{"id":18377,"date":"2026-07-09T10:11:50","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T07:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-09-07-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-07-09T10:11:50","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T07:11:50","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-09-07-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/07\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-09-07-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 09\/07\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 569\/3036\/24 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A serviceman filed a lawsuit for the protection of business reputation and the refutation of inaccurate information set forth in a service telegram, which served as the basis for his recall from a business trip.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that effective judicial protection is possible only when a person’s rights are actually violated and the chosen method of protection complies with the law. The court established that the disputed telegram is internal service correspondence that does not create independent rights or obligations for the plaintiff, and therefore cannot be the subject of a separate lawsuit for refutation. The plaintiff’s claims are effectively aimed at interfering with the content of service documents, which is not provided for by current legislation as a method of protecting rights. The court emphasized that such documents are not decisions of a public authority subject to appeal, and in themselves are not a source of a legal dispute. The Supreme Court noted that if the plaintiff believes that his right to military service was violated due to this telegram, he must challenge the administrative decision on the recall from the business trip under the procedure of administrative proceedings, where this telegram will be assessed only as evidence. Therefore, since the stated claims for the refutation of information in service correspondence are not subject to judicial review in any type of proceedings at all, the courts of lower instances erred in considering the case on its merits instead of closing the proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and closed the proceedings in the case, as the stated claims are not subject to judicial review.<\/p>\n

Case No. 380\/6090\/21 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the personnel commission regarding his unsuccessful completion of certification, which served as the basis for his dismissal from his position, with claims for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the court**
\nThe court emphasized that although personnel commissions have discretionary powers, their decisions are not “automatically” lawful and must be properly motivated to be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court stressed that the commission is obliged not only to state doubts but to cite specific facts and evidence confirming the prosecutor’s non-compliance with the criteria of professional ethics or competence. In this case, the commission did not prove the significance of the violations thatshe incriminated the plaintiff and failed to provide a proper assessment of his explanations. The court also noted that the assessment of professional competence cannot be based solely on the results of a practical task while ignoring the previous stages of the attestation. An important aspect was the consideration of the legal position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the unconstitutionality of Clause 9 of Part 1 of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”. In conclusion, the Supreme Court confirmed that courts have the right to verify the reasonableness of commission decisions, as the lack of proper motivation violates a person’s right to judicial protection.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate instance regarding the reinstatement of the prosecutor and the recovery of average earnings, supplementing only the reasoning part of the resolution with additional legal arguments.<\/p>\n

Case No. 120\/1248\/25 of 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff’s appeal against the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances on the return of the statement of claim due to the expiration of the deadline for applying to the court with a request to cancel the state executor’s resolution on the initiation of enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of access to a court is a fundamental guarantee that should not be illusory, and courts are obliged to assess all of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline in each specific case.
\n – The courts of previous instances took a formal approach to the issue, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff had been trying to protect his rights for a long time, but due to procedural errors by the courts and the lengthy consideration of previous cases, he could not exercise his right in a timely manner.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that an overly strict interpretation of procedural norms, without taking into account the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the applicant, leads to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
\n – The court noted that it is necessary to distinguish between the passive behavior of a plaintiff and situations where a person consistently initiates protection but encounters practical obstacles that cause a delay.
\n – Since the courts of the first and appellate instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the court’s fault in delaying the process, their conclusions about the invalidity of the reasons for missing the deadline were recognized as premature.
\n – The Supreme Court indicated that the issue of compliance with deadlines should be resolved with a certain flexibility, avoiding excessive formalism that hinders access to justice.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, and sent the case to the court of first instance for furthercontinuation of consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/15431\/23 dated 07\/02\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request.<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the State Enterprise “Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise” (“Ukraerorukh”) to pay a military serviceman seconded to this enterprise the additional remuneration provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the provisions of CMU Resolution No. 168 regarding the payment of additional remuneration do not apply to military personnel seconded to state bodies, institutions, and organizations. The Supreme Court, sitting as a Judicial Chamber, has officially departed from its previous legal positions that previously allowed for such a possibility. The Court noted that the monetary provision of such persons is regulated by a separate act\u2014CMU Resolution No. 104, which does not provide for the payment of the additional remuneration established by the “wartime” Resolution No. 168. A systemic interpretation of the legislation, taking into account the preamble of Resolution No. 168, indicates that this remuneration is intended exclusively for military personnel who are directly performing combat missions as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Since there is no entitlement to receive the additional remuneration, the court also recognized as lawful the cancellation of the supplementary decision on the recovery of legal costs, as it is derivative of the main decision rendered in favor of the defendant.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, by which the plaintiff was completely denied the satisfaction of their claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 640\/5158\/19 dated 06\/30\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise legal analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A taxpayer’s challenge to the decisions of the tax authority regarding the reduction of the amount of VAT budget reimbursement and the negative value of tax due to the alleged lack of reality of business transactions with counterparties.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of primary documents is not absolute proof of the reality of a transaction if they do not reflect the actual movement of assets.
\n – The Court stressed that tax information about counterparties (lack of resources, personnel) is not in itself proof of an offense, but must be assessed in conjunction with other circumstances.
\n – A taxpayer is obliged to exercise “due diligence” when selecting a counterparty, and the risks of cooperating with unscrupulous partners lie with the taxpayer themselves.
\n – The court of appellate instance took a formal approach to the case, limiting itself only to verifying the existence of documents, without investigating the actual capacity of the counterparties.to perform deliveries.
\n – The court also pointed out the need to take into account prejudicial circumstances established in previous cases involving the same counterparties, which are relevant to the case.
\n – Due to the incompleteness of the evidence examination by the appellate court, the Supreme Court was unable to resolve the dispute on the merits independently.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the tax authority, set aside the appellate court’s resolution, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.<\/p>\n

Case No. 380\/4120\/24 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared from a professional standpoint:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from a military unit of the average monetary support for the period of delay in the final settlement upon the discharge of a serviceman.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the employer\u2019s duty to conduct a full settlement upon discharge is unconditional, and the delay in the payment of the due amounts entails liability provided for by Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
\n – The Court rejected the position of the appellate instance that the absence of a dispute at the time of discharge releases the employer from liability, emphasizing that the right to compensation arises even when the final settlement is conducted only in compliance with a court decision.
\n – The panel of judges noted that no provision of law limits the period during which a person may apply for payment of the sums due to them, which subsequently affects the right to receive average earnings for the period of delay.
\n – The Court applied a differentiated approach to the periods of delay: before July 19, 2022 (without a time limit, but taking into account the principle of proportionality) and after this date (taking into account the legislative limitation of six months).
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the court has the right to reduce the amount of compensation, guided by the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, even within the six-month period established by law.
\n – Considering that the court of first instance correctly applied these criteria and took into account the limits of the claims, the cassation instance recognized its decision as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to grant the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 240\/19671\/25 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the lawfulness of the court leaving without consideration a serviceman’s claims for the recalculation of monetary support due to his missing the three-month deadline for filing an appeal to the court.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**- The court established that, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the period for applying to a court in cases regarding the payment of sums due upon dismissal is three months from the date of receipt of a written notification regarding such sums.
\n– The Supreme Court determined that a financial certificate (hroshovyi atestat) issued upon dismissal is a proper document confirming an individual’s awareness of the accrued and paid sums; therefore, the countdown of the specified three-month period begins from the moment of its receipt.
\n– The court emphasized that the plaintiff received the financial certificate on June 21, 2024, yet applied to the court only on August 5, 2025, that is, a year after dismissal.
\n– The plaintiff’s argument that the period should be calculated from the moment of receiving a response to an attorney’s inquiry in 2025 was rejected, as such an approach would allow plaintiffs to arbitrarily manipulate the periods for applying to the court.
\n– The court noted that the three-month period is provided specifically so that an individual can take measures to obtain the necessary information and exercise their right to judicial protection.
\n– Since the plaintiff did not prove the existence of objective, insurmountable obstacles that prevented them from applying to the court in a timely manner, the court concluded that there were no valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline.
\n– Thus, the application of the consequences of missing the deadline is lawful and does not violate the right to access to justice, as it is aimed at ensuring the principle of legal certainty.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to leave the claim without consideration unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 991\/366\/22 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of an appellate appeal against a ruling of the court of first instance, by which the recognition of a writ of execution as not subject to execution was denied.<\/p>\n

2. The appellate court, when reviewing the case, was guided by the norms of civil procedural legislation governing the procedure for the enforcement of court decisions and the procedure for appealing actions related to compulsory enforcement. The panel of judges thoroughly examined the appellant’s arguments regarding the grounds for recognizing the writ of execution as not subject to execution, but did not find objective evidence indicating the termination of the obligation or other circumstances provided by law for granting such an application. The court concluded that the ruling of the court of first instance was rendered in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law, and therefore there are no grounds for its cancellation. The applicant’s arguments were found to be unfounded, as they did not refute the legality of the issuance of the enforcement document. Thus, the court confirmed the stability and legality of the previous court decision, seeing no violations that wouldresulted in the impossibility of enforcing the court decision.<\/p>\n

3. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 440\/10955\/24 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging a decision of a tax authority regarding a taxpayer’s compliance with risk criteria and an obligation to exclude the taxpayer from the relevant list.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that a decision to classify a taxpayer as risky is an individual act that must be duly motivated, rather than a formal reproduction of tax information codes.
\n – The controlling authority is obliged not just to refer to the existence of tax information, but to disclose its content, proving the connection between specific business transactions and the risks of violating legislation.
\n – The court emphasized that the mere fact of conducting transactions with a counterparty that already has risky status is not automatic proof of the riskiness of the plaintiff itself, especially if the transactions took place before the counterparty acquired such status.
\n – The tax service did not provide evidence as to why the documents submitted by the taxpayer (46 annexes) did not refute the conclusions regarding riskiness, and did not specify exactly what information was missing.
\n – The court recognized that referring to information from law enforcement agencies (ESBU) without establishing specific facts of fictitious transactions through judicial proceedings is not a sufficient basis for blocking a taxpayer’s activities.
\n – It was also confirmed that canceling a riskiness decision without an obligation to exclude the taxpayer from the list does not ensure effective protection of rights; therefore, the claim for an obligation to perform such actions is lawful.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 640\/2383\/21 dated 30\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 640\/2383\/21:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the declaration of illegality and the cancellation of tax assessment notices, by which the controlling authority reduced the plaintiff’s VAT budget reimbursement amount and the negative value of this tax due to conclusions regarding the unreality of business transactions with a number of counterparties.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the existence of formally drawn-up primary documents is insufficient for the formation of a tax credit, as they must reflect real business transactions that cause changes in the taxpayer’s property status. During the audit, it wasit was established that the plaintiff’s counterparties lacked the necessary labor resources, fixed assets, warehouse facilities, and vehicles to carry out the declared grain supply operations. The court also drew attention to the absence of evidence regarding the lawful origin of the goods, as the counterparties were not the producers of the grain, and the supply chain indicated the resale of goods, the nomenclature of which did not coincide with the other activities of these entities. The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence (in particular, data from the Register of Warehouse Documents for Grain) to confirm the availability of grain to the counterparties. The lack of a reasonable economic purpose in transactions where counterparties have no real capability to fulfill the contract deprives the taxpayer of the right to tax benefits. Thus, the court concluded that the tax authority had proven the fact of unsubstantiated documentation of transactions that did not actually take place.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Joint-Stock Company “State Food and Grain Corporation of Ukraine” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

Case No. 420\/17627\/24 dated 02\/07\/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 recognition as unlawful of the inaction of a military unit regarding the non-payment of compensation for the delay in the payment of the indexation of monetary allowance and the obligation to make such accruals for the entire period of delay.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to compensation for the loss of a portion of income arises for an individual from the moment of the actual violation of the income payment deadline, and not from the date of the entry into legal force of a court decision by which this income was awarded. The Court noted that the lower courts mistakenly limited the period of compensation accrual only to the date of the court decision’s entry into force, whereas the law requires accounting for the entire period of non-payment. It was also emphasized that compensation must be accrued inclusive of the day of the actual payment of the debt, as this specific legal fact is the determining factor for the application of Law No. 2050-III. The Supreme Court rejected the lower courts’ references to practice concerning other legal relations and confirmed that the existence of a court decision merely confirms the right to payment, but does not change the moment the right to compensation arises. Thus, the delay period must be calculated from the moment the indexation should have been paid for the first time until the day of its actual receipt by the serviceman.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision fully satisfying the serviceman’s claims.<\/p>\n

Case No. 560\/5239\/25 dated<\/strong><\/a>02\/07\/2026<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute:**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the legality of leaving a prosecutor’s claim, aimed at the cancellation of a protocol, an order, and a special subsoil use permit, without consideration due to an alleged failure to observe the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the court:**
\n* The court emphasized that the deadlines for filing a lawsuit serve as a guarantee of the stability of legal relations, and failure to observe them without valid reasons constitutes grounds for leaving a claim without consideration.
\n* The Supreme Court noted that the courts of lower instances drew premature conclusions regarding the prosecutor’s awareness of the violation, basing them solely on assumptions rather than established facts.
\n* The court stressed that the mere fact of documents being published in public registers is not automatic proof that the prosecutor became aware of the violation of state interests at that specific moment.
\n* It is essential to clarify whether the prosecutor could have identified the violation only after analyzing specific documents that were not apparent from open sources.
\n* The courts of lower instances did not provide an appropriate assessment of the criminal proceedings materials, in particular, which specific documents were requested therein and whether they contained information sufficient for filing a lawsuit.
\n* The Supreme Court indicated that to properly resolve the issue of the validity of a missed deadline, it is necessary to establish the exact moment when the prosecutor gained a real opportunity to detect the violation, rather than taking a formalistic approach to the date of document publication.
\n* Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not examine these key circumstances, the Supreme Court was unable to resolve the dispute on its merits and remanded the case for a new trial.<\/p>\n

**3. Court decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case to the court of first instance for further consideration on the merits.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 560\/4717\/25 dated 02\/07\/2026**<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging by a sole proprietor of tax notices-decisions regarding the application of penalties for violating the procedure for maintaining records of inventory stocks and failing to conduct settlement operations through a settlement operation registrar (RRO\/PRRO).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that sole proprietors who sell medical products (even within the scope of providing dental services) are required to maintain records of inventory stocks in accordance with the requirements of Law No. 265\/95-VR.
\n – The court stressed that the possession of a medical license and the specifics of dental activities do not exempt an entrepreneur from…[continued from previous text] the obligation to document the origin of goods (crowns, prostheses, etc.) and to maintain their records.
\n – The use of data from the RRO Data Accounting System (RRO DAS) by regulatory authorities is recognized as proper evidence, which may serve as an independent basis for conclusions regarding violations during a factual inspection.
\n – Regarding the penalty for failing to conduct operations, the court indicated that if a bank commission is erroneously included in the amount of discrepancies, this is not a ground for canceling the entire tax notice-decision.
\n – The court noted that in such cases, the administrative court must independently establish the amount of the commission and cancel the tax authority’s decision only in part, rather than in its entirety.
\n – Since the courts of lower instances did not establish the exact amount of the commission, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial specifically on this part to clarify the calculations.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax authority: it canceled the decisions of the lower courts and denied the claim regarding the cancellation of the penalty for the lack of inventory records, and in the part concerning the penalty for failure to conduct settlement operations, it remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 140\/12934\/24 dated 02\/07\/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 taxpayer’s challenge to decisions of the tax authority regarding the refusal to register tax invoices due to the alleged failure to provide documents confirming the reality of business transactions.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for registering tax invoices provides for a clear interaction algorithm: if the tax authority, upon receiving primary documents, sends a notification regarding the need for additional explanations, the taxpayer is obliged to respond to them. In this case, the regulatory authority sent specific requests for documents (bank statements, KB-2v and KB-3 certificates, data on labor resources), however, the plaintiff completely ignored these notifications. The court emphasized that a taxpayer does not have the right to ignore a request and then, in court, argue that the documents were irrelevant or had been submitted previously. Since the plaintiff did not exercise their right to provide additional explanations within the 5-day period, they effectively lost the opportunity to refute the tax authority’s position at the administrative appeal stage. Thus, the court concluded that the refusal to register was lawful precisely due to the procedural passivity of the taxpayer themselves.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, by which the plaintiff was denied satisfaction of the claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 560\/8374\/25 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 560\/8374\/25:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by the courts of first and appellate instances to open proceedings regarding a lawsuit filed by a military serviceman to cancel an act of an official investigation concerning the circumstances of an injury sustained during his military service.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the courts of lower instances prematurely refused to hear the case without properly examining the nature of the disputed legal relations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts mechanically applied practice pertaining to disciplinary investigations, whereas this case concerns the establishment of a legal fact of injury, which directly affects the social guarantees of the military serviceman. The Court stressed that acts of official investigations, which have different legal consequences, cannot be equated without an analysis of the specific circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court noted that courts are obliged to determine whether the contested act creates obstacles to the exercise of an individual’s rights, as the right to judicial protection is fundamental. Consequently, the courts failed to fulfill the tasks of administrative proceedings regarding the verification of the merits of the claim.<\/p>\n

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

**Case No. 200\/7238\/24 dated 02\/07\/2026**
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a private enforcement officer the decision of the Council of Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to send a request to the Ethics Committee regarding the verification of the enforcement officer’s actions.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n * The Court emphasized that in order to determine the jurisdiction of a dispute, it is necessary to proceed from the essence of the right for which protection is sought and the nature of the disputed legal relations.
\n * The Supreme Court established that the Association of Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine, while exercising its powers regarding the disciplinary procedure, acts as an entity exercising public authority management functions.
\n * Since the dispute concerns the lawfulness of a decision that directly affects the professional activity of the enforcement officer and may lead to disciplinary liability, it has a public-law character.
\n * The Court rejected the position of the lower instances that this dispute is not subject to judicial review, as the right to judicial protection is a constitutional guarantee.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that administrative proceedings are the appropriate mechanism for challenging such decisions, as they create legal consequences for the private enforcement officer.
\n * The Court also noted that it sees no grounds to depart from its own legal position set forth in the resolution dated 10of June 2026 in case No. 200\/8285\/24, which is analogous in terms of the subject matter of the dispute.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court for further consideration on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 240\/1163\/25 dated 02\/07\/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. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of a military unit\u2019s refusal to account for a serviceman\u2019s preferential length of service when calculating total seniority for the purpose of paying a one-time severance allowance upon discharge.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances did not ensure a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case. In particular, the appellate court did not verify the plaintiff\u2019s arguments regarding the existence of preferential length of service acquired during the performance of combat missions, which had been recorded in previous orders. The court of cassation instance emphasized that both calendar and preferential length of service must be taken into account to determine the right to receive the allowance (the existence of 10 years of service). The appellate court erroneously equated the concepts of “condition for acquiring the right to payment” and “procedure for calculating the amount of the allowance,” which led to premature conclusions. Furthermore, the court did not evaluate evidence regarding the plaintiff\u2019s actual seniority, relying on contradictory data from orders of different periods. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to independently establish factual circumstances, and therefore the case requires additional examination of evidence.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court\u2019s ruling and remanded the case for a new hearing to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 240\/21892\/25 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court\u2019s return of a statement of claim without consideration due to a serviceman\u2019s failure to comply with the three-month time limit for applying to the court regarding claims for the recalculation of financial provision.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that since July 19, 2022, the three-month time limit for applying to the court, as provided for by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, has applied to labor disputes, in particular, regarding payments upon discharge. The Court emphasized that this time limit begins to run not from the moment of receiving monthly payments, but from the day when a person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of their right, which is confirmed by the receipt of written notification of the accrued amounts (for example, a financial certificate). The courts of lower instances erroneously equated the fact of receiving financial provision with the moment when the plaintiff objectively learned about the incorrectthe procedure for its calculation. The Supreme Court noted that the courts failed to examine the issue of whether the plaintiff had been properly informed of the calculations upon dismissal, which is critically important for determining the commencement of the limitation period. Consequently, the conclusion regarding the expiration of the limitation period was premature, as the courts had not established the date on which the plaintiff received the document reflecting the actual amounts accrued. Thus, a violation of procedural law led to an unlawful restriction of access to justice.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the proceedings on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/603\/25 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Below is a concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of her qualification assessment within the framework of the competition for the position of an appellate court judge, demanding the reversal of the point deduction under the integrity and professional ethics criteria.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n* The Court emphasized that qualification assessment falls under the discretionary powers of the HQCJ, and the court does not have the authority to substitute the internal conviction of the Commission members with its own assessment.
\n* It was established that the plaintiff systematically violated the deadlines for entering decisions into the Unified Register of Court Decisions (28% of cases), which indicates insufficient efficiency in work organization; furthermore, the Court rejected references to martial law, as the violations had also occurred in previous years.
\n* Regarding errors in declarations (failure to disclose assets and corporate rights), the Court noted that even in the absence of intent, such actions demonstrate a low level of legal discipline and lack of integrity.
\n* The Court indicated that the completeness and accuracy of information in integrity declarations do not depend on a judge\u2019s subjective assessment of the legal consequences of events; therefore, repeated errors constitute grounds for a reduction of points.
\n* The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the “insufficient motivation” of the HQCJ decision were rejected, as the Commission detailed the factual circumstances and legal grounds for the point reduction.
\n* The Court also stressed that comparing assessment results with other candidates is inappropriate, as the procedure provides for an individual approach to each applicant.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the claims of [NAME REDACTED], finding the decision of the HQCJ lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

Case No. 480\/6919\/24 dated 02\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 480\/6919\/24:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual and payment of monetary support to a serviceman for the period of temporarytemporary performance of duties in a higher position in the military unit where he was serving at that time.<\/p>\n

2. The lower courts erroneously denied the claim, holding that the plaintiff had addressed an improper defendant because, at the time of discharge from service, he was on the staff of another military unit. The Supreme Court emphasized that the standing of a defendant is determined by the substantive legal relationship, and not solely by the fact of the last place of service upon discharge. The Court noted that the dispute concerns payments for a period during which the plaintiff was actually serving and receiving support from the defendant specifically, rather than payments directly related to the discharge. The courts of first and appellate instances failed to determine the legal nature of the disputed payments and did not fulfill the procedural duty to verify the standing of the defendant. Instead of resolving the issue of joining the proper defendant or a co-defendant in accordance with Article 48 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, the courts groundlessly denied the claim. Thus, the courts violated procedural law, which rendered it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

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

**Case No. 120\/11858\/25 of 02\/07\/2026**
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of applying provisional measures in the form of suspending the decision of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (HQDCB) to hold an attorney disciplinarily liable (suspension of the right to practice law).<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of provisional measures cannot be used to effectively resolve the dispute on the merits before the completion of judicial proceedings. The Court noted that suspending the effect of a disciplinary body\u2019s decision to impose a penalty, which has a limited duration, effectively substitutes for a final court judgment. The panel of judges stressed that negative consequences for an attorney\u2019s professional activity or reputation, which inevitably arise from the application of a disciplinary penalty, are not in themselves sufficient grounds for taking provisional measures. The Court indicated that the assessment of the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty to the committed misconduct must be carried out exclusively during the consideration of the case on its merits, and not at the stage of deciding on provisional measures. It was also noted that the lower courts did not prove the existence of an obvious danger of harm that would be irreversible without taking such measures. Ultimately, the Supreme Court stated that the courts of first and appellate instances violated procedural law by failing to take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the inadmissibility of sub-substitution of a court decision with interim measures.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (VKDKA), cancelled the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new decision denying the motion for interim measures.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/61557\/24 dated 02\/07\/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:** Challenging by a taxpayer of tax notices-decisions by which the controlling authority additionally assessed corporate income tax, personal income tax (PIT), and military levy due to the alleged unreality of business operations and the classification of written-off goods as an “additional benefit” for the executive.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court established that the plaintiff provided proper primary documents confirming the reality of the business operations, and the tax authority did not refute this evidence nor prove the absence of asset movement.
\n – Regarding corporate income tax, the court emphasized that services from non-resident counterparties were used to provide similar services to residents of Ukraine, which is confirmed by contracts, certificates of completion, and tax invoices.
\n – Regarding the “additional benefit,” the court noted that for this provision to apply, the income must be personalized, i.e., linked to a specific natural person, which the tax authority failed to prove.
\n – The write-off of goods that were not used in business activities was properly reflected in accounting and tax reporting, which excludes grounds for charging PIT and military levy.
\n – The court emphasized that the tax authority did not prove bad faith on the part of the taxpayer or the inaccuracy of the documents provided by them.
\n – The tax authority’s reference to previous Supreme Court practice was recognized as groundless, as those decisions were made under different factual circumstances of the case.
\n – The court confirmed that the burden of proving the lawfulness of tax assessments lies with the controlling authority, which failed to fulfill it properly in this case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had satisfied the taxpayer’s claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 826\/6388\/17 dated 02\/07\/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. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a serviceman of the State Guard of Ukraine from military service due to professional incompetence.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that the dismissal order and the findings of the attestation commission are interrelated elements of a single legal composition; therefore, the court has the right and is obligated to verify the lawfulness of the attestation evenin the absence of a separate claim for its cancellation. The court established that the certification procedure was conducted with significant violations: the plaintiff was notified of the commission meeting only on the day it was held, no preliminary interview was conducted, and the dismissal itself took place on the day the certification results were formalized. Furthermore, the grounds for dismissal (disciplinary sanctions) had previously been overturned by the court, which automatically nullified the validity of the certification commission’s conclusion. The court also emphasized that the internal procedure for challenging certification is not a mandatory pre-trial procedure that would restrict a person’s right to judicial protection. Ultimately, the defendant failed to prove the lawfulness of the conclusion regarding the plaintiff\u2019s “low moral and professional qualities,” as these arguments were based on circumstances that had already been recognized by the court as unlawful in other cases.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the illegality of the plaintiff’s dismissal and obliging the State Security Administration (UDO) to reinstate him in service and pay his monetary compensation.<\/p>\n

Case No. 380\/13688\/22 dated 07\/02\/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. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the refusal of the courts to open proceedings on an application for the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, where the applicant attempted to use a new legal position of the Supreme Court as a ground for such a review.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that the list of grounds for review based on newly discovered circumstances, as defined by Article 361 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, is exhaustive and is not subject to broad interpretation.
\n – The key argument was the distinction between “newly discovered circumstances” and a “new legal position”: a change in a legal conclusion by the Supreme Court in another case is not a legal fact that existed at the time the decision was rendered, and therefore cannot be a ground for review.
\n – The court stressed that the institution of review based on newly discovered circumstances is aimed at establishing the truth through facts that were not known previously, rather than correcting errors in the application of the law.
\n – The applicant effectively attempted to initiate a review due to disagreement with the previous interpretation of substantive law norms, which is impermissible within the framework of this procedural mechanism.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts lawfully refused to open proceedings, as the application was clearly inadmissible by its legal nature.
\n – The court also referred to established practice, according to which a review based on newly discovered circumstances is not a method for rectifying judicial errors, for which the procedures of appellate and cassation appeals exist.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 569\/3036\/24 dated 06\/30\/2026 Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** A serviceman filed a lawsuit for the protection of business reputation and the refutation of inaccurate information set forth in a service telegram, which served as the basis for his recall from a…<\/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-18377","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\/18377","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=18377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}