{"id":19672,"date":"2026-09-13T10:18:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-13T07:18:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-13-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-13T10:18:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-13T07:18:26","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-13-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-13-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 13\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 598\/4\/22 dated 08\/27\/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 a claim for the removal of an heir from the right to inherit due to alleged evasion of maintenance of the decedent, and a counterclaim for recognition of the right of ownership of inherited property through judicial proceedings due to the absence of title documents.<\/p>\n

2. The court concluded that for the removal of a person from inheritance under Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a combination of proven facts is required: the helpless state of the decedent, the need for assistance specifically from this person, and the intentional evasion by the heir from providing such assistance despite having the ability to do so. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove that the decedent was in a helpless state, as she was financially secure and managed her own household. The court also emphasized that removal from inheritance is an extreme measure, which is applied only in the presence of culpable behavior, which was not established in the defendant’s actions. Regarding the counterclaim, the court recognized the heir\u2019s right of ownership, as the notary refused to issue a certificate due to the absence of original property documents, which is an objective obstacle to finalizing the inheritance. The Supreme Court confirmed that recognition of the right of ownership in court is an appropriate method of protection when the notarial path has been exhausted. The cassation arguments regarding the failure to take into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected, as the circumstances of this case differed significantly from those referred to by the applicant.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, denying the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 604\/753\/24 dated 08\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute:**
\nA farm enterprise attempted through the court to have a land lease agreement recognized as renewed for a new term, citing its preferential right as a lessee, while the lessor refused to continue the lease relationship.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the court:**
\nThe court proceeded from the fact that the preferential right of the lessee is not absolute and cannot force a landowner to conclude an agreement against their will if the lessor has timely declared their unwillingness to continue the cooperation. The Supreme Court emphasized that since the lessor did not conclude an agreement with another person, but expressly stated their refusal, the plaintiff’s preferential right was not violated. The court also rejected the lessee’s arguments regarding the need to appoint a handwriting examination of the refusal letters, noting that the lessor’s confirmation of their position directly during the court hearing is sufficient evidence of their expression of will. Regarding legal aid expenses, the court found them justified, as the payment of the fee to the legal [counsel]in a law firm where an attorney works is proper evidence of the client\u2019s expenses. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the burden of proving the disproportionateness of attorney’s fees lies solely with the party objecting to their recovery, which the plaintiff failed to do in a proper manner. Ultimately, the court indicated that the absence of a violated right is an independent ground for dismissing the claim; therefore, the decisions of the lower courts are essentially correct.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions but leaving their operative parts regarding the dismissal of the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 932\/7437\/23 dated 04\/09\/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:** Division of common joint property of former spouses (real estate, a store, and vehicles) with a determination of the method for allocating shares and the recovery of monetary compensation for the inequality of shares.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court proceeded from the presumption of equality of the spouses’ shares in common property, as enshrined in Articles 60 and 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
\n – When dividing indivisible items (commercial real estate), the court took into account that the plaintiff had been using these objects for his entrepreneurial activity for a long time, which, according to Part 3 of Article 71 of the Family Code of Ukraine, is grounds for awarding such property specifically to him.
\n – The appellate court correctly established that, since the parties did not submit claims for the termination of ownership rights to a share in the property, but only requested a division, the recovery of compensation for the excess value of the property received does not require a preliminary deposit of funds into the court’s deposit account.
\n – The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the priority of the children’s interests and her difficult situation, noting that these circumstances are not grounds for an automatic redistribution of commercial real estate, and issues regarding child support must be resolved within the scope of separate claims for alimony.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to depart from the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court were not properly substantiated, and the appeal itself was effectively aimed at the reassessment of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.
\n – A general balance of shares was achieved by allocating the residential house and vehicles to the defendant, as well as by ordering the plaintiff to pay monetary compensation for the difference in the value of the property.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 201\/10079\/24 dated 19\/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 brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery from the dof the debtor for inflation-related losses and 3% per annum, accrued on the amount of indebtedness determined by a court decision that had not been enforced for a long period of time.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine applies to any monetary obligations, regardless of the grounds for their emergence (contract or tort), and the existence of a court decision does not terminate the debtor’s monetary obligation. The Court highlighted that the obligation to perform arises from the moment the decision enters into legal force, rather than from the moment of receipt of the writ of execution; therefore, the appellate court’s position regarding the absence of delay due to the non-submission of the writ for execution is erroneous. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out a procedural error by the lower courts, which ignored the defendant’s motion to apply the statute of limitations. Since the courts did not assess this significant argument, the cassation instance cannot resolve the merits of the dispute independently. Consequently, the case must be remanded for a new trial to verify the arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

3. **Court\u2019s 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. 761\/10325\/17 dated 26\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is an analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a land lease agreement in the part overlapping with a land plot that is in the legal use of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the right to use a land plot passes to a person along with the ownership right to the building located thereon, which corresponds to the principle of the unity of the legal fate of real estate and land. Since the decision of the Kyiv City Council, on the basis of which the lease agreement was concluded, had been previously recognized as unlawful and canceled by court order, the lease agreement in the challenged part is also in conflict with the requirements of the law. The court emphasized that local self-government bodies do not have the right to lease land plots that are already in the legal use of other persons without the prior termination of such right. The court also noted that the non-conformity of the claims with the proper method of protection is not a ground for dismissing the claim if the essence of the violated right is clear and the chosen method is aimed at removing obstacles to the use of the property. The factual circumstances established by the lower courts confirmed that a part of the plaintiff’s plot was groundlessly included in the territory leased by the defendant. Considering these circumstances, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, as the applicant’s arguments amounted to a re-evaluation of evidence, which exceeds the powers of the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 127\/33597\/24 dated 08\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject matter of this dispute is the challenging of a decision of the city council executive committee regarding the change and regularization of the address of an item of immovable property, which the plaintiff considers illegal and infringing upon the rights of the co-owners of the apartment building.<\/p>\n

In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that the key criterion for determining the jurisdiction of a dispute is the nature of the legal relations, rather than solely the composition of the parties. The Supreme Court noted that the assignment or change of a postal address for a real estate object constitutes the exercise by a local self-government body of its authoritative administrative functions, as provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine” and the Law “On Regulation of Urban Planning Activities.” Since the defendant acted as a subject of authority within the scope of its granted competence, such disputes are, by their nature, public-legal. The court also drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff’s claims are directed at challenging an individual act of a local self-government body, rather than resolving a private-law dispute regarding ownership rights. In accordance with the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, if a dispute arises in connection with the exercise of administrative functions, it is subject to consideration under administrative, rather than civil, judicial proceedings. Thus, the courts of lower instances rightfully terminated the proceedings in the case, as it is not subject to consideration under civil procedure.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal, confirming the correctness of the conclusion regarding the necessity of hearing this case under administrative judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 725\/8174\/25 dated 08\/20\/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 for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is the dissolution of marriage, determination of the place of residence of a minor child with the father, and the establishment of the legal fact of independent upbringing and maintenance of the child by the father.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the court**
\n* The court confirmed the right of territorial recruitment centers (TRCs) to file appeals against decisions that establish facts directly affecting the performance of military duty and the right to a mobilization deferment.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that family rights and duties are inalienable; therefore, the mere fact of separate residence of the parents does not constitute “independent upbringing” of the child by one of them.
\n* The court indicated that an agreement between the parents regarding the joint upbringing of the child effectively refutes the plaintiff’s arguments that the mother is evading her parental duties.
\n* The use of private-law instruments (court decisions establishing facts) to artificially create grounds for mobilization deferment was recognized as an abuse of rights.
\n* The court of appeal committed a procedural error by overturning the decisionin the part concerning the determination of the child\u2019s place of residence, despite the fact that the TCK [Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center] waived the appeal regarding this specific part of the claim.
\n* Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the refusal to establish the fact of sole upbringing, but remanded the case for a new trial regarding the determination of the child\u2019s place of residence.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it left unchanged the refusal to establish the fact of sole upbringing of the child, however, it set aside the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the determination of the child\u2019s place of residence and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 753\/6070\/23 dated 08\/27\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to have the actions of the service company declared unlawful regarding the accrual of VAT as part of the tariff for housing and utility services after the company had switched to the simplified taxation system, and demanded a recalculation and compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court determined that the key issue was proving the fact of the actual accrual of VAT by the respondent during the period when it was no longer a taxpayer of said tax.
\n – During the retrial of the case, the appellate court examined the results of a documentary unscheduled audit by the tax service, which covered the disputed period.
\n – The audit officially confirmed that the company did not permit any understatement or overstatement of tax liabilities, and also did not reveal any facts of unjustified VAT accrual.
\n – The plaintiff did not provide the court with convincing evidence that VAT was indeed accrued in the payment receipts for services after the company changed its taxation system.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the exclusive prerogative of the lower courts, and interference with this assessment at the cassation stage is inadmissible.
\n – Regarding the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of suffering emotional distress due to the respondent’s actions; therefore, there are no grounds for compensation.
\n – The court also rejected the plaintiff’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as the factual circumstances and the evidentiary base in those cases differed significantly from the circumstances of this dispute.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 202\/7004\/23 dated 08\/20\/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 matter of the dispute:** Challenging by the debtor the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the unjustified accrual of alimony arrears for adult children and the compulsory deduction of 50% of the pension instead of the portion determined by the court decision.<\/p>\n

2. **Argument**Court position:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a state enforcement officer does not have the right to arbitrarily apply the provisions regarding the “minimum guaranteed amount of alimony” to adult children, as such provisions apply exclusively to minors. The Court noted that the duty to maintain adult children who are pursuing education depends on the parents’ ability to provide such support; therefore, the establishment of a minimum payment threshold in this case is not provided for by law. The courts of lower instances mistakenly agreed with the actions of the enforcement officer, who artificially increased the amount of deductions from the debtor’s pension to 50%, citing irrelevant provisions of the Family Code. Since the appellate court did not properly examine these circumstances, the Supreme Court deemed its decision unfounded. It is important that the court confirmed its position, relying on previously established practice regarding the absence of a minimum amount of alimony for adult children.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 638\/14998\/21 dated 08\/20\/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:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his sister (the heir of their father) for the reimbursement of expenses for major repairs and improvements to a residential building, which he had carried out at his own expense during his father’s lifetime.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court established that the plaintiff, being a member of the owner’s family, had indeed carried out repair work with his father’s consent; however, these expenses were partially covered by his duty to maintain the housing and could partially be classified as compensatory.
\n * A key point was the application of the statute of limitations: the court emphasized that the right to apply to the court arose for the plaintiff back in 2015, when the work was completed, and not in 2020, when he learned about the will.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the death of the owner and the transfer of obligations to the heir do not trigger a new statute of limitations, since the heir is liable for the debts of the testator in the state in which they existed at the time the inheritance was opened.
\n * The court distinguished between the concepts of “period for presentation of claims by the testator’s creditor” (Art. 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) and “statute of limitations” (Art. 257 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), noting that they should be verified separately.
\n * Since the plaintiff did not provide reasonable arguments as to why he could not have learned about the violation of his right earlier than 6 years after the completion of the work, the court recognized the expiration of the statute of limitations as a ground for dismissal of the claim.
\n * The court also noted that the institution of the statute of limitations is necessary to ensure legal certainty and protect defendants from lawsuits regarding events of the distant past, for which evidence may be lost.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court without chrefused to satisfy the claims due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Case No. 537\/4536\/24 dated 04\/09\/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 dismissal of an employee (aircraft commander) for absenteeism and claims for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the absenteeism was duly recorded by the employer through the preparation of relevant reports over a long period of the employee’s absence. The courts established that upon completion of the business trip, the employee did not report to the company’s office and was not on standby as required by the employment contract. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for the absence were not confirmed, as he failed to provide evidence of objective circumstances that prevented him from attending work. The court also recognized the correspondence in the Viber messenger as proper evidence, as it confirmed the employer’s attempts to ascertain the reasons for the absence and requests to provide explanations. Regarding the conflict of norms, the court noted that Clause 8-3 of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (dismissal due to absence for more than 4 months) does not supersede Clause 4 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (absenteeism), and the employer had the right to choose the grounds for dismissal based on the factual composition of the disciplinary offense. Ultimately, the cassation court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been fully and comprehensively examined by the lower courts.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal \u2014 unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 761\/16164\/21 dated 02\/09\/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 recovery of non-residential premises from illegal possession by an heir who claimed that the property was disposed of from the testator’s possession against their will due to an allegedly forged gift agreement.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence to confirm the fact of forgery of the gift agreement or the absence of the testator’s intent to conclude it. During the proceedings, the appellate court directly examined the original gift agreement, which contained the signature of the donor and a stamp of notarization, which refuted the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the “non-conclusion” of the transaction. The court also reasonably refused to appoint a forensic technical examination of the form, as the plaintiff did not prove how this would affect the establishment of the fact of the parties’ expression of will. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of evaluating evidence belongs to the competence of the lower courts, and the cassation court has no authority to re-evaluate them. It was established that the plaintiff did not prove a “balance of probaof “properties” regarding the dispossession of property against the owner\u2019s will; therefore, the vindication claim is not subject to satisfaction. The court also noted that the reference to the non-conclusion of the contract does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to prove the absence of intent, which was not done.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the appellate instance, by which the plaintiff was denied the satisfaction of the claim requirements.<\/p>\n

Case No. 444\/2030\/22 dated 20\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 444\/2030\/22:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation as a family without marriage registration, recognizing property acquired during this period as common joint property, and its division.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court proceeded from the fact that, according to Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine, property acquired during de facto marital relations is common joint property, unless otherwise provided by a contract.
\n – The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established the presence of all signs of a “family”: cohabitation, joint household management, a common budget, raising common children, and mutual support.
\n – The court emphasized that the presumption of common ownership of property acquired during de facto marital relations applies to the parties in the same way as it applies to an officially registered couple.
\n – The burden of refuting this presumption lies with the defendant, who in this case did not provide convincing evidence that the property was acquired with their personal funds or did not have a joint character.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the exclusive competence of the courts of previous instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case.
\n – The appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected because the circumstances of this case are unique and confirmed by a combination of evidence that the court deemed sufficient.
\n – The court also took into account the interests of the parties during the division of property, leaving the vehicles to the defendant with the payment of monetary compensation to the plaintiff, which complies with the principles of fairness and equality of shares.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the appellate court, by which the claim was satisfied, unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 198\/188\/24 dated 20\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of this court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer into private ownership and subsequent lease of a land plot that is part of the lands of the nature reserve fund.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the request to recognize as illegal and cancel the decision of a local self-government body is an ineffective method of protection, since such a decision has already exhausted its effect through execution (registration of ownership rights). The court emphasized that instead of canceling such acts, courts should provide a legal assessment of them directly.in the reasoning part of the decision when resolving the dispute on the merits. Regarding the claims against the Farming Enterprise, the Court concluded that there was a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, since a dispute between a territorial community and a legal entity regarding property must be considered under the procedure of commercial, rather than civil, proceedings. **** The Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 446\/478\/19, confirming that challenging already executed decisions of authorities is an ineffective method of protection, departing from approaches where such claims were satisfied. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that, regarding the claims against the natural person (PERSON_1), which were not appealed in the cassation procedure, it does not have the authority to review the decision, as it is limited by the scope of the cassation appeal. Thus, the Court applied a differentiated approach: dismissal of the claim due to an improper method of protection, termination of proceedings due to a violation of jurisdiction, and upholding the decision in the part that was not challenged.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts, dismissed the claim in the part concerning the cancellation of the village council\u2019s decision, terminated the proceedings in the case in the part concerning the claims against the Farming Enterprise, and left unchanged the decision in the part concerning the claims against the natural person.<\/p>\n

Case No. 496\/209\/22 of 08\/27\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of the approval by the court of first instance of a settlement agreement, under which the debtor transferred shares of the enterprise to the plaintiff in settlement of a monetary debt, which led to a violation of the property rights of third parties.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
\n1. The Court emphasized that a settlement agreement may relate exclusively to the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute.
\n2. It was established that the terms of the agreement, which provided for the alienation of shares, effectively violated the rights of third parties, in particular the respondent’s spouse, who did not provide consent for the disposal of joint property.
\n3. The Court emphasized that a settlement agreement cannot resolve issues regarding the rights of persons who were not involved in the case.
\n4. The appellate court rightfully set aside the ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement, as it contradicted the requirements of procedural law.
\n5. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff’s cassation appeal amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is beyond the powers of the court of cassation instance.
\n6. As a result, it was confirmed that when approving the settlement agreement, the court of first instance committed violations that make it impossible to uphold such an agreement.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left unchanged the resolution of the appellate court, which set aside the ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement and remanded the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 635\/1408\/24 of 08\/20\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you.decision. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage, which he claimed was caused by the unlawful actions and omissions of township council officials during the processing of his information requests.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, liability for damage caused by officials of a local self-government body lies directly with that body (in this case, the township council) rather than with the specific natural persons holding those positions. The plaintiff erroneously filed the lawsuit against the township head and a council employee as natural persons, which constitutes suing improper defendants. While the courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim on the grounds that the occurrence of damage was not proven, the Supreme Court pointed out that this was a flawed approach. The court of cassation clarified that determining the proper standing of defendants is a duty of the court, and filing a lawsuit against an improper defendant is an independent and sufficient ground for denying the claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions to deny the claim but modified their reasoning, identifying the incorrect selection of defendants as the primary reason for the case’s dismissal.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning parts of the lower courts’ decisions and confirming the denial of the claim due to the filing of demands against improper defendants.<\/p>\n

Case No. 499\/1196\/20 of 08\/19\/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 and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A debtor’s challenge to the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the valuation of real estate, and a demand to invalidate the property appraisal report due to the appraiser’s failure to conduct a personal inspection of the object and improper notification of the debtor.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that the mere absence of a personal inspection of the object by an appraiser is not an unconditional ground for overturning the report if the debtor has failed to prove that the valuation is non-objective or understated.
\n – A key duty of the enforcement officer is to notify the parties of the valuation results, rather than the mandatory forwarding of the full text of the report; therefore, the court dismissed the arguments regarding the weight of the postal item as untenable.
\n – The court highlighted that the debtor must maintain an active procedural position: if he disagrees with the valuation, he is obliged to provide evidence of the undervaluation or initiate a review of the report, which was not done in this case.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the judicial procedure for overseeing the enforcement of decisions is aimed at protecting violated rights, rather than the formal cancellation of an enforcement officer’s actions in the absence of evidence of actual harm.
\n – Previous court decisions, upon which the appellant relied, were rejected, as different factual circumstances were established in those cases, in particular, proven facts of a significant undervaluation of property.
\n – The court concluded that since the appellant did not provide proper evidence of the unreliability of the report, there are no grounds for satisfying the complaint.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/1256\/22-ts dated 08\/26\/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 of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover alimony arrears, calculated based on the actual income of the defendant entrepreneur, as she believed that the state executor had unlawfully calculated the debt amount based on the average salary.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the current legislation clearly distinguishes between methods of fulfilling the duty to support a child: voluntary (by agreement) and compulsory (by court decision). The court clarified that the recovery of alimony arrears, which have already been determined by a court decision, cannot be a separate subject of a lawsuit, as this is the exclusive competence of the state executor within the framework of an open enforcement proceeding. The plaintiff mistakenly attempted to resolve the issue of debt calculation through claim proceedings, whereas such disputes should be resolved by appealing the actions or omissions of the executor or through the procedure of debt calculation by the executor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court should not adopt a separate decision on the recovery of the debt amount that is already subject to recovery on the basis of a previously issued writ of execution. Therefore, the lower courts correctly denied the satisfaction of the claim, but did so with insufficiently clear justification, which became the basis for changing the reasoning parts of their decisions. The motion to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber was rejected due to the absence of an exceptional legal issue.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the lower courts’ decisions, but effectively leaving the refusal to satisfy the claims unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 307\/1476\/25 dated 08\/27\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by a father against a mother to deprive her of parental rights regarding their minor son due to alleged evasion of parental duties.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The court emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is an exceptional, extreme measure, which is applied only when it is impossible to change the parents’ behavior for the better.
\n * Keya prerequisite for such a decision is the proof of culpable conduct and deliberate, systematic neglect of parental duties, which the plaintiff failed to prove in this case.<\/p>\n

* The court noted that the mere fact of the mother residing abroad, irregular communication with the child, or the existence of alimony arrears does not constitute an automatic ground for the deprivation of parental rights.
\n* The court evaluated the opinion of the guardianship and custody authority, which supported the deprivation of rights, as insufficiently substantiated, since it contained no evidence of the mother\u2019s intentional evasion of raising the child.
\n* The court emphasized that the child\u2019s interests have priority; however, deprivation of rights is not a necessary measure in this situation, as no real threat to the son\u2019s well-being by the mother was established.
\n* Instead of depriving her of rights, the court applied a preventive measure by officially warning the mother of the need to change her attitude toward raising the child, which is a lawful method of influence.
\n* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances acted within their discretion, correctly assessed the evidence, and did not commit any violations of substantive or procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the father\u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the refusal to deprive the mother of parental rights.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 363\/3878\/20 dated 08\/12\/2026**<\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute:**
\nThe plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recognize a notary\u2019s enforcement inscription as not subject to execution, to invalidate electronic auctions and their results, and to reclaim property from the illegal possession of others due to violations of the debt collection procedure by the bank.<\/p>\n

**2. Arguments of the court:**
\nThe court established that the bank had repeatedly applied to the court with lawsuits for debt recovery, which effectively altered the term for the fulfillment of obligations; therefore, the accrual of interest and penalties for a period of over 11 years in the enforcement inscription was groundless. The Supreme Court emphasized that a notary is obliged to verify the indisputability of a debt, and in this case, the amount in the enforcement inscription contradicted the terms of restructuring and previous court decisions. Regarding the claims to invalidate the auctions, the court noted that the plaintiff had chosen an improper method of protection, as challenging protocols or certificates is not an effective mechanism for protecting ownership rights. The court also indicated that state executors are improper defendants in disputes regarding auction results, since the parties to the transaction are the auction organizer and the winner. Separately, the court remarked that claims to oblige the bank to perform certain actions (registration of agreements and submission of a settlement agreement) are not subject to consideration under civil proceedings at all. In conclusion, the court confirmed the un-the legality of the enforcement endorsement, but refused to cancel the results of the auction, since the endorsement was in effect at the time of their conduct, and the plaintiff did not prove the bad faith of the property acquirer.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decision to declare the enforcement endorsement as not subject to execution, amended the reasoning part of the decisions regarding the refusal to declare the auction invalid, and also set aside the judicial decisions in the part concerning the claims to compel the bank to perform certain actions, with the closure of proceedings in this part.<\/p>\n

Case No. 573\/31\/23 dated 08\/26\/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 demand of a landowner to remove obstacles in the use of land plots and to recognize the absence of a lease right registered to a farm enterprise based on agreements that, according to the plaintiff’s claim, she did not sign.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the principle of good faith of participants in civil relations and the doctrine of the prohibition of contradictory behavior (*venire contra factum proprium*). Although an expert examination confirmed that the signatures on the lease agreements were not executed by the plaintiff, the court established that for several years she had effectively acknowledged these agreements by accepting rent payments from the enterprise. The court emphasized that the behavior of a lessor who receives funds for the use of land and then denies the fact of concluding the agreement is in bad faith. Since the lessee faithfully fulfilled its obligations, and the plaintiff, by her previous conduct, confirmed the validity of the lease relations, there are no grounds to recognize the absence of the lease right. The court also emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is to protect rights, rather than the formal cancellation of transactions that were actually performed by the parties. Thus, the court prioritized the factual relations and the principle of equity over the formal absence of a personal signature on the documents.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 754\/11004\/24 dated 08\/27\/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 for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Resolution of a dispute between former spouses regarding the determination of the permanent place of residence of their minor child.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that when resolving such disputes, the sole key criterion is the “best interests of the child,” which take priority over the interests and desires of the parents.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the equality of parental rights does not imply an automatic right to have the child reside with either of them; therefore, objective conditions for the child’s development are assessed.
\n * The courts of previous instances established that the mother provides the child with proper living conditionsdevelopment and care, which is confirmed by relevant evidence.
\n * It is important that a conflict between parents cannot be grounds for changing a child’s habitual environment unless it is in the child’s best interests.
\n * The court also took into account that the absence of a conclusion from the guardianship and custodianship authority (due to the impossibility of obtaining it) does not deprive the court of the right to resolve the dispute on the basis of other available evidence.
\n * The father did not provide convincing evidence that the child residing with him specifically would have a more positive impact on the child’s development than residing with the mother.
\n * In conclusion, the court reached the finding that the appellate court\u2019s decision is lawful, as it is based on a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances of the case and compliance with the balance of the child’s rights.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the father’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which determined the child’s place of residence with the mother.<\/p>\n

Case No. 139\/179\/25 dated 08\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings in connection with the alleged full execution of a court decision on the recovery of a foreign currency debt, as well as the issue of the claimant’s compliance with the procedural deadline for appealing these actions.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following key arguments:
\n* The courts of previous instances did not provide a proper assessment of the debtor’s arguments regarding the claimant’s failure to comply with the ten-day deadline for appealing the enforcement officer’s actions, as established by Article 449 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.
\n* The court emphasized the existence of a presumption of a party to enforcement proceedings’ duty to know the status of their rights; therefore, the claimant’s reference to receiving the resolution only two years after its issuance required thorough verification.
\n* The appellate court ignored evidence that the claimant could have learned about the termination of the proceedings earlier, in particular through an inquiry sent by the claimant to the enforcement service, in which the claimant already mentioned the existence of the challenged resolution.
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline and the existence of a real possibility of learning about the violation of rights is of paramount importance, as ignoring them leads to a violation of the principle of legal certainty.
\n* Since the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances related to the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal, its conclusions regarding the absence of a missed deadline were deemed premature.
\n* The Supreme Court noted that it does not have the procedural authority to independently establish factual circumstances that were not clarified by the appellate court, which necessitated the setting aside of the decision.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, set aside the decision of the appellate court, and remand the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 761\/19129\/25 dated 03\/09\/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 of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the inaction of a district state administration regarding the improper consideration of a citizen\u2019s appeal concerning the actions of doctors of the military medical commission.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that the key criterion for determining jurisdiction is the nature of the legal relations in which the dispute arose. Since the defendant is a public authority that exercises its sovereign management functions while considering citizens’ appeals, such a dispute is of a public-legal nature. The court emphasized that, according to the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, it is administrative courts that are authorized to hear cases where one of the parties exercises sovereign powers. The plaintiff erroneously filed the claim with the court under civil procedure, as their claims relate specifically to the procedure for handling a complaint by a state body, rather than to private-law relations. Thus, the courts of lower instances rightfully closed the proceedings in the case, having explained to the plaintiff the right to apply to the appropriate administrative court. The Supreme Court confirmed that compliance with the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction is a mandatory component of the right to a “court established by law.”<\/p>\n

3. **Court\u2019s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court on closing the proceedings, finding them lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

Case No. 335\/13399\/24 dated 20\/08\/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:** Recovery from municipal enterprises of wage arrears, average earnings for the period of delay, and the obligation to pay the single social contribution for the period of remote work of the chief accountant.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that the employer is obliged to ensure working conditions and reliable records of working hours, and the absence of accounting documentation at the enterprise does not constitute grounds for depriving an employee of their right to remuneration.
\n – The Supreme Court underscored that the obligation to pay wages is a priority and cannot be waived due to force majeure circumstances or improper organization of the enterprise\u2019s operations.
\n – The courts of lower instances erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the employee by demanding evidence of work performance, whereas it was the employer who had to prove that they had created conditions for remote work and that the employee had refused to perform duties without valid reasons.
\n – The court drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff had not been dismissed for absenteeism, had not been held disciplinary liable, and the order for remote work had not been rescinded, which indicates the continuation of the employment relationship.
\n – The appellate court did notduly examined the evidence and failed to establish the factual circumstances that are of essential importance for the case, in particular regarding the actual possibility of the plaintiff performing their functions.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the negative consequences of improper organization of documentation transfer during the liquidation of an enterprise cannot be placed upon the employee as the weaker party to labor legal relations.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 755\/10976\/24 dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation as a family of a man and a woman without marriage registration for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary allowance in connection with the death of a military serviceman.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that cases on the establishment of legal facts are considered in separate proceedings if the emergence of property rights depends on them and there is no real dispute over the right.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is not a beneficiary of the allowance, and therefore, no dispute over the right can arise between it and the applicant that would require action proceedings.
\n * The appellate court erroneously classified the situation as a dispute over the right, without verifying whether such a dispute is real rather than hypothetical.
\n * The court noted that the mother of the deceased (the interested person) did not object to the establishment of the fact, and the applicant herself is the legal representative of their common child, which excludes a conflict of interest in this context.
\n * The Supreme Court referred to its own established practice (in particular, the resolutions of the Grand Chamber), which indicates the absence of a dispute over the right in the relationship between the applicant and the body paying the allowance.
\n * Since the appellate court groundlessly left the application without consideration, without examining the circumstances on the merits, this became a procedural obstacle to the protection of the applicant’s rights.
\n * As a result, the court concluded that the case must be considered on the merits, rather than closed on formal grounds.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court for continuation of consideration on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 139\/43\/24 dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared from a professional point of view:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the court to recognize the alienation of a hydraulic structure (dam) from communal property into private property as illegal and to return it to the territorial community.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that hydraulic structures (in particular, earthen dams) are not independent objects of civil commerce, but are an integral part ofof water fund land plots.
\n – The Court emphasized that the legal regime of such a structure is derivative of the legal regime of the land plot on which it is located; therefore, they cannot be alienated separately.
\n – Since, as a general rule, water fund lands cannot be in private ownership, the privatization of a hydraulic structure, which is an integral part thereof, is legally impossible.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the state registration of the right of ownership to such a structure as a separate real estate object is contrary to the law, as it does not possess the characteristics of an independent object of civil rights.
\n – The Court pointed out the necessity of taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the existence of an entry in the register regarding the right of ownership to such a structure creates obstacles for the land plot owner in using it.
\n – **** The Court explicitly referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 15, 2026, in case No. 915\/268\/24, which changes the approach to the understanding of the legal status of hydraulic structures and the possibility of their registration as separate real estate objects.<\/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 for a decision to be made in accordance with the set-out legal positions.<\/p>\n

Case No. 462\/4609\/13-ts dated 08\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by the debtor a state enforcement officer’s decree on the foreclosure on wages and the issue of compliance with the deadlines for filing such a complaint with the court.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The Court emphasized that the right to file a complaint against the actions of an enforcement officer is limited to a ten-day period, which is calculated from the moment the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the repeated filing of a complaint, which was returned each time due to non-compliance with the formal requirements of procedural law (failure to submit evidence of sending copies to other participants, absence of mandatory details, etc.), does not suspend the running of the procedural time limit.
\n – The fact of receiving rulings on the return of previous complaints is not a valid reason for the reinstatement of the time limit, as the applicant was aware of the existence of the challenged decree of the enforcement officer from the moment of its receipt.
\n – The Court noted that procedural rules regarding appeal periods are imperative, and their omission in the absence of valid reasons is an independent ground for leaving the complaint without consideration.
\n – The appellate court correctly established that the applicant did not provide any objective circumstances that would have prevented her from filing a complaint in compliance with the requirements of the law from the first attempt.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it is impossible to set aside a decision of the appellate court that is lawful in essence solely for formal reasons, if it complies with the principles of legal certainty andequality of parties.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling to leave the complaint regarding the actions of the state executive officer without consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 526\/1291\/24 dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff applied to the court with a demand to declare illegal the actions of credit institutions regarding the transfer of information about him to the Credit Bureau and to compel the Bureau to exclude this data from his credit history due to the absence of written consent for the processing of personal data.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the law, the transfer of information to the Credit Bureau is possible only if there is written consent from the credit history subject.
\n – The courts of lower instances erroneously placed the burden of proving the absence of consent on the plaintiff, effectively requiring him to prove a “negative fact.”
\n – The Court emphasized that in legal relations between a consumer and financial institutions, the principle of the “balance of probabilities” applies, where the consumer is the weaker party.
\n – Since written consent, if it exists, must be kept by the creditor, it was the defendants who had to provide evidence of its existence, which was not done.
\n – The courts did not clarify a key circumstance\u2014whether consent was actually granted\u2014which is a violation of procedural rules regarding the full and comprehensive consideration of the case.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the courts did not provide a proper assessment of the plaintiff\u2019s arguments and ignored the Supreme Court\u2019s practice regarding the allocation of the burden of proof in such disputes.
\n – As a result, due to the incomplete establishment of factual circumstances, the previous decisions were deemed premature.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court\u2019s ruling and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for a new trial for a proper examination of evidence.<\/p>\n

Case No. 720\/938\/15-ts dated 08\/20\/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 legality of closing appellate proceedings upon the complaint of the heir of a guarantor who died during the consideration of the case, against the court of first instance’s decision on the recovery of credit debt.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the right to appellate appeal for persons who did not participate in the case arises only when the court decision directly resolves issues concerning their rights, freedoms, or obligations. The Court determined that since obligations under a surety agreement are inextricably linked to the person of the guarantor, they do not allow for legal succession, and therefore, the death of the guarantor terminates such legal relations. Since the decision of the court of first instance did not impose any obligations on the heir and did not establishaffected her rights, she did not acquire the status of a person entitled to file an appellate appeal. The court emphasized that the nexus between the decision and the person must be obvious and unconditional, rather than probable. The absence of such a nexus is grounds for terminating appellate proceedings in accordance with Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the appellate court had every right to verify the existence of grounds for an appeal and to terminate the proceedings if such grounds were not confirmed.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 761\/30039\/18-ts dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court\u2019s restoration of the time limit for filing an appellate appeal against the first-instance court\u2019s decision, which was submitted by the defendant three years after its adoption.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to an appellate appeal is not absolute and must be exercised within reasonable time limits defined by procedural law. The Court established that the defendant was aware of the proceedings in the first-instance court, as they had previously submitted objections to the lawsuit, and therefore cannot be considered a person who was not notified of the case proceedings. In accordance with Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the expiration of a one-year period from the date of drawing up the full text of the decision is a mandatory ground for refusing to initiate proceedings, except in cases of force majeure. The appellate court groundlessly ignored these limitations, formally restoring the time limit without providing significant reasons, which violates the principle of legal certainty and the finality of court decisions (res judicata). The Supreme Court emphasized that parties are obliged to show interest in the progress of their own case, and the groundless restoration of time limits after a significant lapse of time constitutes a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Thus, the procedural violations by the appellate court became an independent ground for setting aside its decisions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling and the resolution of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of initiating appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 752\/20514\/23 dated 09\/02\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief analysis of the case:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles in the use and disposal of a land plot of communal property (natural reserve fund) by cancelling the state registration of ownership of an unauthorizedly constructed garden house and obliging it to be demolished.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s arguments**
\nThe court proceeded from the fact thatthat the disputed land plot belongs to the nature reserve fund, which is under the special protection of the state, and any development thereon without proper legal grounds is illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court that the claim for cancellation of the state registrar’s decision regarding the ownership right to unauthorized construction is not a proper method of protection, as it does not resolve the legal status of the object itself. Instead, the only effective method of protecting the rights of a land plot owner in such cases is precisely the claim for the demolition of the unauthorizedly constructed property. The court established that the defendant did not have any title documents for the land, and the registration of the ownership right to the house was carried out in violation of the procedure. Thus, the claims for the demolition of the house and the dismantling of the fence were recognized as justified, whereas the claims for the cancellation of the entry in the register were deemed not subject to satisfaction. The court also emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence established by the lower courts if they acted within the framework of the law.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, which ordered the defendant to demolish the unauthorizedly constructed house and dismantle the fence, but denied the cancellation of the ownership record.<\/p>\n

Case No. 531\/750\/23 dated 07\/29\/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:** An employee filed a lawsuit with the court to establish the fact of an employment relationship, make an entry in the employment record book, and obligate the employer to pay taxes and contributions, claiming that they worked under an oral agreement.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts took a formal approach to the assessment of evidence without clarifying the true purpose of the lawsuit, which may be related to influencing criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The court noted that if the lawsuit was filed not to protect labor rights, but solely to create a prejudice (establish facts) for a criminal case, then this is unacceptable, and the proceedings in that part must be closed. The courts did not properly examine the evidence provided, including witness testimonies and documents from the criminal proceedings, which could have confirmed the fact of admission to work. The court also emphasized that the adversarial principle does not relieve the court of the duty to facilitate the establishment of the truth, including by requesting evidence if there are doubts about the good faith of the parties. At the same time, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the need to consider the case under special proceedings, confirming that if there is a dispute about the law (claims against the employer), the case must be considered exclusively under civil action proceedings. In summary, due to the incomplete clarification of circumstances and improper as-assessment of evidence, the decisions of the lower courts were deemed premature.<\/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 court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 761\/19284\/22 dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of real estate acquired by spouses during marriage and determination of each party’s shares in the ownership right to this property.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court proceeded from the presumption of community property acquired during marriage, as enshrined in Articles 60 and 61 of the Family Code of Ukraine; therefore, all disputed property was subject to division.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that when dividing property, the court is obligated to resolve the dispute on its merits in such a way that the parties have no need for repeated recourse to the court, which was ensured by the actual division of the objects and the recovery of monetary compensation for the difference in value.
\n – Regarding the arguments concerning the violation of territorial jurisdiction, the court noted that the defendant did not raise this issue in the court of first instance, and under procedural law, this deprives them of the right to rely on such grounds in appellate or cassation proceedings.
\n – The court rejected the arguments regarding the necessity of prior deposit of funds for the payment of compensation, explaining that these requirements relate to the termination of the right to a share, whereas in this case, a direct division of property in kind took place.
\n – Regarding the unresolved issue of the apartment that was already under common shared ownership, the court indicated that it was not subject to division as an object of common joint ownership, since the legal regime for it had already been determined previously.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances, as it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and the decisions of the lower courts were based on a proper assessment of the case materials.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 484\/2266\/16-ts dated 08\/19\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the proper court jurisdiction for the consideration of a debtor’s complaint against a state enforcement officer’s resolution on the imposition of a fine for the existence of alimony payment arrears.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the fine for non-payment of alimony, provided for by Part 14 of Article 71 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” has a different legal nature than general fines for non-compliance with decisions, as it is collected for the benefit of the claimant, not the state. The Court emphasized that challenging the actions of the enforcement officer related to the execution of a decision on the recovery of alimony (including the imposition of a fine)fines for arrears), is inextricably linked to the enforcement proceedings regarding alimony itself. Accordingly, such disputes must be considered exclusively under the procedure of civil proceedings by the court that issued the enforcement document. The Supreme Court emphasized that the delimitation of jurisdiction must ensure the effectiveness of judicial protection and procedural economy. The appellate court erroneously applied the rules on administrative jurisdiction, failing to take into account the special nature of alimony obligations. Thus, the cassation appeal was found to be well-founded, as the appellate court had groundlessly closed the proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance to continue the consideration of the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 466\/9987\/23 of 08\/24\/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. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The Lviv City Council attempted to invalidate electronic auctions and vindicate immovable property (non-residential buildings) from another’s illegal possession, which had been sold through the “SETAM” system within the framework of enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that challenging electronic auctions is not an effective way of protection for a person who was not a party to the purchase and sale agreement; therefore, in this part, the claims are improper.
\n – The key criterion for resolving a dispute over the reclamation of property (vindication) is the good faith of the acquirer, which is presumed by law until proven otherwise.
\n – The court established that at the time of the auction, there was no information about encumbrances in the State Register of Rights to Immovable Property, and the winner of the auction did not know and could not have known about the existence of court disputes or prohibitions.
\n – Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, property may not be vindicated from a bona fide purchaser if it was sold in the manner established for the execution of court decisions.
\n – The court noted that the possible bad faith of previous owners of the property does not affect the status of the final acquirer, as they should not bear responsibility for violations committed by other persons in the chain of alienation.
\n – Imposing an obligation on the buyer at an auction to verify the entire history of title transfers is an excessive burden, as the public auction procedure itself guarantees the “legal clearing” of the property.
\n – The court also pointed out that the plaintiff themselves contributed to the situation by filing an application for provisional measures too late, which made it impossible to timely enter information about the prohibition into the register.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Lviv City Council and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the acquirer’s right of ownership to the disputed property.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/37<\/strong>986\/20-\u0446 dated 08\/20\/2026<\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis of this case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit by an individual for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, and for the refutation of false information regarding the plaintiff’s involvement in the arson of a vehicle and threats against journalists.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts failed to properly distinguish between factual assertions and value judgments, which is critically important in defamation cases. The courts did not take into account that statements of a subjective nature or assumptions are not subject to refutation, as this would violate the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, the court of first instance made a procedural error by awarding legal costs against the defendants on a joint and several basis, which is not provided for by law. However, the primary factor was that during the cassation proceedings, the death of the plaintiff was established. Since the lawsuit concerned the protection of personal non-property rights, which are not inheritable, the disputed legal relations do not allow for legal succession. Accordingly, under such circumstances, further consideration of the case became impossible.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case due to the death of the plaintiff and the impossibility of legal succession in disputes regarding the protection of personal non-property rights.<\/p>\n

Case No. 761\/45700\/24 dated 08\/19\/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. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the proper jurisdiction (civil or commercial) for the consideration of a lawsuit filed by an enterprise against its former director for damages caused by the improper performance of his official duties.<\/p>\n

2. **Main arguments of the court:**
\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for distinguishing jurisdiction is the subject composition and the nature of the disputed legal relations, rather than just the plaintiff’s reference to labor law provisions.
\n* The Court established that the dispute arose between a legal entity and its official (director) regarding the recovery of damages caused by the actions or omissions of the latter while performing management functions.
\n* According to Clause 12, Part 1, Article 20 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, such disputes are directly referred to the jurisdiction of commercial courts.
\n* The Court emphasized that the existence of an employment relationship between the enterprise and the director does not change the commercial nature of a dispute regarding the recovery of damages caused to a legal entity.
\n* The Court of Appeal erroneously applied practice regarding recourse claims, failing to take into account the special provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code that regulate corporate disputes and disputes with officials.
\n* Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed that the case is not subject to consideration under civil proceedings, sinconly it must be resolved by the commercial court.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the case due to the dispute not being under the jurisdiction of the civil court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 753\/163\/22 dated 08\/24\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Termination of the construction financing fund (CFF) participation agreement and recovery of funds contributed by the investor from the manager due to the developer’s violation of the facility commissioning deadlines.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court established that the developer violated the construction timeline for the facility by more than 90 days, which is an independent and sufficient ground for the termination of the agreement pursuant to Part 4 of Article 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On Financial and Credit Mechanisms and Management of Property during Housing Construction and Real Estate Operations.”
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the principal’s right to terminate the agreement and receive a refund in such a case does not depend on whether the manager took control measures regarding the developer, since the fact of the deadline violation itself is already grounds for the investor’s withdrawal from the fund.
\n – The court rejected the manager’s arguments that funds should only be returned after the investment object is resold to another principal, pointing out that the special legal provision regarding the termination of an agreement due to the violation of construction deadlines does not provide for such a deferral of payment.
\n – The courts of lower instances incorrectly focused on the lack of evidence of control on the part of the manager; however, this did not affect the legality of the final decision, as the plaintiff’s main claim was well-founded.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the manager bears responsibility to the principals within the scope of the agreement, and the violation of construction deadlines deprives the investor of what they expected, which meets the criteria for a material breach of the agreement.
\n – The court also took into account the practice set forth in the resolution of October 22, 2025, in case No. 752\/8593\/24, which confirms the investor’s right to a refund in similar legal relations.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the agreement was terminated and the funds were subject to being returned to the investor.<\/p>\n

Case No. 756\/6153\/22 dated 09\/02\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to invalidate the assignment of claims agreements under a credit and mortgage agreement concluded between a bank in liquidation and an individual.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court established that the disputed agreements, by their legal nature, are purchase and sale agreementsthe sale of claims, rather than factoring, as there is no evidence of the provision of a financial service (lending) by the new creditor.
\n * The key factor was that the bank was in liquidation proceedings at the time of the conclusion of the agreements, which changes the legal regime for the disposal of its assets.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that during the liquidation of a bank, the sale of assets is carried out through open auctions, where the purchaser (new creditor) may be any person, including an individual.
\n * The Court emphasized that restrictions regarding the subject composition (a prohibition on individuals acting as creditors under credit agreements) do not apply in cases where a bank alienates assets within the framework of liquidation proceedings.
\n * The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of her rights due to the change of creditor were rejected, as the transaction does not contradict the requirements of civil legislation.
\n * The Court also noted that the reassessment of evidence is not within the jurisdiction of the cassation instance, and the courts of previous instances provided an exhaustive assessment of all circumstances of the case.
\n * The conclusions of the courts are fully consistent with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of assigning claims to individuals specifically in bank liquidation proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 200\/25165\/15-\u0446 dated 08\/27\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the credit agreement, mortgage agreements, and suretyship agreements, citing that she was misled by the bank, the use of unfair business practices, and the failure to provide complete information regarding the terms of lending.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Court emphasized the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction: an agreement is considered valid until proven otherwise, and the burden of proving fraud or unfair practice lies exclusively with the plaintiff.
\n – It was established that the parties reached an agreement on all essential terms of the contract, and the plaintiff signed the documents voluntarily, without expressing objections or proposals for changing the terms at the time of conclusion.
\n – The Court stressed that a mistake regarding the motives of a transaction (e.g., changes in currency exchange rates) is not grounds for invalidating an agreement.
\n – Regarding the currency of the loan, the Court confirmed the lawfulness of concluding agreements in foreign currency, citing the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
\n – The Court noted that the adversarial principle does not oblige the court to consider circumstances alleged by a party as proven if they are not supported by proper evidence.
\n – The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of a Supreme Court conclusion were rejected, as they essentially amounted to an attempt to reassess evidence, which exceeds the powers of the cassation instance.
\n – The motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber was rejected.denied due to the absence of an exceptional legal issue.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n

Case No. 595\/397\/23 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:** The prosecutor sought to invalidate an order of the State Geocadastre on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership and to reclaim it from the possessors, arguing that the original owner had not personally submitted applications for privatization, as he was abroad.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court established that at the time the documents for privatization were submitted, the citizen held a valid notarized power of attorney, which granted the representative the authority to act on his behalf before all authorities, including the State Geocadastre.
\n – Regarding the prosecutor’s arguments about the lack of expression of will, the court noted that the existence of a power of attorney refutes the claim that the property left state ownership against the owner’s will.
\n – The court was critical of the expert opinion provided by the prosecutor’s office, as low-quality copies of documents were used to compare signatures, which is inadmissible for expert examination.
\n – It was also established that the current owner of the land plot is a bona fide purchaser, and the state failed to prove that the actions of officials were illegal in a way that would deprive a person of the right to obtain land.
\n – Separately, the court drew attention to the violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction: a dispute between a territorial community and a legal entity (LLC “Hadz-Agro”) regarding ownership of land must be considered by a commercial court, not a civil court.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it lacks the authority to reassess evidence already examined by the lower courts, provided that they did not commit violations of substantive or procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims against LLC “Hadz-Agro,” closing the proceedings due to a violation of jurisdictional rules, and upheld the court decisions in all other respects.<\/p>\n

Case No. 185\/12844\/24 dated 08\/26\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 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:** Establishing the fact of declaring a serviceman dead in connection with his long-term disappearance during combat operations.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that more than 10 years had passed since the serviceman’s disappearance, during which time no reliable information regarding his whereabouts or captivity had been obtained. The Court of Appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, applied a teleological (purposive) interpretation of the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine, emphasizing the need for a balance between legal certaintvalue and the protection of family interests. The Court noted that the lack of evidence that the person is alive, combined with the long period of absence, provides grounds for a legal presumption of death. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to reassess evidence, as it is a court of law, not a court of fact. The position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of declaring a person dead before the expiration of a two-year period after the end of hostilities, provided there are sufficient grounds to believe the person is deceased, was also taken into account. In conclusion, the court recognized the decision of the appellate instance as lawful and well-founded, as it is based on proper and admissible evidence.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling on declaring the serviceman deceased.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 938\/160\/22 of 08\/26\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/139555001)<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought to invalidate the will of his late father, claiming that the document was drawn up in violation of the certification procedure and in the absence of free expression of will by the testator due to his state of health.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n * The court established that the secretary of the village council had the legal authority to certify the will, as there was no notary in the settlement, and the law does not prohibit such actions from being performed on hospital premises.
\n * Regarding the arguments about the testator\u2019s state of health, the court emphasized that the mere fact of illness or being under medical treatment is not an automatic basis for declaring a will invalid.
\n * The plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence (in particular, the results of a posthumous forensic psychiatric examination) that would confirm the deceased did not understand the significance of his actions at the time of signing the document.
\n * The court emphasized that formal defects (for example, the absence of the address of the certification location in the text) are not critical if they do not affect the validity of the person\u2019s intent.
\n * Testimony of witnesses present at the signing confirmed that the text of the will was read aloud and signed by the testator, which refutes the claims regarding procedural violations.
\n * The Supreme Court indicated that testamentary freedom is a fundamental principle; therefore, classifying a will as void due to an expansive interpretation of formal requirements is unacceptable.
\n * Ultimately, the court concluded that the presumption of lawfulness of the legal transaction was not refuted, and the appellant\u2019s arguments amount to an attempt to reassess evidence, which is outside the authority of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the validity of the contested will.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 386\/1180\/24 of 08\/26\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/139554996)\/08\/2026
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of residing as a single family and being a dependent of a deceased serviceman for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary allowance.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Court emphasized that for a person to be recognized as a dependent, the support from the deceased must be not merely periodic, but a constant and primary source of livelihood.
\n – The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the funds from her brother were her sole or primary income, as she had other sources (social payments) and resided with other family members.
\n – The lower courts reasonably established that the mere fact of joint residence or episodic money transfers does not prove the legal fact of “being a dependent.”
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined in detail by the lower courts.
\n – It was also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove her membership in the category of persons who, by law, are entitled to receive the specified monetary allowance in the event of a serviceman’s death.
\n – The Court pointed out that the conclusions in the cases cited by the plaintiff are not relevant, as the factual circumstances of those cases differed significantly from the circumstances of the present case.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 755\/8150\/16-k dated 02\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of the legality of an acquittal regarding two persons accused of illegal acquisition and possession of narcotic drugs, due to the prosecutor’s disagreement with the courts’ recognition of prosecution evidence as inadmissible.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Court emphasized that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof requires the prosecution to provide exclusively relevant and admissible evidence, which was not done in this case.
\n – Key evidence (crime scene inspection protocols) was declared inadmissible because, under the guise of an “inspection,” law enforcement officers actually conducted a personal search of the suspect without proper procedural formalization (detention under Art. 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
\n – The Court established that consent to search the vehicle was obtained from a person who was effectively in a state of detention (handcuffed), which nullifies the voluntariness of such consent.
\n – Regarding the inspection of the apartment, the Court emphasized that permission to enter a dwelling must be granted by its actual occupants (tenants), and not by the owner, if the former did not consent to it.
\n – Since the primary evidence (inspection protocols) was declared inadmissible, all derivative evidence (expert conclusionsexpert reports, resolutions on recognition as physical evidence) also lost their evidentiary value.
\n – The court also noted that the failure to pronounce the verdict in the absence of participants is not an unconditional ground for overturning the decision if copies of the verdict were served to the parties in the manner prescribed by law, which did not violate their rights.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had left the acquittal unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/12218\/25 dated 08\/09\/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 the case:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of enforcing a tax debt of a municipal enterprise against the funds of the respective local self-government body (Dnipro City Council) without the tax authority first complying with mandatory procedures regarding the sale of the debtor’s property.<\/p>\n

2. In its decision, the Supreme Court followed a clear algorithm of actions provided for by Article 96 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that filing a lawsuit against a local self-government body is an extreme measure, which is possible only after the tax authority has exhausted all other legal means of debt repayment. In particular, the controlling authority is obliged to first sell the property that is under a tax lien or prove the absence of such property. In this case, the tax service failed to provide evidence of taking such actions, which constitutes a gross violation of procedure. The appellate court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the City Council, whereas it was the tax authority that had to confirm the fulfillment of all prerequisites for collecting funds from the budget. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that without compliance with the pre-trial procedure, the collection of tax debt at the expense of local self-government funds is impossible.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Dnipro City Council, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which had denied the tax authority’s claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 528\/854\/18 dated 02\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s verdict, which overturned an acquittal and convicted a person for committing robbery combined with violence (Part 2 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
\n1. The appellate court has the right and duty to re-examine evidence if the prosecutor’s appeal raises the issue of the court of first instance’s conclusions failing to correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, regardless of whether a separate motion for such re-examination was filed.
\n2. The court confirmed the legal position according to which an appellate court may independently evaluate evidence and form its own inner conviction regarding a person’s guilt,if the previous sentence was unfounded.<\/p>\n

3. Regarding the arguments concerning the worsening of the accused’s position, the court noted that the appellate court acted within the scope of the law, as it is obliged to adhere to the sanction of the article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine when imposing a sentence, even if the prosecutor erroneously requested a shorter term in the appeal.<\/p>\n

4. The court found proven the existence of a mercenary motive and intent for the open seizure of property, relying on the testimony of the victim and the conclusion of the forensic medical examination regarding the presence of bodily injuries.<\/p>\n

5. The defense did not prove a violation of the victim’s rights, as the case files contain a statement from the victim regarding his inability to participate in the hearings due to his departure abroad, as well as evidence of his proper notification.<\/p>\n

6. The Supreme Court stated that the appellate court, during the new consideration, fully complied with the instructions provided in the previous ruling of the cassation instance and rectified the previously committed procedural errors.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 148\/1893\/22 dated 03\/09\/2026**<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate appeal to the applicant due to the refusal to reinstate the deadline for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the appellate court committed a substantial violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law. The key argument was that the appellate court considered the motion for reinstatement of the deadline in a court session without ensuring proper notification of the applicant regarding the date, time, and place of this session. In accordance with Articles 111, 135, and 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the duty to verify the fact of a person’s receipt of a court summons lies directly with the court. Since the case files did not contain evidence of proper notification of PERSON_6, the consideration of the motion in his absence is a direct restriction of the right to access justice. The court emphasized that any judicial decision must be lawful, grounded, and reasoned, and ignoring the procedure for summoning participants is unacceptable. At the same time, the court rejected the appellant’s argument that the appellate court failed to request the case materials, as this was not confirmed during the verification.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new consideration in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 344\/9748\/25 dated 07\/09\/2026**<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is a mother’s request to change the minor child’s surname to her own surname due to the father’s improper performance of his parental duties.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the change of the surchild\u2019s surname is possible only if there are proven circumstances indicating that it is in the child\u2019s best interests. The courts established that the defendant has not been deprived of parental rights, and the legal bond between him and the child remains intact. Although the plaintiff provided evidence of the father’s limited participation in the upbringing and the existence of child support arrears, the court noted that these facts, in themselves, are not an unconditional ground for changing the surname. It was also taken into account that the child is indifferent to their current surname, and no evidence was provided that bearing the father’s surname causes psychological harm to the child or hinders their development. The court emphasized that the issue of changing a surname requires a balance between the rights of both parents, and since no agreement between them has been reached, and the plaintiff failed to prove the negative impact of the father’s surname on the child, there are no grounds for granting the claim.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 211\/6692\/24 dated 07\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Collection of debt under a loan agreement and determination of the legal nature of funds transferred under a promissory note.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court established the fact of the conclusion of a loan agreement and the receipt of funds by the defendant, which is confirmed by the original agreement and the promissory note, the authenticity of which was not refuted.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of proper performance of an obligation: since the debt document is in the possession of the creditor, this indicates the debtor’s failure to fulfill their duty.
\n – The defendant\u2019s arguments regarding alleged “mental pressure” during the signing of the agreement were rejected due to the absence of any proper evidence to confirm such circumstances.
\n – The court noted that the re-registration of garages to the plaintiff is not automatic proof of debt repayment, as the parties did not enter into a corresponding transaction on the set-off of counterclaims or dation in payment (settlement by transfer of property).
\n – The court also emphasized that current legislation does not require the lender to prove the source of the funds transferred as a loan, provided the fact of their transfer is documented.
\n – The cassation appeal was found to be unfounded, as the defendant\u2019s arguments amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which exceeds the powers of the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the collection of the principal debt.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/11987\/25 dated 08\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of insurance indemnity in the amount of over 11 million UAH from PJSC “Insurance Company “ARX” in favor of LLC “Ukrtechnosyntez”level.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the insurance company’s cassation appeal does not contain proper legal grounds for overturning the decisions of the lower courts. The Court established that the appellant’s arguments regarding the existence of an exceptional legal issue or the necessity to depart from the Supreme Court’s legal positions were not confirmed during the proceedings. In particular, the cassation instance stated that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly applied the substantive law norms governing legal relations in the field of insurance. The procedural violations referred to by the defendant were found to be groundless and such that did not affect the legality of the adopted decisions. The Court also confirmed the validity of the additional decision regarding the allocation of court costs, finding no grounds for its review. Thus, the panel of judges concluded that there were no grounds for interfering with the findings of the lower courts, which had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ordered to close the cassation proceedings in the part of the grounds provided for in clause 1 of part 2 of article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, and in the remaining part, to leave the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal \u2014 unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/322\/26 dated 01\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a concise professional analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a candidate for the position of an appellate court judge the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) on the failure to confirm the ability to administer justice due to non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Court emphasized that the HQCJ, within the scope of its powers, has the right to assess not only professional knowledge but also the moral and ethical qualities of a candidate, which is critically important for public trust in the judiciary.
\n – The Commission reasonably questioned the transparency of the candidate’s acquisition of real estate, as he, being an experienced attorney, chose a “nominal” scheme for registering ownership rights to third parties.
\n – The Court agreed with the HQCJ’s position regarding the lack of documentary confirmation of the income of the candidate’s brother, which was allegedly used for the purchase of the apartment.
\n – The candidate’s arguments regarding the technical condition of the property as the reason for its low value were rejected, as they contradicted the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, where the buyer confirmed the absence of claims regarding the state of the object.
\n – The Court noted that the burden of proving integrity lies with the candidate himself, and he failed to provide convincing evidence that would eliminate the Commission’s reasonable doubts.
\n – The HQCJ is not obliged to act as a law enforcement agency, but it has the right to use any information from the dossier to form a conclusion on the candidate’s compliance with high standards of judicial ethics.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court ref[the court] denied the satisfaction of the claims of Person 1, having recognized the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

Case No. 320\/23911\/25 dated 08\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the tax authority’s issuance of tax notices-decisions, by which the plaintiff’s amount of VAT budget reimbursement and the amount of negative tax value were reduced due to the alleged unreality of the business transactions performed by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff submitted properly executed primary documents that fully confirm the reality of the business transactions and their economic feasibility. The courts of previous instances established that the plaintiff possessed the necessary resources, personnel, and material and technical base to carry out its activities, and the tax authority did not provide any convincing evidence to refute these facts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of a counterparty as “risky” or the existence of criminal proceedings is not, in itself, automatic proof of the unreality of transactions. The court also emphasized that a taxpayer should not be held liable for possible violations of tax discipline by its counterparties if the taxpayer itself acted in good faith. Since the tax authority did not fulfill its burden of proof regarding the unlawfulness of the plaintiff’s actions, the grounds for canceling the tax notices-decisions were recognized as well-founded.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/32192\/25-k dated 03\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is the analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s closure of proceedings regarding a defense attorney’s appeal against an investigating judge’s ruling on extending the pre-trial investigation period.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that, pursuant to Part 9 of Article 295-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, an investigating judge’s ruling on extending the pre-trial investigation period is not subject to appellate review. The Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is not absolute and the state has the right to establish restrictions for certain procedural decisions, which is consistent with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The panel of judges rejected the defense’s arguments that the investigating judge’s ruling was effectively a decision on the “renewal” of time limits, noting that the investigating judge acted within the procedure provided for by law. The court also emphasized that the defense attorney’s references to the practice regarding the appeal of decisions not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code are irrelevant, since the appealed ruling was issued within the framework of a procedure directly provided for by law. Regarding the issue of recusal, the court noted that in a collegial review, a recusal is considered by the same composition of the court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 598\/4\/22 dated 08\/27\/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. The subject of the dispute is a claim for the removal of an heir from the right to inherit due to alleged evasion of…<\/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-19672","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\/19672","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=19672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}