{"id":18205,"date":"2026-07-04T10:49:47","date_gmt":"2026-07-04T07:49:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-04-07-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-07-04T10:49:47","modified_gmt":"2026-07-04T07:49:47","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-04-07-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-04-07-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 04\/07\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 520\/9574\/18 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to invalidate a will executed by her deceased husband, on the grounds that at the time of the transaction, he did not understand the significance of his actions and could not control them.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s Arguments**
\n* The court emphasized that for a will to be declared invalid under Article 225 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, “absolute incapacity” of the person to understand their actions at the precise moment of signing the document must be proven.
\n* The Supreme Court established that the courts of lower instances committed a procedural error, as the “complex psychological and psychiatric examination” ordered by the court was not actually conducted; instead, only a single forensic psychiatric examination was performed.
\n* The Court of Appeal unreasonably refused to grant the motion for a repeat examination, even though significant discrepancies and violations of the procedure for its conduct called the objectivity of the conclusions into question.
\n* The court emphasized that an expert’s opinion does not have predetermined force and must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, which the Court of Appeal failed to do properly.
\n* The Supreme Court also noted that the Court of Appeal did not take into account the necessity of examining all circumstances of the case, including the testator’s medical history and his actual expression of will, rather than relying solely on medical certificates.
\n* At the same time, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the unauthorized composition of the court, recognizing the replacement of a judge in the panel as lawful and compliant with internal rules for the automated distribution of cases.
\n* As a result, due to procedural violations in the appointment and assessment of the examination, the decision of the Court of Appeal was deemed premature and not based on a full examination of the evidence.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 334\/6793\/17 dated 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the conviction of a defendant for intentional murder, under the condition that the appellate review took place in the absence of the accused.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal committed a substantial violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law by conducting the hearing without the accused, who had insisted on his participation. The court emphasized that the right of the accused to be present at the court hearing is a fundamental principle of fair [trial].of legal proceedings, enshrined both in national legislation and in the case law of the ECHR. The Court of Appeal should have thoroughly verified the reasons for non-appearance, in particular the information regarding the defendant\u2019s mobilization, instead of formally stating the absence of documents confirming valid reasons. Since the defense provided evidence that the defendant was undergoing a military medical commission precisely on the day of the hearing, the court of cassation instance recognized these reasons as valid. Conducting the proceedings in the absence of the person deprived them of the right to defense and the opportunity to personally defend their position, which is an unconditional ground for overturning the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal instance is obliged to create conditions for the effective participation of the parties in the proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal instance, while simultaneously imposing a preventive measure on the defendant in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.<\/p>\n

Case No. 925\/338\/24(925\/473\/25) dated 06\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Disart Plus” for the recovery of professional legal assistance expenses from the Bila Tserkva Department of the State Executive Service, incurred during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the principle that, according to the principles of commercial legal proceedings, expenses for legal assistance are subject to distribution between the parties, and in the event of termination of cassation proceedings due to an unfounded complaint \u2014 they are borne by the complainant. The Supreme Court verified the provided evidence: the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, the certificate of acceptance of services performed, and confirmation of the attorney\u2019s actual participation in the case (drafting a response and participation in the hearing). The court established that the claimed amount of 10,000 UAH is reasonable and commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed. It was also taken into account that the applicant had provided a preliminary calculation of expenses in the response to the cassation complaint in advance, as required by procedural law. The court emphasized that it does not interfere in contractual relations between an attorney and a client regarding the amount of the fee, provided it is justified and documented. Consequently, the court concluded that the claimed expenses fully comply with the criteria of reality and necessity.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the application and ordered the recovery of 10,000 hryvnias for professional legal assistance expenses from the Bila Tserkva Department of the State Executive Service in favor of LLC “Disart Plus”.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/5269\/25 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty and a fine from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for improper fulfillment of contractual obligations regarding the execution of works on gas transmission system facilities.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concludedto the conclusion that the courts of lower instances did not fully examine all the circumstances of the case that are of essential importance for the proper resolution of the dispute. In particular, the cassation instance pointed out the need for a more thorough analysis of the evidence regarding the performance of works at the specific facility UKZ No. 124, as the previous conclusions of the courts were not sufficiently substantiated. The Court noted that when considering claims for the application of penalties, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between periods of delay and take into account the specifics of contractual terms. Since the courts did not establish the factual circumstances regarding the scope and quality of the work performed at the specified facility, the Supreme Court was unable to independently render a new decision. Therefore, to establish the truth and properly apply the norms of substantive law, the case must be remanded for a new trial. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principle of completeness and comprehensiveness of judicial proceedings, as provided for by procedural legislation.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances in the part concerning the refusal to collect penalties regarding facility UKZ No. 124, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, while terminating the proceedings regarding the other part of the claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 947\/27531\/24 dated 06\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate a contract of sale for a 1\/2 share of a residential house concluded by the debtor, considering it “fraudulent” (executed for the purpose of evading the fulfillment of obligations to a creditor).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The appellate court acknowledged that the contract indeed had signs of fraudulence, as the debtor alienated the property being aware of the existence of the debt and the threat of enforcement.
\n * However, the key factor was the application of the statute of limitations, which was raised by the defendants, serving as an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
\n * The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, noting that the plaintiff (creditor) had sufficient time to learn about the alienation of the property and protect its rights.
\n * The Court emphasized that the bank had long delayed the enforcement of the court decision on debt collection, even though it had received writs of execution back in 2017.
\n * The plaintiff’s assertion that it only learned about the contract in 2023 was rejected by the court as unsubstantiated, since the creditor did not prove that it was deprived of the opportunity to obtain this information earlier.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the expiration of the statute of limitations is an indisputable ground for dismissing a claim, regardless of whether the transaction was actually intended to harm the creditor.
\n * In summary, the court of cassation indicated that the appellant’s arguments boil down to a re-evaluaof evidence, which exceeds the powers of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which had denied the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Case No. 405\/1574\/20 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of property damage from the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine caused by the failure to fulfill the obligation to recalculate monthly insurance payments to an industrial accident victim for the period from December 2010 to January 2015.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for damage to be compensated, it is necessary to establish the fact of unlawful inaction, the existence of damage, a causal link, and the fault of the defendant, whereby the amount of damage must be substantiated by proper calculations. The Court pointed out that the appellate instance had mistakenly used figures from another court case to determine the “threshold” of insurance payments, as each case must be considered on the basis of its own factual circumstances. The Supreme Court stressed that when calculating inflationary losses, it is necessary to apply a monthly indexation algorithm for the debt, rather than a general index to the total debt amount, as the appellate court had done. It was also noted that an expert’s report does not have predetermined force, yet the court is obligated to provide a reasoned rejection if it does not agree with the research results. Since the appellate court did not establish the base payment amount as of December 2010 and did not perform the correct mathematical calculation of inflation, the decision cannot be considered lawful. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore cannot independently establish these circumstances, which requires a retrial of the case.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 761\/42766\/21 dated 06\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to change the legal regime of an apartment acquired during marriage from the right of common shared ownership to common joint ownership of the spouses and to determine the shares therein, taking into account personal funds.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The court established that when concluding the apartment purchase and sale agreement in 2016, the parties consciously chose the regime of common shared ownership, determining equal shares (1\/2 each), and this agreement was not declared invalid.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that a prior ruling of the appellate court, which had already established that the disputed apartment belongs to the parties specifically under the right of common shared ownership, has prejudicial significance.and not compatible.
\n * The court noted that state registration of rights is not the ground for the emergence of ownership, but merely certifies a right already acquired; therefore, the plaintiff’s reference to the discrepancy in the registry data does not change the legal nature of the property.
\n * The courts of previous instances lawfully cancelled the notary’s registration decision, as it was proven that the application for registration was not signed by the plaintiff; however, this does not affect the status of the property itself as common shared property.
\n * Regarding the arguments concerning the non-recovery of expert examination costs, the court clarified that this issue must be resolved by filing a motion for an additional decision, rather than through a cassation appeal on the merits.
\n * The court rejected the references to the Supreme Court’s practice provided by the plaintiff, as the circumstances in those cases were different from the facts established in this case.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 331\/8343\/23 dated 06\/23\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of a person’s conviction for committing robbery under martial law (Part 4 of Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the correctness of the qualification of their actions.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation instance confirmed that during the consideration of the case, the courts of the first and appellate instances duly evaluated the evidence and established the factual circumstances of the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, but only verifies the correctness of the application of legal norms. The panel of judges found the defense’s version that the victim sustained an injury due to an accidental fall to be untenable, as it contradicts the victim’s testimony and the conduct of the convicted person. The court noted that a sudden blow to the head, which led to a loss of consciousness, is a sufficient ground for classifying the actions as robbery, as this violence was dangerous to health. It was also established that the convicted person acted with direct intent to seize property, overcoming the resistance of the victim. The appellate court, in the opinion of the cassation instance, provided exhaustive answers to all arguments of the defense; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of the first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 1-20\/10 dated 06\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of a cassation appeal against an appellate court ruling, by which the convicted person’s motion for reinstatement of the deadline for appealing the verdict was returned.<\/p>\n

In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, as the case is being considered within the framework of the transitional provisions of the current CPC. The key argument was that, according to Article 383 of the 1960 CPC, subject to cassation review areonly those court decisions that hinder further proceedings in a case are subject to appeal. The court established that the appellate court’s ruling on the return of a motion for reinstatement of a time limit is not such a decision, as it does not deny access to justice but merely indicates the procedural order for filing. Specifically, the appellate court quite lawfully explained to the convicted person that the issue of reinstating a time limit must be resolved by the court of first instance that directly heard the case. Thus, the cassation appeal was filed against a decision that, by its nature, is not subject to review in cassation proceedings. Consequently, the court concluded that there were no legal grounds to request the case materials and consider the appeal on the merits.<\/p>\n

The court ruled to deny the request to obtain the case file pursuant to the convicted person’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 927\/743\/25 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds in the amount of 2,073,943.33 UAH from “SS-Buildcompany” Limited Liability Company in favor of the Capital Construction Department of the Chernihiv Regional State Administration.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that the cassation appeal does not contain proper justification of the grounds for reviewing the case, as the applicant failed to prove the existence of an exceptional legal problem or the need to depart from established practice. Regarding the reference to Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court established that the conclusion of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant was not applied by the lower courts in a context that would require review; therefore, the proceedings in this part were subject to closure. Regarding other grounds, the court stated that the appellant’s arguments essentially amount to a reassessment of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance. The courts of first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, correctly applied the norms of substantive law, and did not commit violations of procedural law. Thus, there are no legal grounds for overturning the contested decisions, as they are lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 904\/755\/25 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of 2,125,319.76 UAH, initiated by JSC “Ukrainian Railways” against LLC “Commerce City Dnipro”.<\/p>\n

When considering this case, the Supreme Court was guided by procedural norms governing the grounds for cassation appeal. First, the court concluded that it was necessary to close the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the applicant failed to prove appropriately…the fact that the courts of lower instances failed to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations. Regarding the other ground for appeal provided for in clause 4 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the court analyzed the appellant’s arguments and did not find confirmation of violations that would constitute an unconditional ground for overturning the decisions. The court emphasized that the courts of first and appellate instances had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, providing them with a proper legal assessment. The Supreme Court did not find any errors in the application of substantive or procedural law that could have affected the legality of the adopted decisions. Thus, the cassation appeal was found to be unfounded, and the challenged judicial acts were found to comply with the requirements of the law.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the decision of the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region and the resolution of the Central Commercial Appellate Court unchanged, and the cassation appeal \u2014 unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 686\/14719\/19 dated 06\/25\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which groundlessly excluded the application of the rules for sentencing for multiple crimes and failed to provide a proper assessment of the defense’s arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court committed significant violations of criminal procedural law, as it groundlessly cancelled the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the convicted Person_8. The Court emphasized that the rules for determining the final sentence for multiple crimes apply from the moment the previous verdict is rendered, and not from the moment it enters into legal force, which fully complies with the established legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court. Furthermore, the appellate instance took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the defense’s appeals, ignoring serious arguments regarding the potential inadmissibility of evidence obtained during covert investigative actions. The Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to provide an exhaustive response to each argument of the appellant, which was not done in this case. Due to these violations, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to verify the legality of the verdict on its merits without a re-trial in the appellate court. Also, in order to ensure justice, the court chose a preventive measure for the convicted persons in the form of detention.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 904\/1190\/25 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the cassation peThe subject of the review was the legality of the appellate court\u2019s closure of proceedings initiated by the tax authority’s appeal against a ruling recognizing a debtor as bankrupt and opening liquidation proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review belongs not only to direct participants in the case, but also to persons whose rights and obligations have been adjudicated by the court. The Court noted that the opening of bankruptcy proceedings serves as a legal basis for the tax authority to conduct an unscheduled audit, and the transition to a liquidation procedure directly limits the controlling authority’s ability to collect tax debt. The appellate court mistakenly ignored the fact that the local court had involved tax officials in the hearings, thereby effectively recognizing their interest in the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that the conclusion regarding the lack of impact of the decision on the rights of the tax authority was premature, as the liquidation procedure alters the legal status of the debtor and the scope of its obligations. Therefore, the appellate court was obligated to consider the appeal on its merits rather than closing the proceedings due to the formal absence of participant status. The Court emphasized that the right to access justice and appellate review is fundamental, especially when protecting the interests of the state in the tax sphere.<\/p>\n

3. **Court\u2019s Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court\u2019s ruling to close the proceedings, and remanded the case to the appellate court for consideration of the appeal on its merits.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 910\/3425\/24 of 06\/25\/2026**<\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the first-instance court\u2019s approval of a settlement agreement between Gilden Finance LLC and individual entrepreneur O.V. Kulichenko, which the appellate court overturned due to a violation of the property rights of a third party (the respondent’s husband).<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court committed significant procedural violations while considering the appeal of a person who did not participate in the case. Although the appellate court established that the settlement agreement concerns the joint property of the spouses and violates the rights of the respondent’s husband, the court did not grant him the procedural status of a third party. Pursuant to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, if a court decision affects the rights and obligations of a person who was not involved in the case, the court is obliged to involve them as a third party not claiming independent demands. The appellate court effectively ignored this duty, limiting itself solely to overturning the ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that such an approach is a violation of the procedure for considering the appeal of a non-involved person. Due to these procedural errors, the cassation instance was unable to evaluate the arguments of the parties on the merits of the dispute.<\/p>\n

3. [The text is incomplete in the original]The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for a new trial to rectify procedural violations.<\/p>\n

Case No. 917\/503\/24(917\/1886\/25) dated 06\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the invalidation of a purchase and sale agreement for an irrigation system concluded between the debtor and a related party, and the return of this property to the liquidation estate within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that the challenged transaction was fraudulent, meaning it was committed to the detriment of creditors with the aim of stripping the debtor\u2019s assets. The key argument was that the agreement was concluded during the “suspicious period” (prior to the opening of bankruptcy proceedings) while the debtor had outstanding creditor claims. The Court established that the buyer was an interested party connected to the debtor’s management, which indicates the parties’ awareness of the enterprise’s insolvency. The Supreme Court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, such actions constitute an abuse of rights and a violation of the principle of good faith. The lower courts lawfully applied special provisions of bankruptcy legislation that allow for the mitigation of the consequences of such agreements to protect the interests of creditors. The appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider certain evidence (a write-off act) were rejected, as they were aimed at re-evaluating the circumstances of the case, which exceeds the authority of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, declaring the agreement invalid and ordering the defendant to return the property to the debtor.<\/p>\n

Case No. 464\/8125\/23 dated 06\/29\/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 breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum, accrued in connection with the delay in the repayment of repayable financial assistance, from a company in favor of an individual.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that a repayable financial assistance agreement is, by its legal nature, a loan agreement; therefore, the provisions of civil legislation regarding the obligation to repay funds and liability for delay (Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) apply to it.
\n – The Court emphasized the effect of the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction: since the agreements were actually concluded and the funds were effectively transferred, they give rise to legal civil rights and obligations.
\n – Arguments from the tax authorities regarding the “artificiality” of the lawsuit and potential abuse of rights for the purpose of tax optimization were rejected, as the tax consequences for the enterprise are not the subject of this civil dispute.
\n – The Court established that the plaintiff is not a related party tothe defendant (is neither a founder nor an employee), therefore, the claims regarding the sham nature of the transaction were not substantiated.
\n– The tax authority\u2019s arguments regarding the abuse of rights were deemed groundless, as they were based on assumptions rather than evidence, which contradicts the principles of adversarial proceedings.
\n– The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot establish circumstances that were not proven in the lower courts, and it sees no grounds to interfere with the appellate court\u2019s decision, which was rendered in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority\u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling on the recovery of funds in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

Case No. 629\/4112\/25 dated 06\/26\/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:** A lawsuit filed by an individual against a judge and a court for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, and for compensation for moral damages caused, in the plaintiff\u2019s opinion, by inaccurate information set forth by the judge in procedural documents.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that judges and courts cannot be defendants in cases challenging their actions or decisions taken during the administration of justice, as this constitutes interference in independent judicial activity. The Court highlighted the existence of “judicial immunity,” which guarantees the proper functioning of justice, and any procedural violations must be corrected exclusively within the framework of appellate or cassation appeal of a specific case. Any attempt to initiate a new lawsuit against a judge due to the content of their procedural decisions is inadmissible, as courts are not subjects of authority within the meaning of a civil lawsuit for the protection of honor. Compensation for damage caused by a court is possible only in cases directly provided for by law (in particular, Art. 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), where the defendant is the state, not a specific judge. Therefore, since the dispute is not subject to consideration under civil procedure, closing the proceedings in the case is the only lawful decision.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court on closing the proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n

Case No. 681\/765\/21 dated 06\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the court to remove obstacles in the use of land plots through their return and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, since the lease agreements were concludeddays without the expression of the owner\u2019s will (signatures were forged).<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court established that since the lessor\u2019s signatures on the lease agreements were forged, the agreements are not considered concluded, as no agreement was reached regarding the essential terms of the transaction.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that a transaction for which a written form is required by law cannot be considered executed without the party\u2019s signature; therefore, no rights and obligations under such an agreement have arisen for the parties.
\n – The court rejected the defendant’s argument regarding the plaintiffs’ bad faith conduct due to their receipt of rent, noting that these actions cannot replace the absent expression of the owner’s will to conclude an agreement.
\n – It was confirmed that in the event of contesting the very fact of a transaction\u2019s conclusion, an effective method of protection is a negatory action (removal of obstacles in the use of property).
\n – The court noted that the statute of limitations does not apply to such claims, as the violation of ownership rights is ongoing.
\n – **:** In its decision, the Supreme Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2026, in case No. 456\/252\/22, which establishes an approach for protecting the rights of an owner through a negatory action in cases where lease agreements are deemed unconcluded, and emphasizes that the mismatch of claims is not grounds for dismissal if the essence of the violation of rights is obvious.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which granted the claims for the removal of obstacles in the use of land plots and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right.<\/p>\n

Case No. 554\/7761\/20 dated 03\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is a lawsuit filed by an individual (the Chairman of the Board of PrJSC “NAC “Nadra Ukrainy”) for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, violated due to the publication on the Internet of a critical article containing accusations of corruption schemes and inefficient management of state property.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is a public figure whose activities as the head of a strategic enterprise are of significant public interest; therefore, the limits of acceptable criticism regarding him are significantly wider than for ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court emphasized that the contested information, by its content, consists of value judgments that express the author\u2019s subjective opinion and are not subject to refutation, as they cannot be verified for factual accuracy. The court noted that the free expression of views, even if they are sharp, shocking, or offensive, is a necessary condition for a democratic society, provided they do not cross the line that would require compensation for moral damages. It was also established that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact of the violation of his personal non-property rights, aas the article did not contain assertions regarding specific offenses that would require refutation. An important aspect was that the court corrected the error of the appellate instance, confirming that the claim was filed by a natural person, not a legal entity; however, this did not change the final result in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the claim and rendered a new decision, by which it completely denied the claims of PERSON_1, imposing on them the obligation to reimburse the defendants for all court costs.<\/p>\n

Case No. 873\/39\/26 (873\/40\/26) dated 06\/24\/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. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of an application to set aside an arbitration award and the simultaneous consideration of an application for the issuance of an enforcement document for the compulsory execution of the same award.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that when reviewing arbitration awards, the commercial court does not re-evaluate the legality of the award on its merits, but only checks for the existence of an exhaustive list of grounds for cancellation provided by law (in particular, regarding the competence of the court, the composition of the court, and compliance with the arbitration agreement).
\n – Regarding the arguments about the violation of the procedure for forming the composition of the court, the Supreme Court established that the order of the head of the arbitration court on the appointment of the judge was issued on time and contained all necessary details, which refutes the appellant’s position.
\n – The court noted that a party’s disagreement with the arbitration court’s refusal to grant a motion to adjourn the hearing of the case is not a legal ground for setting aside an arbitration award.
\n – It was confirmed that the dispute arose from contractual relations containing a valid arbitration clause, and the arbitration court itself acted within its competence.
\n – The Supreme Court stated that none of the grounds for refusing to issue an enforcement document, as defined by Article 355 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, were established in this case.
\n – Therefore, since the arbitration award was not set aside and all procedural requirements were met, there are no grounds to satisfy the appeal.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which denied the request to set aside the arbitration award and issued a writ for its compulsory execution.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/11984\/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 concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the lawfulness of a bank’s refusal to apply to a borrower a moratorium on the accrual and payment of fees under a loan agreement.provisions as stipulated by the “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Civil Code of Ukraine under martial law.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n – The Court established that the right to a moratorium arises only on the condition that the borrower provides complete and accurate information regarding their activities and the activities of a group of related counterparties.
\n – The plaintiff failed to fulfill their duty to disclose the full list of related parties, which made it impossible for the bank to perform the necessary calculations to verify compliance with the criteria of the law.
\n – The Court emphasized that failure to submit documents or providing incomplete information constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for the bank to refuse the application of the moratorium.
\n – In such a case, the bank is not obligated to provide detailed calculations of the group\u2019s income, as the refusal is based on the procedural bad faith of the plaintiff, rather than non-compliance with financial criteria.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by the courts of first and appellate instances.
\n – The lower courts correctly interpreted the norms of law by establishing that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of all necessary conditions for obtaining the benefit.
\n – The appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of a legal conclusion from the Supreme Court were not confirmed, as the dispute was reduced to the establishment of factual circumstances rather than an ambiguous interpretation of the law.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 916\/2492\/23 dated 06\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is the detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal of the commercial court of appeal to open proceedings based on the complaint of a person who was not involved in the bankruptcy case, due to their failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal and the lack of valid reasons for such a delay.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that even if a person was not involved in the case, they are not exempt from the duty to prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for filing an appeal. The appellate court gave the appellant an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies; however, the appellant did not provide any new substantiated grounds for extending the deadline, limiting themselves only to clarifying the date of becoming acquainted with the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of a “person not involved in the case” only protects against the application of a preclusive one-year period, but does not cancel the requirement to justify the validity of the reasons for missing the general deadline. Since the appellant failed to prove the existence of objective obstacles that prevented them from learning about the court decision in a timely manner, the court deemed the reasons for the delay to be invalid. Therefore, the appellate court lawfully applied procedural norms by refusing to open proceedings.The Supreme Court confirmed that such an approach fully complies with established judicial practice.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/5662\/23 dated 07\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of the rulings of lower courts on declaring LLC “Agroterminal” bankrupt and initiating the liquidation procedure at the initiative of creditors.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n* The court established that the debtor is in a state of supercritical insolvency, as the amount of its accounts payable (over UAH 3 billion) significantly exceeds the value of its assets.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that a commercial court has the right, on its own initiative, to proceed to the liquidation procedure if the term for the asset management procedure has expired and the signs of bankruptcy are evident.
\n* The court noted that the absence of an audit of financial statements is not a critical error, as the Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine does not mandate an audit in every case.
\n* Regarding the bank’s arguments about improper inventory, the court pointed out that the alienation of property (specifically a vehicle) was confirmed by contracts, and the absence of certain assets does not affect the general conclusion regarding insolvency.
\n* The court emphasized that the appellant did not provide evidence that would indicate the possibility of restoring the debtor’s solvency through reorganization.
\n* The Supreme Court also noted that all procedural rights of the parties were respected, and the appellate instance provided an exhaustive assessment of all the bank’s arguments; therefore, there are no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC CB “PrivatBank” and upheld the ruling of the appellate court and the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 372\/932\/24 dated 17\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision in case No. 372\/932\/24:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A prosecutor filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles in the use and disposal of water fund lands by canceling the state registration of the defendant’s ownership rights to land plots and returning them to the territorial community.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that water fund lands and coastal protection strips have a special legal regime that prohibits their transfer into private ownership for residential development. The court stressed that the absence of a land management project at the time the plots were allocated in 2001 does not imply the absence of a coastal protection strip, as its dimensions are clearly defined by law (Article 88 of the Water Code of Ukraine). The lower courts……the plaintiff was erroneously denied the claim without establishing the actual overlapping of the disputed plots with the coastal protective strip. The Supreme Court noted that special knowledge is required to resolve this issue; therefore, the court was obligated to explain to the parties their right to request a land-technical expert examination. Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not investigate these circumstances and did not evaluate all the evidence, their decisions were recognized as premature and unsubstantiated. The case was remanded for a new trial to conduct a proper examination of evidence, in particular through an expert assessment.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled 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. 363\/5885\/24 dated 06\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A bank sought to recognize a minor orphan child as having lost the right to use residential premises, which had become the bank’s property as a result of foreclosure on the mortgage collateral.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized the priority of protecting the rights of the child, in particular, taking into account her status as an orphan and the assignment of the disputed housing as her place of residence.
\n – A key factor was that the mortgaged property was not purchased with credit funds; therefore, evicting the residents without providing other permanent housing is impermissible under Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine.
\n – The bank did not provide proper evidence that the child has other housing where she has the right to reside, or that she does not use the disputed apartment as a place of permanent residence.
\n – The court stressed that any interference with the right to housing must be proportionate and must not impose an excessive burden on an individual, especially a minor child.
\n – The conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority regarding the inexpediency of eviction was recognized by the court as weighty evidence confirming the lack of grounds for satisfying the claim.
\n – The court noted that the registration of a child in mortgaged housing is not in itself an abuse of rights, provided that this housing is her only place of residence and is under state protection.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying the bank’s claims to recognize the child as having lost the right to use the housing.<\/p>\n

Case No. 760\/694\/24 dated 06\/30\/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 consideration of a mother’s application to change the previously established court-ordered method of securing the claim (a schedule of the father’s visitation with the children) to a different one, which provides exclusively for remote communicationcommunication via video link in connection with the children\u2019s departure abroad.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate and aimed at the actual enforcement of a future court decision, as well as at protecting the interests of the parties.
\n – The key priority for the court is the best interests of the children, which include maintaining an emotional bond with both parents, which cannot be fully realized solely through video communication.
\n – The appellate court established that the mother changed the children’s place of residence without the father’s consent, thereby effectively making personal contact impossible, which is an inadmissible restriction of the father’s rights.
\n – The court emphasized that the temporary travel of a child abroad should not be used as a tool to restrict the rights of the other parent to communicate.
\n – Reducing the father’s time with the children from the hours previously established to 20-minute video call sessions negates the very purpose of securing the claim \u2014 the preservation of a psycho-emotional bond.
\n – The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion, noting that replacing the securing measure with one that effectively destroys personal contact does not serve the children’s interests and does not ensure a balance of the parties’ rights.
\n – The court also pointed out that when resolving such disputes, the child’s interests in maintaining family ties must prevail over the interests of the parents, provided that the family is not dysfunctional.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which denied the mother\u2019s motion to change the method of securing the claim, thereby maintaining the father\u2019s previous schedule of personal visits with the children.<\/p>\n

Case No. 752\/25965\/23 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to refute inaccurate information disseminated in a journalistic investigation regarding his activities while serving as Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff, as a public figure who held a state office, must be prepared for a heightened level of public criticism. The Supreme Court emphasized that the threshold of permissible criticism regarding such persons is significantly wider than that for ordinary citizens. The decision highlighted the importance of distinguishing between factual assertions and value judgments, as the latter are not subject to refutation or proof of their veracity. The court qualified the disputed statements by the journalists as value judgments containing elements of criticism and stylistic devices, rather than as factual data subject to verification. The court also noted that freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, protects even information that may shock or offend. Ultimately, the court concluded that the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 520\/9574\/18 dated 06\/24\/2026 **1. Subject of the Dispute** The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim to invalidate a will executed by her deceased husband, on the grounds that at the time of the transaction, he did not understand the significance of his actions and could not control them. **2. Court’s Arguments**…<\/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-18205","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\/18205","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=18205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}