{"id":19292,"date":"2026-08-27T10:46:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T07:46:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-08-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-27T10:46:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T07:46:14","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-08-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-08-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 27\/08\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 908\/1634\/24(908\/2821\/25) dated 08\/13\/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:** A surety filed a lawsuit to have the suretyship declared terminated due to the creditor\u2019s failure to meet the time limits for filing claims, as stipulated by Article 559 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:** The court proceeded from the fact that since a court decision on the joint and several recovery of debt from the borrower and the surety had already been adopted and entered into legal force, a separate lawsuit on the termination of suretyship is an ineffective method of protection. The Supreme Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber, emphasized that the issue of suretyship termination should have been resolved during the consideration of the debt recovery case, and not by initiating new judicial proceedings. A surety cannot use a lawsuit for termination of suretyship as a preventive measure if the dispute over the recovery of funds has already been the subject of judicial review. The court noted that legal certainty in the relationship between the parties was achieved precisely within the framework of the previous judicial proceeding. Therefore, an attempt to challenge the validity of the suretyship through a separate lawsuit after the debt has already been recovered by the court is legally futile. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, indicating that the current practice of the Grand Chamber takes priority.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which refused to satisfy the lawsuit to declare the suretyship terminated.<\/p>\n

Case No. 914\/1437\/24 dated 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the issue of determining the proper jurisdiction for the consideration of a lawsuit filed by a tax authority to declare a supply contract concluded between business entities invalid on the grounds of its fictitiousness.<\/p>\n

In this case, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:<\/p>\n

1. The court confirmed that disputes arising in connection with the exercise of its official powers by a tax authority (in particular, regarding the control of tax benefits) are of a public-legal nature and are subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings, not commercial ones.
\n2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access justice is not absolute and cannot be used as a tool to ignore the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction established by law.
\n3. A key point was that the plaintiff (tax authority) lost the opportunity to have the case considered in an administrative court solely due to its own procedural negligence \u2014 non-payment of the court fee and missing the deadlines for appellate appeal.
\n4. The court noted that the procedural conduct of the parties cannot be a basis for violating mandatory rules on jurisdiction, since the issue of a “court established by law” is a matter of public order.
\n5. The Supreme Court rejectedrejected the appellate court\u2019s argument that ensuring access to justice takes priority over jurisdictional rules in cases where the obstacles were created by the applicant themselves.
\n6. Thus, the court concluded that the commercial court has no authority to hear a public law dispute solely because the plaintiff failed to properly exercise their rights in administrative proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the first-instance court\u2019s order to close the proceedings in the case due to it being outside the jurisdiction of commercial courts.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/9573\/25 dated 20\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court judgment. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Review of the legality of the recognition of monetary claims of a creditor (JSC “Vtormet”) in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Nikmorservice Nikolaev,” which are based on assignments of claims.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, an elevated standard of proof applies; therefore, the debtor’s recognition of claims does not exempt the creditor from the obligation to provide sufficient evidence of their origin and amount.
\n – The Court noted that in sequential assignments of claims, it is necessary to examine the entire chain of transactions to ensure the continuity of the right’s transfer and the accuracy of its scope.
\n – Regarding the second part of the claims, the lower courts made a mistake by limiting themselves to a formal reference to the debt assumption agreement, without examining its connection to the original credit obligation.
\n – The Supreme Court pointed out that the presumption of the lawfulness of a transaction (Art. 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) does not replace the creditor’s duty to prove the fact of existence and the scope of the assigned right of claim.
\n – Regarding the statute of limitations, the court confirmed the correct application of the rules on its extension and suspension during quarantine and martial law, and also took into account the interruption of the term due to the signing of reconciliation statements.
\n – At the same time, the Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding a violation of the appellate review procedure, noting that the time limit imposed on the speech did not deprive the representative of the opportunity to present their position, as they did not request additional time.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims under the agreement dated 01.07.2021, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, leaving the remaining claims unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/2949\/22 dated 11\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** A lawsuit to compel the defendant to return goods (mobile road surface slabs), which were allegedly transferred for safe custody under an agreement2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court concurred, established that the disputed slabs are owned by a foreign company (SUIFENHE XIN-RESISTANT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD), and not by the plaintiff.
\n – It was proven that the bailment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was sham, as no real actions regarding the transfer of property, payment for services, or tax reporting were carried out.
\n – The court considered evidence (customs declarations, supply contracts, international arbitration decisions) confirming that the actual owner of the property is a third party, which had previously entrusted these slabs to the defendant for safekeeping under a different agreement.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of involving the foreign company in the case as a third party, as the decision of the court of first instance directly affected its property rights.
\n – The appellant’s arguments regarding the improper authorization of the third party’s representative were dismissed, as the attorney acted within the scope of the powers granted to them, and the power of attorney complied with the requirements of the law.
\n – The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and since the appellate court correctly established the factual circumstances, there are no grounds to set aside its resolution.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the resolution of the commercial appellate court, by which the claim was denied.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 916\/3539\/25 dated 08\/18\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/139144989)<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement and the recovery of rent arrears along with penalties due to the tenant’s systematic failure to fulfill their financial obligations.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the Court**
\nThe court proceeded from the fact that, pursuant to clause “d” of part 1 of Article 141 of the Land Code of Ukraine, systematic non-payment of rent (two or more instances) constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for the termination of the right to use a land plot. The Supreme Court emphasized that a tenant is obliged to pay rent regardless of the results of their business activities. Regarding the defendant’s references to force majeure circumstances, the court noted that the provided letter from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine is of a general informational nature and does not constitute a certificate confirming the impossibility of fulfilling obligations under a specific contract. The court also pointed out that the defendant failed to prove a causal link between the state of martial law and the inability to pay rent for this particular plot. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the necessity to depart from previous legal positions, as they are consistent, comply with the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, and have not lost their relevance. Ultimately, the court concluded that the argumentsthe complainant\u2019s arguments boil down to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which does not fall within the powers of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Sezon” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

Case No. 914\/1649\/25 dated 11\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 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 recovery of debt under a supply agreement and the legality of terminating this obligation through the unilateral set-off of counterclaims arising from other legal relations.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that for the termination of an obligation through the set-off of counter-homogeneous claims, a mandatory condition is their indisputability, i.e., the absence of a dispute between the parties regarding the content, conditions of performance, and the amount of obligations. In this case, the defendant attempted to set off claims based on questionable damages arising from another contract (engineering), where the plaintiff was not even a party, and the methodology for calculating these damages was non-transparent. The court emphasized that the existence of reasoned and substantiated objections by one party regarding the set-off indicates the disputed nature of the claims, which precludes such a set-off. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide valid grounds for returning to the preparatory proceedings stage, as it had every opportunity to exercise its procedural rights earlier. The Supreme Court pointed out that the complainant’s disagreement with the assessment of evidence is not grounds for reviewing the case, as the court of cassation instance does not re-establish factual circumstances. Ultimately, the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law, having examined the evidence and given it proper assessment.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Vestnol” and upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 521\/9157\/25 dated 12\/08\/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:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the cancellation of a temporary restriction on a debtor’s right to drive vehicles due to non-payment of alimony.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural norms regarding appeal deadlines must be strictly observed to ensure legal certainty. The court found that the appellate court had groundlessly opened proceedings without properly verifying the evidence of the timeliness of the complaint’s filing. In particular, the use of a courier service, which is not an official postal operator, does not entitle one to consider the date of handing documents to the courier as the date of filing the complaint with the court. Furthermore, the receipts from such a “courier” provided by the complainant did not contain mandatory requisites, which makes them inadmissible evidenceus. The Court of Appeal should have verified the fact of the courier service’s registration in the Unified State Register of Postal Operators, which was not done. Thus, the appellate court’s conclusion regarding compliance with the time limit for filing an appeal proved to be premature and unsubstantiated. The Supreme Court emphasized that negligent attitude toward procedural requirements and the selection of unauthorized delivery entities cannot be grounds for reinstating a missed time limit.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling on the opening of appellate proceedings and the resolution of the Court of Appeal, remanding the case to the appellate instance for a re-examination of the issue regarding the opening of proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 643\/10152\/23 dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the return, by the courts of first and appellate instances, of the defendants’ counterclaim due to their alleged failure to comply with the procedural time limit for its filing.<\/p>\n

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the following arguments:
\n1. The lower courts approached the issue formally, ignoring the defendants’ arguments that the counterclaim had been sent to the court on time but had mistakenly been included in the case files of another proceeding (a complaint against the actions of an enforcement officer).
\n2. The Supreme Court emphasized that civil proceedings should be based on the principles of adversarial nature and the court’s assistance in the realization of the participants’ rights, rather than on excessive formalism that limits access to justice.
\n3. During the cassation review, it was established that the materials of the other case, which were received by the Supreme Court, indeed contained the counterclaim dated December 2024, which confirms the timeliness of the defendants’ actions.
\n4. The Court noted that if the circumstances due to which the claim was not registered in the relevant case in a timely manner were beyond the control of the party, then returning the claim on the grounds of missing the time limit is groundless.
\n5. Since the courts did not properly verify the materials of the other case and did not take into account objective evidence of the timely filing, their conclusions regarding the missing of the time limit were found to be erroneous.
\n6. As a result, the Supreme Court stated that there was a violation of procedural law, which became the basis for setting aside the previous decisions.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the Court of Appeal, remanding the case to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of opening proceedings regarding the counterclaim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 641\/4705\/19 dated 21\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject matter of the dispute is the resolution of the issue of determining the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings and transferring the case from one appellate court to another for the consideration of an appeal.<\/p>\n

2. The Court considered the submission of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, which initiated the issue of transferring the case to another appellate court. The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances that make it impossible to consider the case in the city ofwithin the jurisdiction of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, and concluded that it was necessary to change the jurisdiction. The court’s key objective in such cases is to ensure an objective, impartial, and effective consideration of the case, which complies with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation. The court took into account procedural expediency and the need to ensure the rights of the participants in the proceedings to access justice. Based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the panel of judges found the arguments regarding the change of jurisdiction to be well-founded. As a result, a decision was made to transfer the case materials to another appellate court for further consideration on the merits.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the motion and referred the criminal proceedings regarding the defendant’s appeal for consideration to the Poltava Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 914\/2276\/25 dated 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Lviv City Council to recognize as concluded an agreement on amending a land lease agreement regarding the amount of rent and other terms due to a change in the regulatory monetary valuation (RMV) of the land plot.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that a claim to recognize an additional agreement as concluded in connection with a change in the regulatory monetary valuation (RMV) is not a proper and effective method of protecting rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent in the new amount arises automatically from the moment the council’s decision on the new RMV enters into force; therefore, amending the agreement by concluding an additional agreement is not mandatory. In such a case, the landlord has the right to demand the collection of rent through the court, which is an effective mechanism for protecting the interests of the community. The court also noted that terms of the agreement that duplicate imperative norms of the law do not require court-ordered revision. Regarding other amendments to the agreement, the plaintiff failed to prove a material breach of terms by the tenant or the existence of grounds for compulsory amendment. Thus, the claim was deemed futile due to the chosen method of protection, which does not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 905\/169\/25 (905\/125\/20) dated 08\/20\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages (lost profits) and funds for the unauthorized extraction of coal by the defendant from a subsoil area granted for use to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower instances because they approached the issue of changing the amount of the claims in a formalistic manner, without taking into accountthe plaintiff’s right to clarify the period of accrual of damages during a new consideration of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that changing the quantitative indicators of a claim (the period of accrual) does not constitute a change in the subject matter or grounds of the claim; therefore, the courts should have considered the claims in full rather than limiting themselves to the previous amounts. Furthermore, the court pointed to the necessity of applying the principle of *jura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”): if a plaintiff has erred in the legal qualification (for example, labeled a claim as damages instead of an action for unjust enrichment), the court is obliged to independently determine the correct rule of law rather than deny the claim due to an “incorrect label.” Additionally, the courts of lower instances groundlessly rejected a motion for the appointment of an expert examination, which was necessary to establish the amount of economic losses. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must investigate whether the extracted coal was indeed the plaintiff’s property or if it constituted environmental damage belonging to the state. It is significant that the court did not agree with the position that the fact of the seizure of territory by armed individuals automatically relieves the defendant of liability for extracting coal from another party’s subsoil area.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the resolution of the appellate commercial court and the decision of the local commercial court and remand the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 904\/3140\/23 dated 11\/08\/2026**<\/a><\/p>\n

Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Below is a concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** A prosecutor filed a claim with the court requesting to cancel the state registration of the right to lease land plots of the water fund and to oblige the defendant to return them to the territorial community due to the illegality of the extension of the lease agreement.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances mistakenly conflated the state registration of a property right with the state registration of the lease agreement itself, which are distinct procedures. The Court emphasized that for agreements concluded before January 1, 2013, the state registration of the agreement was a mandatory condition for its entry into force, which was not complied with in this case regarding the supplementary agreement. The Court also noted that the lower courts took a formalistic approach to considering the prosecutor\u2019s application to change the subject matter of the claim, without properly investigating whether there had been a simultaneous change in the subject matter and the grounds of the claim, which is prohibited by procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts failed to assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection, taking into account new conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. As a result, due to violations of procedural law and the incorrect application of substantive law, the court decisions were deemed premature. **[Note]:** In this decision, the court directly refers to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.of the Court dated May 6, 2026, in case No. 925\/632\/19, which confirms the established practice regarding the moment of entry into force of land lease agreements signed before 2013, and differentiates between the procedures for the registration of an agreement and the registration of a real right.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 916\/926\/21 dated 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Termination of a lease agreement for a water fund land plot, cancellation of the decision on the state registration of the lease right, and termination of said right due to non-target use of the land (construction of summer houses within the coastal protection strip and a protected tract).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that lands of coastal protection strips have a special legal regime, and their dimensions are established by law (Article 88 of the Water Code of Ukraine); therefore, the absence of a separate land management project does not refute the fact of the existence of such a strip.
\n* The Court emphasized that the placement of summer houses within the coastal protection strip is directly prohibited by law, regardless of whether they are capital structures or not.
\n* It was established that the disputed plot is part of the “Dniester Plavni” (Dniester Wetlands) protected tract, which imposes additional restrictions on any economic activity.
\n* The Supreme Court pointed out the erroneous conclusions of the appellate court, which groundlessly made the legality of the land use dependent on the availability of a forensic expert’s opinion, ignoring norms of direct effect.
\n* The Court noted that the fact of state registration of ownership rights to the summer houses on this plot in itself confirms their use as real estate objects, which contradicts the target purpose of water fund lands.
\n* The panel of judges confirmed that a violation by the lessee of the regime of use of nature conservation lands is sufficient grounds for the early termination of a lease agreement through judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 751\/4427\/25 dated 08\/21\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict in criminal proceedings regarding the violation of traffic safety rules that caused grievous bodily harm or death to the victim (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation appeal of the convicted person, concluded that there were grounds for setting aside the decision of the appellate instance due to violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The court of cassation verifies whether the case proceedings were followed and whether the evidence was properly assessed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 908\/1634\/24(908\/2821\/25) dated 08\/13\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** A surety filed a lawsuit to have the suretyship declared terminated due to the creditor\u2019s failure to meet the time…<\/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-19292","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\/19292","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=19292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}