{"id":19308,"date":"2026-08-28T10:19:45","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T07:19:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-28-08-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-28T10:19:45","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T07:19:45","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-28-08-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-28-08-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 28\/08\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 636\/5079\/21 dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed legal analysis of the provided court decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaring a real estate gift agreement, concluded between the debtor (guarantor) and his daughter, invalid as a transaction executed to the detriment of a creditor (fraudulent transaction).<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court established that the gift agreement was concluded by the debtor at the stage of compulsory enforcement of a court decision on the collection of a significant debt, which indicates the bad faith of the defendant’s actions.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that for the qualification of a transaction as fraudulent (executed to the detriment of a creditor), it does not matter whether the property was actually transferred, as the main purpose of such actions is to prevent the recovery of the debtor’s assets.
\n – The court noted that private law instruments cannot be used to evade the fulfillment of monetary obligations, and the actions of a debtor who alienates their only property to a close relative constitute an abuse of rights.
\n – The Supreme Court departed from its own previous position, set forth in the resolution dated July 03, 2019 (case No. 369\/11268\/16), clarifying that a plaintiff who is not a party to the transaction has the right to challenge it precisely on the basis of the general principles of civil legislation (Art. 3 and Art. 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) as fraudulent, without the mandatory requirement to prove the fictitious nature of the transaction under Art. 234 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
\n – The court emphasized that the qualification of a transaction as fictitious is erroneous if the property was actually transferred; therefore, the courts of lower instances committed a legal error by combining the features of fictitiousness and fraudulence.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that a creditor has the right to independently choose the method of protecting their rights (collecting debt from the guarantor or foreclosure on the mortgage), and the absence of foreclosure on mortgaged property does not justify the debtor’s bad-faith actions regarding other property.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, excluding from them references to the fictitiousness of the transaction and upholding the conclusion regarding the invalidity of the agreement as fraudulent.<\/p>\n

Case No. 307\/3365\/18 dated 12\/08\/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 matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a negatory action with the court, demanding that a neighbor be compelled to demolish a greenhouse and an outbuilding built without authorization, which are partially located on his land plot, and to cease obstructing the installation of a boundary fence.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized,that the right of land ownership is presumed to be lawful until it is cancelled in the manner prescribed by law, and the mere fact of forgery of a document (state act) does not automatically annul the right of ownership without a corresponding court decision. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance committed an error by basing its decision on a ruling to close criminal proceedings, which appeared only after the decision was rendered by the court of first instance and was not a subject of examination during the initial consideration of the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court had no right to draw conclusions regarding the illegality of the plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership rights, as the relevant decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of land had not been declared invalid. The court also noted that the owner of a land plot has the right to demand the removal of obstacles to its use by way of demolition of unauthorized construction, regardless of whether the right of ownership to these structures is registered to the defendant. Finally, the Supreme Court stated that the appellate court did not review the case properly within the scope of the arguments of the appeal and the circumstances that existed at the time the decision was rendered by the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 757\/42353\/24-ts dated 08\/12\/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 legality of the lower courts leaving without consideration an application for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance due to missing the five-day deadline for its submission.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of first and appellate instances took a formalistic approach to the issue of calculating the procedural time limit, without taking into account the objective impossibility for the party to submit evidence on time. A key argument was that the court of first instance failed to timely fulfill its duty to send a copy of the decision and publish it in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Since the plaintiff and her representative were not present at the hearing and received a copy of the decision only after a significant interval of time, their right to reimbursement of expenses cannot be restricted due to the court’s own inaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural time limit for submitting evidence of expenses is not a preclusive one and is subject to restoration if the party has proven the validity of the reasons for missing it. Courts are obliged to evaluate circumstances in their entirety, and not just the formal date of the decision, which differed from the date of actual access to the text of the document.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellatecourt, having remanded the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the consideration of the application for the adoption of an additional decision.<\/p>\n

Case No. 201\/13014\/23 of 08\/12\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of three minor children between a father and a mother who live separately and are not married.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s arguments**
\nThe court emphasized that when resolving such cases, the priority is exclusively the “best interests of the child,” which prevail over the interests of the parents. The Court of Appeal established that for a long time, the father concealed the children’s whereabouts, did not provide evidence of proper living conditions for them, and systematically obstructed the children’s communication with their mother. The court critically evaluated the psychological reports provided by the father, as they were based on remote communication conducted under the father’s control, which made an objective assessment of the children’s condition impossible. It was also taken into account that the father failed to ensure the children’s presence to communicate with the court, which indicates a lack of proper control and manipulative behavior. Conversely, the mother demonstrated a readiness to provide the children with a stable environment, access to education, and medical care. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the Court of Appeal, noting that the father’s actions to isolate the children from their mother violate their right to harmonious development and communication with both parents.<\/p>\n

**3. Court ruling**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the Court of Appeal, which determined the place of residence of the children with the mother, and resumed the execution of this decision.<\/p>\n

Case No. 216\/3237\/24 of 08\/12\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence for two minor children (a son and a daughter) separately with each of the parents, who live in different countries and have a conflicted relationship.<\/p>\n

2. **Main arguments of the court:**
\nThe court of cassation emphasized that when resolving disputes over the place of residence of children, the priority is to ensure their best interests, rather than the interests of the parents. The court highlighted that separating siblings is highly undesirable and is possible only under exceptional circumstances, which must be thoroughly justified. The Court of Appeal committed a procedural error as it did not evaluate the parties’ arguments regarding the necessity for the children to reside together and did not analyze the consequences of their separation for the children’s psycho-emotional state. The court also pointed to the necessity of resolving the issue regarding the admissibility of evidence obtainedthe plaintiff by accessing the wife’s personal information, as this issue was a key argument in the appeal but remained unanswered. The appellate court was obligated to provide a reasoned response to every significant argument of the parties, which was not done. As a result, the appellate decision was deemed premature, as the court had not properly examined the issue of maintaining family ties between the children.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 501\/4276\/25 dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of a tax authority\u2019s refusal of a bank’s disclosure of information constituting bank secrecy regarding a taxpayer who, in the opinion of the tax authority, is absent from their tax address.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that the tax authority had not proven the existence of legal grounds for the disclosure of bank secrecy, as it had not taken all necessary measures to conduct an inspection. In particular, it was established that the tax authority had not sent the taxpayer a copy of the order to conduct a documentary unscheduled inspection, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Article 42 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that a report on the impossibility of conducting an inspection, drawn up as a result of only one visit to the address, is not sufficient evidence of the taxpayer’s absence. It was also noted that an inquiry to the police to establish the taxpayer’s location without receiving a response does not confirm the fact that the inspection could not be conducted. The Supreme Court emphasized that the disclosure of bank secrecy is an exceptional measure, which is possible only when the tax authority has substantiated the impossibility of exercising its powers by other means. Therefore, since the tax authority failed to follow the procedure for notifying the taxpayer about the inspection, there are no grounds for the compulsory disclosure of banking information.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to deny the application unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/37161\/24-ts dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of the bank’s unilateral legal acts regarding the termination of business relations and the closing of client accounts in connection with the establishment of an unacceptably high level of risk within the framework of financial monitoring.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a bank, as a primary entity of financial monitororing, has the right to refuse business relations with a client when establishing an unacceptably high risk; however, this right is not unlimited and requires justification. The Court noted that the appellate instance reached premature conclusions because it failed to examine a key fact: whether the closing of the accounts was a consequence of a unilateral legal transaction by the bank or the result of an application for account closure submitted by the plaintiff herself. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a violated right of the plaintiff is an independent ground for dismissal of the claim; therefore, the court needed to establish whether the plaintiff’s rights were actually violated by the bank’s actions, rather than by her own volition. The court also pointed out the necessity of verifying whether the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (declaring a legal transaction invalid) is effective under the specific circumstances of the case. The appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the bank’s arguments regarding the fact that the actual termination of relations occurred based on the client’s application, rather than the contested notices. Consequently, due to the procedural incompleteness of the examination of the circumstances of the case, the decision of the appellate court was recognized as having been adopted in violation of procedural law.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 940\/2042\/25 dated 08\/21\/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:** Establishing the fact of the dependency of an adult sister on a deceased serviceman for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary assistance payment.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court proceeded from the premise that, in order to be recognized as a dependent in the context of payments for the death of a serviceman, a person must meet the criteria of incapacity for work as defined by the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service and Certain Other Persons.”
\n – The applicant is an adult, but she did not provide evidence of her incapacity for work (for example, disability or other grounds provided by law), which is a mandatory condition for obtaining the status of a dependent.
\n – The court established that the assistance from her brother was periodic in nature, but was not a permanent and primary source of livelihood for the applicant, as she has an able-bodied husband and her own assets.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that only those family members who have the right to a pension in the event of the loss of a breadwinner are entitled to the one-time monetary assistance, rather than any relatives to whom the deceased provided financial support.
\n – The courts of lower instances correctly evaluated the evidence in its entirety, and the arguments of the cassation appeal essentially boiled down to an attempt to re-evaluate the established circumstances,which goes beyond the scope of the cassation court’s authority.
\n – The decision is based on established Supreme Court practice, which requires strict adherence to legislative criteria regarding the status of a dependent.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 201\/6952\/25 dated 08\/18\/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 filed a lawsuit to determine the place of residence of three minor children with her, citing the need for protection from psychological violence by her ex-husband.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the right to judicial protection arises only when a person’s right has been actually violated, challenged, or denied, which was not established in this case. Since the defendant in the judicial process did not object to the children living with the mother, the court concluded that the dispute is artificial and there is no need for state intervention in family relations. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s allegations of domestic violence were not supported by any proper evidence, and references to previous Supreme Court practice were inappropriate, as those cases involved real conflicts regarding custody rights. The refusal to grant motions for witness examination and the appointment of an expert was deemed lawful, as the plaintiff had primarily failed to prove the very fact of the violation of her rights, which is a mandatory condition for granting the claim. The court emphasized that it does not intervene in family matters if parents act by mutual consent and the interests of the children do not require additional protection.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 465\/496\/24 dated 08\/12\/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:** Termination of a tourist service agreement and recovery of funds from a tour operator paid for a tour that did not take place due to the imposition of martial law.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that under a tourist service agreement, the tour operator bears full liability to the tourist for failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement, even if it engaged intermediaries (travel agents or sub-agents).
\n – The court underscored that the actions of a travel agent in selling a tourist product are the actions of the tour operator itself; therefore, it is the tour operator who is the proper respondent<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 636\/5079\/21 dated 12\/08\/2026 Here is a detailed legal analysis of the provided court decision: 1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaring a real estate gift agreement, concluded between the debtor (guarantor) and his daughter, invalid as a transaction executed to the detriment of a creditor (fraudulent transaction). 2. **Court arguments:** – The court…<\/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-19308","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\/19308","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=19308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}