectively deprived of access to it due to a secrecy classification. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the case file already contained excerpts from orders including the plaintiff in the composition of forces participating in combat operations, as well as combat logs, which the courts left without cproper legal assessment. The key to resolving the case is establishing the actual nature of the tasks performed by the serviceman, rather than merely relying on a formal connection to geographical orders. Thus, the courts failed to establish the factual circumstances that are decisive for the case, thereby violating procedural law norms.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 440\/9471\/25 of 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is an analysis of this court decision, prepared for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the proper jurisdiction for hearing a claim by natural persons against a local self-government body for the recovery of average earnings for forced absenteeism.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the key criterion for distinguishing jurisdictions is not merely the participation of a local self-government body in the case, but the nature of the disputed legal relations. The Court emphasized that administrative courts hear only those disputes where an authority acts as a subject of administrative powers, exercising its management functions. In this case, the plaintiffs were effectively seeking to recover funds for work performed (a felled birch tree), which, by its nature, pertains to labor or civil-law relations. Since the dispute does not concern the challenging of management decisions or actions of an authority, it does not have a public-law character. The Court also rejected the appellants’ argument regarding the impossibility of hearing a claim against a city council under civil procedure, confirming that local self-government bodies are legal entities and can be defendants in civil cases. Thus, the lower courts correctly refused to open proceedings in an administrative court, directing the plaintiffs to a civil court.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to refuse the opening of administrative proceedings unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 924\/463\/24 of 06\/24\/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 for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a contractor, in favor of a customer, of the cost of energy resources that were consumed during the execution of construction works but were not properly accounted for and reimbursed by the defendant.<\/p>\n

2. The Court proceeded from the fact that contractual obligations directly imposed on the contractor the duty to ensure the accounting and timely reimbursement of the cost of energy resources at current tariffs. Since the defendant did not provide any evidence of the fulfillment of this duty or alternative calculations of consumption, the courts found the plaintiff’s position to be justified. An important aspect was the issue of territorterritorial jurisdiction: the court confirmed the plaintiff’s right to choose the venue for the case proceedings based on the place of contract performance, referring to the relevant provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the cassation instance is not a “court of fact” and does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence already examined by the courts of lower instances. Since the appellant failed to prove a violation of legal norms and merely attempted to seek a review of the evidence assessment, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions. The Court also emphasized the need to adhere to the principle of legal certainty, noting that cassation review cannot be an instrument for a re-trial of the case on its merits.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the ground concerning the absence of a Supreme Court conclusion (as such a conclusion had already been formulated during the consideration of the case) and upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances, dismissing the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 0540\/9345\/18-a dated 06\/23\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging by the taxpayer (PJSC “Illich Iron and Steel Works”) of the tax notices-decisions of the controlling authority regarding the reduction of the negative value of the object of corporate income tax, additional accrual of tax liabilities, and reduction of the VAT budget refund amount.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Court confirmed that the reality of business transactions, which must be supported by appropriate primary documents reflecting the actual movement of assets, is key to the formation of tax credit and expenses.
\n – During the new trial, the courts of lower instances examined in detail the documents regarding each counterparty and established that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence (contracts, invoices, certificates, etc.) confirming the reality of the transactions and their use in production activities.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that tax information (STS databases) and the existence of criminal proceedings against counterparties are merely informative in nature and do not constitute independent proof of the unreality of transactions without documentary confirmation.
\n – The Court noted that the controlling authority failed to prove the bad faith of the taxpayer or the lack of due diligence in selecting counterparties.
\n – Regarding the portion of the claims that had already been subject to consideration and reached a final decision in previous instances, the Court pointed out the inadmissibility of re-examining already resolved issues, which served as the basis for overturning the lower court decisions in that part.
\n – The Court also emphasized that evidence obtained within the framework of pre-trial investigations (interrogation protocols) cannot form the basis of a decision without their direct examination by the court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, overturned the dec[isions of the lower courts in part…]decisions of lower courts regarding the re-examination of already resolved issues, and upheld the court decisions in all other respects.<\/p>\n

Case No. 766\/10654\/21 of 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of non-pecuniary (moral) damages from the State Budget of Ukraine caused to an individual as a result of prolonged unlawful criminal prosecution (over 10 years).<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court established that the right to compensation for damages arises on the basis of a special law, since the criminal proceedings were closed due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in the person’s actions.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the period of being under investigation and trial covers the entire time from the moment of detention (April 28, 2010) to the date of the decision to close the proceedings (January 04, 2021), which totaled 128 months.
\n – The court rejected the arguments of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) that the period of being under investigation stopped after the case was returned for further investigation in 2015, noting that the status of a person as being under investigation is maintained until the final procedural closure of the case.
\n – The amount of damages was determined taking into account the minimum wage in effect at the time of the case consideration (UAH 8,000) multiplied by the number of months under investigation (128), which is the minimum amount of satisfaction guaranteed by the state.
\n – The court emphasized that the determined amount of UAH 1,024,000 is fair compensation for mental suffering, disruption of normal life ties, and the need to exert additional efforts to restore one’s reputation.
\n – The cassation appeal was found to be unfounded, as the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law and did not violate procedural requirements, and the applicant’s arguments amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the facts established by the courts.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which awarded UAH 1,024,000 in moral damages to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Case No. 920\/1347\/24 of 06\/03\/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. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use and disposal of real estate (a smokestack) by terminating the, in the plaintiff’s opinion, unlawful use of it by other persons, as well as the recovery of monetary funds.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts mistakenly equated the existence of shares in the right of ownership among co-owners with the possession of specific objects in kind. The court emphasized that the right of common shared ownership extends to the entire property as a single whole, and not to its individual parts, until the procedure of separation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 991\/1566\/22 dated 06\/23\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your work: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a group of persons of attempted misappropriation of…<\/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-18087","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\/18087","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=18087"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18087\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}