{"id":19642,"date":"2026-09-12T10:18:48","date_gmt":"2026-09-12T07:18:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-12-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-12T10:18:48","modified_gmt":"2026-09-12T07:18:48","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-12-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-12-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 12\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 204\/10840\/23 dated 20\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerned a conflict between former spouses regarding the determination of the method of the mother’s participation in the upbringing of their son, the deprivation of her parental rights, and the review of the obligation to pay alimony.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court proceeded from the principle of equality of parental rights, emphasizing that the dissolution of marriage or living separately does not exempt a parent from obligations toward the child.
\n * Regarding the deprivation of parental rights, the court emphasized that this is an extreme measure applied only in the presence of culpable conduct and deliberate evasion of obligations, which was not proven in the mother’s actions.
\n * The court took into account that although the child expressed a reluctance to communicate with the mother, the child’s opinion is not absolute and must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence, rather than as the sole basis for depriving rights.
\n * Regarding alimony, the court acknowledged that since the child actually resides with the father, he is entitled to be exempted from paying alimony to the mother.
\n * The Supreme Court clarified the date of termination of alimony collection, setting it from the moment of the child’s actual relocation to the father (October 30, 2022), rather than from the date of filing the claim, as determined by the lower courts.
\n * The issue of allocating legal assistance costs was resolved taking into account the criteria of proportionality, the reality of the services provided, and compliance with procedural deadlines for the submission of evidence.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the father’s cassation appeal, changing the date of termination of alimony collection to October 30, 2022, and upheld the decisions of the lower courts in all other respects.<\/p>\n

Case No. 683\/2623\/26 dated 07\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the applicant’s motion to change the territorial jurisdiction for the consideration of their complaint regarding the investigator’s inaction, specifically to transfer the case from one court to another, which are located within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.<\/p>\n

In considering this issue, the Supreme Court was guided exclusively by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that regulate the rules for determining jurisdiction. The court proceeded from the fact that for the transfer of criminal proceedings from one court to another, there must be exceptional grounds provided for by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, to ensure the promptness and effectiveness of the criminal proceedings or for the purpose of ensuring that the case is heard by the most independent and impartial court.In the present case, the applicant failed to provide compelling and substantiated arguments demonstrating that it was impossible for the court to hear the complaint, to which it had been submitted in accordance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the mere desire of a party to change the venue of the case, in the absence of objective obstacles to the administration of justice, does not constitute grounds for granting such a motion. Accordingly, the panel of judges concluded that there are no grounds to depart from the general rules for determining jurisdiction; therefore, the case must be heard by the court to whose jurisdiction it belongs by law.<\/p>\n

The court ruled to deny the motion to transfer the judicial proceedings to another court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 753\/15705\/15 dated 06\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of matrimonial property, namely, the recovery of monetary compensation for a share in the value of an unauthorized construction project that has not been commissioned.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the claim for recognizing a person as a “co-developer” is not a method of legal protection; therefore, the proceedings in this part are subject to closure. The court clarified that when dividing joint matrimonial property, it is not necessary to separately state claims for recognizing an object as “joint common property” or “ownership rights to building materials,” as these are ineffective methods of protection that do not lead to the actual restoration of rights. Instead, an effective method is a direct claim for the division of property or the recovery of compensation for the share in the value of the materials and work used. The court confirmed that since the object is an unauthorized construction, it cannot be an object of civil turnover; however, the spouses are entitled to the monetary equivalent of the joint funds invested in it. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments regarding the impropriety of the expert report, noting that minor technical clerical errors in the numbering of cases do not negate the substance of the evidence. Importantly, the court clearly distinguished between claims against the spouse and claims against third parties (a cooperative), pointing to the latter’s lack of standing as defendants in such a dispute.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it closed the proceedings regarding the recognition of the plaintiff as a co-developer, denied the recognition of ownership rights to individual building materials as an ineffective method of protection, but upheld the decision of the court of first instance to recover monetary compensation in the amount of 3,716,101.50 UAH from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.Case No. 759\/5489\/23 dated 08\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of the conviction of a driver for a traffic violation that caused moderate bodily injuries to the victim, as well as the admissibility of evidence collected by the investigator and the reasonableness of the additional penalty imposed in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts acted within the scope of the law by correctly assessing the evidence of the driver’s guilt, in particular the victim’s testimony and expert conclusions. A key point was the resolution of the issue regarding the investigator’s authority: the defense insisted on the inadmissibility of the evidence due to the alleged lack of a signature on the resolution on the appointment of a group of investigators. However, the prosecutor submitted the original properly executed document to the court of cassation, which was recognized as an admissible procedural step. The Court referred to its previous practice, which allows for such documents to be verified directly in cassation if they are submitted by the prosecution. Regarding the punishment, the Court noted that the imposition of the maximum term of deprivation of the right to drive is a discretionary power of the court. This decision was justified by the gross nature of the traffic violation by the driver and his lack of admission of guilt. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the verdict, recognizing it as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 759\/5489\/23 dated 08\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which upheld the first-instance court\u2019s verdict convicting an individual for committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules).<\/p>\n

During the cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court verified the arguments of the convicted person regarding the existence of substantial violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law or the incorrect application of substantive law by the lower courts. The panel of judges analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate court had duly reviewed all arguments set forth in the appeal and provided exhaustive responses to them. The Court established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed punishment complies with the requirements of the law and the principles of individualization.and justice. The panel of judges has not established any grounds for overturning the contested judicial decision as provided for by Article 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Consequently, the case review procedure complied with the requirements of the law, and the findings of the lower courts are well-founded and reasoned.<\/p>\n

The Court has ruled to uphold the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, leaving the cassation appeal of the convicted person unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 635\/2974\/15-k dated 26\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court\u2019s ruling to return an appellate appeal, which the applicant challenged via the cassation procedure.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the case, concluded that the appellate court committed procedural violations that hindered access to justice. The Court determined that the return of the appellate appeal was unfounded, as the applicant had fulfilled the requirements of the procedural law, or the court had not provided him with a proper opportunity to rectify deficiencies. The cassation instance emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to appellate review, which is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. Since the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the admissibility of the appeal, this resulted in a violation of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the Supreme Court recognized that the contested ruling does not meet the requirements of legality and justification, which necessitates its cancellation. A rehearing of the case in the appellate court will allow for the correction of the errors made and ensure a full review of the parties’ arguments on their merits.<\/p>\n

3. The Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court\u2019s ruling, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 363\/1909\/25 dated 20\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is the analysis of the judicial decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs (court fees) from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, incurred during the cassation appeal, which were not addressed in the main judicial decision.<\/p>\n

2. The Court proceeded from the fact that, according to the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the issuance of an additional decision is a procedural mechanism for resolving the issue of legal costs if it was not resolved at the time of rendering the main decision. The Supreme Court noted that one of the key principles of legal proceedings is the reimbursement of expenses to the party in whose favor the judicial decision was rendered. Since the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was granted and the decision of the court of first instance was upheld, the defendant is obliged to compensateincurred by the plaintiff for court fees. The court examined the submitted payment instructions and confirmed that the paid amount complied with the requirements of the law. Thus, the right to reimbursement of expenses is an unconditional consequence of a successful appeal of a court decision.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court rendered an additional decision granting the plaintiff’s motion and ordering JSC “Ukrainian Railways” to pay in favor of PERSON_1 the amount of UAH 3,875.84 as reimbursement for court fees.<\/p>\n

Case No. 658\/1790\/16-ts dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Appealing the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings to a person who did not participate in the case on establishing the fact of death, but claims that the court decision violates their rights due to the erroneous identification of them as a deceased person.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a fundamental guarantee, and access to court must be not only formal but also effective.
\n * The Court noted that the appellate instance had no right to refuse to open proceedings at the stage of formal review of the appeal by effectively assessing the merits of the arguments (regarding the absence of a violation of the applicant’s rights).
\n * It was established that the question of whether a court decision violates the rights of a person who did not participate in the case must be resolved exclusively within the framework of opened appellate proceedings.
\n * If, after opening the proceedings, the court determines that the person’s rights were not violated, it has the right to close the appellate proceedings, but may not refuse to open them at the initial stage.
\n * The Court also pointed out the necessity of adhering to the procedure for leaving an appeal without progress if the matter concerns the restoration of a missed deadline, rather than immediately refusing to open proceedings.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to verify the applicant’s arguments regarding the validity of reasons for missing the deadline, taking into account the specifics of appealing decisions rendered before 2017.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 710\/1430\/24 dated 08\/12\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 710\/1430\/24:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional period for submitting an application for acceptance of an inheritance by an heir who missed the six-month term established by law.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principles of justice, good faith, and reasonableness, as established in civil legislation. The Court emphasized that the assessment of the validity of the reasons for missing a deadline must be carried out in each specific case individually, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The panel of judges took into account that the plaintiff is a first-priority heir who personally provided care for her deceased father, which indicates her genuine interest in the inheritance. An important factor was that the delay was insignificant (three days), and the plaintiff herself acted under the influence of legal uncertainty caused by conflicting regulations regarding the effect of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolutions under martial law. The Court also drew attention to the fact that the defendant (the City Council) did not object to the satisfaction of the claims. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that refusing the claim would be an overly formalistic approach, violating the person’s right to protection of their property interests, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and issued a new decision, satisfying the claim and granting the plaintiff an additional period of two months to accept the inheritance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 395\/855\/24 dated 08\/20\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A landowner filed a lawsuit seeking to have a land lease agreement declared unconcluded (void), to cancel the state registration of the lease right, and to have the land plot returned on the grounds that he did not sign the contested agreement.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * Based on the conclusion of a forensic handwriting examination, the Court established that the signature on the lease agreement on behalf of the lessor was executed by another person, which indicates the absence of the owner’s intent to conclude the transaction.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that in the event of contesting the very fact of the agreement’s conclusion, such a fact does not require a separate lawsuit for invalidation; rather, it should be established in the reasoning part of the decision when resolving the dispute regarding the protection of a violated right.
\n * The Court noted that the demand to recognize the agreement as “void” is an improper method of protection, since a void transaction is as such by operation of law; therefore, this part of the claims should be denied.
\n * At the same time, the cancellation of the state registration of the real right and the return of the land plot were recognized as an effective method of protection, ensuring the actual restoration of the owner’s violated rights.
\n * The Court emphasized that the discrepancy between the claims and the proper method of protection is not a ground forof the claim refusal if the plaintiff’s intent is clear and the claims can be interpreted as aimed at removing obstacles to the use of property.<\/p>\n

* **:** In this decision, the Supreme Court refers to its position set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber dated May 13, 2026, in case No. 456\/252\/22, which establishes an approach for the protection of an owner’s rights through the cancellation of state registration in the event that the non-conclusion of a lease agreement is proven.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision regarding the cancellation of state registration and the return of the land plot, however, it denied the claim for declaring the lease agreement void.<\/p>\n

Case No. 405\/1660\/22 dated 09\/01\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 2, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily injury resulting in death) and the application of an excessively lenient sentence using Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n* The Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of qualifying the convicted person’s actions under Part 2, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as the case files did not prove the existence of direct intent specifically to commit murder (Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), pointing to the absence of pursuit of the victim and the existence of alternative intent on the part of the convicted person.
\n* At the same time, the court found the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unlawful application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a sentence below the minimum limit) to be well-founded, as the lower courts had groundlessly recognized the existence of circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of the crime’s gravity.
\n* The court emphasized that “sincere remorse” and “active assistance in solving the crime” were incorrectly taken into account in this case, since the convicted person only partially admitted guilt, put forward a version of self-defense that was refuted by video recordings, and did not voluntarily surrender the weapon.
\n* It was established that the convicted person initiated the continuation of the conflict himself rather than acting in a state of necessary defense, which excludes the possibility of applying mitigating circumstances related to the provocative behavior of the victim.
\n* The court noted that partial compensation for damages (less than 1\/10 of the amount) is not grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as it does not significantly reduce the social danger of a serious crime.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the imposition of a sentence<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 204\/10840\/23 dated 20\/08\/2026 Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case: 1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerned a conflict between former spouses regarding the determination of the method of the mother’s participation…<\/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-19642","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\/19642","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=19642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}