{"id":19522,"date":"2026-09-05T11:02:31","date_gmt":"2026-09-05T08:02:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-05-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-05T11:02:31","modified_gmt":"2026-09-05T08:02:31","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-05-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-05-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 05\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 924\/49\/26 of 08\/27\/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 for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting of the Co-owners Association (OSBB) “Pryozernyi,” formalized in three protocols for 2021\u20132023, citing violations of the meeting convocation procedure and the lack of a proper database of co-owners to confirm a quorum.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the mere fact of a violation of the procedure for notifying a co-owner about a meeting is not an automatic ground for overturning the adopted decisions, unless the plaintiff has proven an actual violation of their rights and interests. The courts of previous instances established that during the consideration of the case, no evidence was provided regarding the lack of a quorum at the time of the meetings, and the plaintiff’s references to information certificates compiled later do not refute the legitimacy of the meetings on specific dates. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove exactly how the disputed decisions restricted their rights as an owner of a non-residential premises. The court also noted that the issue of the legality of these meetings had already been partially examined within the framework of another lawsuit between the same parties, where an assessment of the quorum and procedure had been provided. Regarding the allocation of legal aid costs, the court confirmed the legitimacy of their recovery, noting that the lower courts reasonably reduced the fee amounts, guided by the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. In conclusion, the cassation appeal was dismissed due to the lack of evidence of a violation of the plaintiff’s rights and an attempt to re-evaluate the actual circumstances of the case, which exceeds the authority of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which denied the claim, and left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 754\/5673\/25 of 09\/01\/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. The subject of the dispute is the demand of a new apartment owner, acquired at an electronic auction, to remove obstacles in the use of property through the forced eviction of former residents.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the premise that the right of ownership is not absolute and must be balanced with a person’s right to respect for their home, as enshrined in Article 8 of the ConvConvention for the Protection of Human Rights. The key argument was that the disputed apartment was not purchased by the defendants using a mortgage loan; therefore, the simplified eviction procedure provided for by Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine does not apply to them. The court established that the defendants have resided in the apartment since 1987, have no other housing, and the plaintiff was aware of the presence of residents when purchasing the property at auction. Consequently, eviction “to nowhere” without the provision of other residential premises was recognized as a disproportionate interference with the right to housing. The court also emphasized that the mere fact of a change in ownership does not automatically terminate the right of use of the former owner’s family members, provided they moved in on legal grounds.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim, confirming the correct application of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n

Case No. 569\/16199\/18 dated 02\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is a claim by the executive committee of the city council to invalidate a deed of gift for an apartment located in a building that has the status of unauthorized construction, and to apply the consequences of invalidity of a transaction in the form of restitution.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff \u2014 invalidation of a transaction \u2014 is ineffective and inappropriate in this situation. The court emphasized that the existence of a court decision on the obligation to bring unauthorized construction into compliance with the design is not inseparably linked to the person of the apartment owner, and therefore a change of owner does not prevent the enforcement of such a decision. The court stressed that an interested party (the city council) has the right to protect its rights to a land plot by filing a negatory action (for example, for the demolition of an unauthorized object), rather than by challenging contracts between third parties. Since the invalidation of a contract does not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s violated rights to the land plot, such claims are not subject to satisfaction. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the cancellation of the registration of ownership rights or the invalidation of transactions regarding unauthorized construction does not resolve the legal status of such property. Therefore, the lower courts mistakenly equated the right to apply to the court with the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 924\/49\/26 of 08\/27\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material: 1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting of the Co-owners Association (OSBB) “Pryozernyi,” formalized in…<\/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_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19522","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\/19522","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=19522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19522\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}